Improving representationof electric end-use technologies
in global scenarios

Taishi Sugiyama*, Masa Sugiyama** and Takeo Imanaka
CRIEPI* sugiyama@criepi.denken.or.jp, ** s-masa@criepi.denken.or.jp

February 9, 2011
©CRIEPI1

1. Role of electricity©CRIEPI2

Many studies on hydrogen and bioenergy.
What about electricity?

©CRIEPI3

Role of electricity in global warming mitigation• SUPPLY SIDE: carbon-free electricity: nuclear, CCS, renewables• DEMAND SIDE: efficient end-use technologies– Heat pumps: hot water / space heating / industrial heating– Electric vehicles©CRIEPI4

Improving the representation of electricity end-use in global scenarios• Old scenarios– Few considered end-use technologies in sufficient detail• simple thermal-based substitution at end use:
- 1Ws of electricity = 1J of fossil fuel• No or limited substitution from fossil fuel to electricity- No substitution to electricity (e.g. heat pumps) in Linear
Programming Models- Limited substitution by “fixed share and elasticity” in energyeconomic models• Limited consideration of benefits of electrification (clean, safe andconvenient)• New scenarios– Full considered end-use technologies in sufficient detail• HP and EVs have efficiencies > 1• Switch to electricity fully represented©CRIEPI

5Electrification: historical perspective• “Electrification” could mean “access to electricity on the grid,” but
we here mean “electricity usage at the energy service demand.”(electricit y)Electrific ation rate (total final energy)

30%

world
USA

25%

OECD-EUR

20%

JPN
MEA

15%

FSU
Asia

10%

CHI
IND

5%

AFR
0%

©CRIEPI

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

LatinAIEA Energy BalanceWorld electrification rate to increase
under mitigation scenarios
StudyYear

Electrification rate

Actual(EDMC 2010)

1990
2007

14.9%
19.1%

Final energy basis

Manne &Richels (1990)

2050

36% ( BAU)
52% (20% CO2 cut)Primary energy basis

Sugiyama, T. (2000)

2050

Final energy basis

Edmonds et al.
(2006)2050

IEA (2010)
Energy technology
perspectives

2050

19%（BAU）
44%（500ppm）
27%（BAU）
28%(WRE650)
29%(WRE550)
43%(WRE450)
25%(baseline)
32%(BLUE)©CRIEPI

Final energy basis

Final energy basis

G7 CO2 reduction potential (Nishio and Hoshino 2010):
heat pumps

0.0©CRIEPI

0.6JapanGermany
Italy
G7UK

CanadaEnergy efficiency
improvement

FranceCO2 emission reduction rate

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Carbon intensity of grid electricity
as of 2006 (kg-CO2/kWh)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

US

Space heating &Water heating

Electrification

Low carbon electricity

BASE
ADVN
ELEC

8Technologies are improving

Nishio andIwafune (2009)©CRIEPI

9G7 CO2 reduction potential (Nishio and Hoshino 2010):
electric vehicles©CRIEPIJapan
Germany
Italy
G7Canada

Energy efficiency
improvement

FranceCO2 emission reduction rate

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.6

US0.0Carbon intensity of grid electricity
as of 2006 (kg-CO2/kWh)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
UK

Passenger cars

Electrification

Low carbon electricity

BASE
ADVN
ELEC
10

Increasing interest in end-use electric technologies• Sample of studies– Global: IEA Energy Technology Perspectives (2008, 2010)– EU:
Eurelectric (2007, 2010)– US:
EPRI (2009)– UK:
MacKay (2009)– Japan:Nishio and Nagano (2008), Nagata (2009)©CRIEPI2. ES model©CRIEPI

12

Electricity Society Model (ES model)• Objectives– To explore the role of electric technologies in global warming
mitigation scenarios• Electricity Society Model (ES model)– Based on Fujii (1992), updated from Taishi Sugiyama (2000)– Related models: DNE21+ developed by RITE
• Structure– Explicitly treats demand-side technological choice between electricand non-electric technologies– Minimizes global, total energy system cost at each time step, including
distribution and retail costs– Linear programming©CRIEPI13

End-use electricity• 13 regionsUnited States

CanadaEU

Australia+New Zealand

JapanRussia

Eastern Europe

China

Central & South America

Middle EastAfrica

IndiaAsia• Periods: 2000-2100 (10-year time interval)• Forms of energy (end-use)coal
heavy fuel oil
gasoline
gashydrogen• GDP/population• Fossil fuel resources©CRIEPI

IPCC SRES
Rogner (1997)

light fuel oilelectricity (inc. biomass)

14

Primary energy
Coal
Renewables
Oil
Nuclear fuels
Gas
Biomass
Extraction / Transport/ Refinery / Generation

Sample of end-use technologies

Secondary energy
CoalHeavy oil
OilMethanol
Gasoline Gas
Light oil ElectricityHydrogen

Spaceheating
Air conditioner(Heat pump)

SupplyEnd-use technologies

Water
heatingPassengervehicles

Heat pump

Conventional

Electric stove

ElectricheaterHybrid

GasGasPlug-inHybridLight fuel oil

Light fuel oil ElectricCoalCoal

Gas CGS

Gas CGS

Etc

Etc

SupplyEnergy service demands
Building (heating, cooling,water heating, others)
Transportation (passenger, freight,aviation, others)
Industry (steel, cement, high-temp.
heating, low-temp. heating, others)©Others
CRIEPI

Fuel cellTechnology choice and implicit discount rate
• Consumers apply high discount rates when making decisions• We define “Implicit discount rate” as the discount rate observed in themarket• In ES model, the implicit discount rate for buildings and vehicle sectors
starts at 30% in 2010 - and assumed to decline to 10% in 2050 by policies
Sanstad et al. (2006, Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California)©CRIEPI

16

3. Results©CRIEPI17

Results:
Electrification under 3 idealized scenarios• Stringent emissions targets lead to electrification, particularly inresidential and commercial sectors

60CO2 emissions [Gt-CO2]

Electrification rate ofElectrification rate (2050)
final energy demand in 2050

No emission constraint
Stabilization at 2010 level
50% reduction

500%40Total

30Residential

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Commercial

20Transport

10Industry©CRIEPI

2050

2040

2030

2020

2010

2000

0

No constraint
2010-level stabilization
50% reduction

Primary energy and final energy in 2050
Final energy in 2050 [GTOE]• More emission
reductions lead tomore electricity at thedemand sideElectricity

BAU

Gas
Gasoline2010 stab.

Light oil
Heavy oil

50% cut

Coal051015

Primary energy in 2050 [GTOE]• Simultaneously,electricity supply
would bedecarbonized

CoalOilBAU

Gas
Biomass

2010 stab.

Hydro/GeoPVWind

50% cut©CRIEPI

Nuclear05101520

200

CO2 price [$/t-CO2]
Stab.

(max 1042)

150

50% cut(no electric)02010 2020 2030 2040 2050
100.0%

Industry

80.0%

Transport

60.0%

Commercial

40.0%

Residential

20.0%

Total

50%

Stab.

Stab. (no elec)

BAU

0.0%

50% cut (no elec)©CRIEPI

50BAU (no elec)• If efficient electric
technologies (HP andEV) are excluded,
electrification rates
remain relatively low

100Electrification rate in 2040

• Without electric
technologies, CO2
marginal cost
becomes prohibitively
high in 2050

Stab.
(no electric)
50% cutWhy is it hard to electrify the transport sector?
Sensitivity analysis on electric vehicles• Change battery costs (which affect HEV, PHEV, EV)

Additional cost of vehicle (relative to conventional one) in 2050
[USD/vehicle]

Battery price[USD/kWh]
Example: EV(30kWhbattery)

50150

NEDO target
3500

450

CARB (2009) etc
6500

16000

1350

Present45000

CARB: California Air Resource Board©CRIEPISensitivity analysis on vehicles:
Electrification rate of transport sector

Electrification rate in 2050
(vehicle sector)• Batteries matter - Low vehicle costs are prerequisites for electrifying
transport vehicle sector©CRIEPI

Implicit discount rate

15%

10%
30%

10%
5%0%
50

150
4501350
Battery cost [USD/kWh]4. Conclusions©CRIEPI

23

Conclusions• More scenario analyses on electrification are necessary• Transition from old to new models - improvement of the representation ofelectric end-use technologies is under way in models• A review of global scenarios & models with emphasis on electrification would
be fruitful (who does it in what coordination?)• Comparative model runs will be fruitful for the improvement of models.
(Energy Modeling Forum / other arena?)©CRIEPI24