R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

Systems Analysis Group
Members (As of Apr. 2024)
Keigo Akimoto, Group Leader, Chief Researcher
Koya Yamada, Associate Chief Researcher
Kenichi Wada, Senior Researcher
Miyuki Nagashima, Senior Researcher
Takashi Homma, Senior Researcher
Fuminori Sano, Senior Researcher
Ayami Hayashi, Senior Researcher
Atsuko Fushimi, Senior Researcher
Noritaka Mochizuki, Senior Researcher (concurrent)
Tadashi Kuwatsuru, Senior Researcher
Yuko Nakano, Senior Researcher

Naoko Onishi, Senior Researcher
Teruko Hashimoto, Senior Researcher
Hitotsugu Masuda, Researcher
Teruhisa Ando, Researcher
Jubair Sieed, Researcher
Dahyun Kang, Researcher
Kiyomi Yamamoto, Assistant Researcher
Misako Saito, Assistant Researcher
Sachiko Kudo, Assistant Researcher
Ryoko Minamimura, Assistant Researcher

Research Activities in Systems Analysis GroupThe Systems Analysis Group aims to provide valuable

It is necessary to strengthen measures in each sector

information about response measures to global warm-

to achieve the 2°C and 1.5°C long-term goals of theing and energy issues through systematic approaches

Paris Agreement and carbon neutrality (CN) early in theand analyses at both national and international levels.

second half of the 21st century. Various possibilities

Achieving the long-term 2°C or 1.5°C goals of thehave been presented such as in the IPCC AR62), includ-

Paris Agreement is required. However, it is said thating scenarios with high reliance on negative emissions

there is a large emissions gap between the current sit-through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and scenarios

uation or the emission reduction targets submitted bywith low reliance on negative emissions through the re-each country in their Nationally Determined Contribu-

alization of a low energy demand society. Furthermore,tions (NDCs) for 2030 and those long-term goals. It istransition pathways to CN realization are even more

important to present emission pathways and counter-varied. For instance, emission reduction pathways formeasure scenarios for each sector quantitatively andeach industrial sector differ from sector to sector inconsistently to limit temperature rise below 2°C or eventerms of the lifetime of existing infrastructure and the

1.5°C, including transition periods such as 2030 anddifficulty of emission reduction measures. Uniform re-

2040. With this background, in FY2023, we have devel-

ductions may increase the cost of countermeasures andoped sectoral transition roadmaps for the world and Ja-

make emission reductions more difficult.

pan to achieve the 2°C and 1.5°C goals using the global

However, in the case where countries, industries, andenergy and climate change mitigation assessment

companies take emission reduction measures at amodel DNE21+, which is published on the RITE web-slower rate than others, there is also a risk of being crit-site . This report provides an overview of the analyses.

icized as “greenwashing”. On the other hand, financial

1)

institutions and evaluation agencies do not necessarily
1. Development of long-term scenarios towards Carbon

have a sufficient understanding of the pathways for

Neutrality (CN) and scenario assumptions

emission reductions that are consistent with the energy

1.1. Background of developing transition roadmaps

system as a whole, so quantitative information to make25

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

judgments about the appropriateness of investments is

as an additional scenario similar to Net Zero by 2050

needed. Therefore, the Network for Greening the Finan-（NZE）5) by IEA. Outlines of the scenarios and assump-cial System (NGFS) and other organizations are devel-tions for model analyses with the DNE21+ are shown inoping emission reduction scenarios using integrated

Table 1. In terms of temperature rises, two scenarios that3)

assessment models that enable quantitative analysis .

are consistent with a 2°C target, and three scenarios

On the other hand, these do not provide sufficient in-consistent with a 1.5°C target are assumed. Global CO2

formation on sectoral emission reduction pathways. The

emissions scenarios are assumed as shown in Figure 1.

International Energy Agency (IEA) has also presented,
but not enough information by country, especially for

Table 1 Assumed scenarios (outline)

the 1.5°C scenario. Likewise, the report by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)4) also has is-

Globalaveragetemp.
increase

Scenarios

Policyspeed#

CDR
contribution

Renewabl
es andBEV

Differencesin policy
intensity
among
regions

Relation to other scenarios
IPCC AR6(IPCC 2022)

NGFS(2022)

IEA

Likely below 2 C,
NDC [C3b]

Disorderly:
DelayedTransition

APS
(WEO
2022)
SDS
(WEO
2021)

sues regarding the consideration of regional and indus-

Disorderly
Below 2 C

1.7 C in
2100(peak:1.8 C)

Gradual(NDCs
in 2030)

mediumMediumcost
reductions

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

trial characteristics. The Government of Japan has de-Orderly
Below 2 C

1.7 C

Rapid

Small

High cost
reductions

Small (equal
MAC amongcountries)

Likely below 2 Cwith immediate
action [C3a]Orderly:
Below 2C

veloped a transition roadmap for FY2021-22 to provide

Disorderly
1.5 C1.4 C in
2100(peak:1.7 C)

Gradual(NDCs
in 2030)

Large

Mediumcost
reductions

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

1.5 C with highovershoot (IMPNeg) [C2](Disorderly:
Divergent
Net Zero)*

Orderly 1.5
C

1.4 C in
2100(peak:1.6 C)

Rapid

MediumHigh cost
reductions

Medium(majordeveloped
countries:
CN by 2050)

1.5 C with no or
limited overshoot[C1]

Orderly:Net
Zero2050

1.5CCO2_CN

Approx.
below 1.5 C

Rapid

Small
(Near-zero of
CO2 bysector)High cost
reductions

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

1.5 C with no or
limited overshoot[C1]

a specific direction for the transition toward achievingcarbon neutrality, and to use this roadmap in transition
finance. These also provide useful information, but at

NZE

the same time, they were developed on a sector-bysector basis, therefore, there is a need to further im-

80
70

prove the accountability for consistency with the overall

consistency among sectors.
Therefore, we developed emission reduction scenarios, including transition roadmaps by sector, that are

CO2 emissions [GtCO2/yr]

2°C and 1.5°C emission reduction pathways, as well as

60
50
40
30
Historical

20

Baseline
Disorderly 2.0C

10

Orderly 2.0C0consistent with the 2°C and 1.5°C targets globally and-10with economic rationality while taking into account the

-20
2000

Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

differences among countries and sectors, using the

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Figure 1 Global CO2 emissions pathways

global energy and climate change mitigation model:
the DNE21+ model, which minimizes total energy sys-

2. World

tems costs for the period up to 2100.

2.1. Scenario analysis using DNE21+
This section describes the scenarios for the world.

1.2. Scenrio assumptions

Figure 2 shows the global GHG emissions by sector.

For assuming scenarios for quantitative analyses us-

Earlier CO2 reduction from the power generation sector

ing DNE21+, the NGFS scenarios3) are basically refer-is shown to be economically rational compared to otherenced. NGFS develops Orderly scenarios and Disorderly

sectors.

scenarios, based on whether the transition will proceed

Figure 3 shows the global electricity supply. Whileorderly or not. Complying with this, we have developed

coal power generation is significantly suppressed even

our Orderly scenarios and Disorderly scenarios, as wellin 2030, several scenarios can be seen where gas power

26

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

generation with CCS increases more than in the baseline,

methane (e-methane) is relatively smaller as many

indicating the transition to gas is proceeding. For Or-

countries have larger potentials for domestic renewable

derly scenarios where relatively lower expansion rates

energies, renewable energies over cross-border inter-of CO2 storage are assumed, the introduction of gas

connection, and domestic CO2 storage. However, in the

power with CCS is smaller compared to Disorderly sce-

1.5C-CO2_CN scenario where large deployments of CDR

narios, and solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power

are constrained, those consumption is substantial.

with further cost reduction assumed will increase instead.

7000

6000

45

Non-energy use: gas

40

Non-energy use: oil
products
Non-energy use: coal

DACCS

70000

Non-CO2 GHGs
Prosess CO2

60000

LULUCF CO2Other energy conversion
Power generation

40000

Residential and commercial

30000

Electricity
30

4000

25

3000

20
15

2000

1000

Other industries-10000

2015

2030

2040

Orderly 1.5C

e-methane (synthetic
methane)Natural gas
Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C0

Orderly 1.5C

Road transport

1.5C-CO2_CN

Domestic aviation

Orderly 2.0C

Other domestic transport

10000

Hydrogen

50

Disorderly 1.5C

0Baseline

International aviation

Ammonia10International naviation

20000

Disorderly 2.0C

GHG emissions [MtCO2eq/yr]

50000

5000

Electrification ratio [%]80000

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

35

2050

Oil products
Biomass
Coal
Electrification ratio(right axis)

ChemicalPaper and pulp

-20000Cement-30000Figure 4 Final energy consumption in industry (world)

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2030

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2015

Disorderly 1.5C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

Iron and steel

2.2 Comparison with other scenarios

2050

Comparisons with existing international scenario

Figure 2 GHG emissions (world)

analyses are described below. As described below, sce90000
90000

Solar
(w/o
grid)
SolarPV
PV
(w/o
grid)
Wind
(w/o
grid)
Windpower
power
(w/o
grid)

80000
80000

Ammonia (cofiring with coal)

Electricity
generation[TWh/yr]
Electricitygeneration[TWh/yr]nario analyses by RITE are highly consistent with themAmmonia (cofiring with coal)

70000
70000

Ammonia

60000
60000

Hydrogen

50000
50000

SolarPVthermalSolar

Ammonia

Hydorogen (cofiring with gas)

Hydorogen (cofiring with gas)

HydrogenSolarthermalWind
Solarpower
PV

40000
40000

Nuclearpower
Wind power
Hydro and Geothermal

Nuclear power

30000
30000

Biomass (cofiring with coal) w/
Hydro and Geothermal
CCUS
Biomass w/ CCUS

Biomass (cofiring with coal)

20000
20000

Biomass(cofiring with coal) w/ow/ CCUSCCUS
Biomass w/ CCUS
Biomass w/o CCUS

10000
10000

Biomass(cofiring with coal)Gas
w/ CCUSand have high explainability, with small variations dueto the differences in models and assumptions.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of global CO 2 emissions by sector with those by IPCC. The sectoral CO 2

w/o CCUS

2030
2030

2040
2040

1.5C-CO2_CN
1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly
1.5C
Orderly1.5C

Disorderly
1.5C
Disorderly1.5C

Orderly
2.0C
Orderly2.0C

Disorderly
2.0C
Disorderly2.0C

Baseline
Baseline

Orderly
1.5C
Orderly1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN
1.5C-CO2_CN

Disorderly
1.5C
Disorderly1.5C

Orderly
2.0C
Orderly2.0C

Baseline
Baseline

Disorderly
2.0C
Disorderly2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN
1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly
1.5C
Orderly1.5C

Orderly
2.0C
Orderly2.0C

Disorderly
1.5C
Disorderly1.5C

Baseline
Baseline

2015
2015

Disorderly
2.0C
Disorderly2.0C

Biomass
Gas
CGS w/o CCUS

00

2050
2050

Gas
Gasw/ow/ CCUSCCUS
Oilw/ CGS
CCUS
Gasemissions in DNE21+ scenario analyses are almost con-

Oil w/o CCUS

Gas w/o CCUS

Coal wi/ CCUS

Oil wi/ CCUS

Coal w/o CCUS

Figure 3 Electricity supply (world)

sistent with those in IPCC and encompass their upperand lower limits, with a few exceptions of exceeding
their ranges in the transport and the residential andFigure 4 shows the global final energy consumptioncommercial sectors. A major factor of residual emissions

in the industry sector. Similar to the power generationin these sectors slightly exceeding IPCC scenario ranges

sector, coal consumption decreases, and consumption

may be whether CDRs, especially direct air carbon cap-of gas and electricity increases. The decrease in coalture and storage (DACCS) are considered in the models

consumption is relatively smaller compared to theor not (Figure 6).

power generation sector because coal usage is needed
for crude steel production by the blast furnace/basic
oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) in the iron and steel sector.
Compared to the analysis results for Japan shown later,
consumption of hydrogen, ammonia, and synthetic27

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

DNE21+ scenarios in 2050
DNE21+
Scenarios

Disorderly 1.5C
(1.4C)

Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C
(1.7C)

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 1.5C
(1.4C)

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN(approx. 1.5C)

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C
(1.6C)

Note) the parentheses numbers are temperature rise in 2100

Figure 5 Comparison with global CO2 emission scenarios
of IPCC

Figure 7 CO2 marginal abatement costs: compared with

Source) IPCC AR6 , with DNE21+ scenarios plottedNote) Boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, while whiskers indicate 5th and 95th percentiles in IPCC scenarios.

NGFS

2)

AR6, Fig. 3.33

IEA WEO2022 NZE【corresponding to the IPCC C1】

Carbon price in 2050：180～250 $/tCO2(which is quite cheaper than those of
IPCC and DNE21+ scenarios)

DNE21+ and IPCC scenarios
in 2050 (USD/tCO2eq)
DNE21+

DNE21+
Scenarios

IPCC(25-75 percentile, approx.)

Disorderly 2.0C
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

119～500

C3

Orderly 2.0C

158

C3

Disorderly 1.5C

268～685

C2

Orderly 1.5C

268～465

C1

1.5C-CO2_CN

293～351

C1

150～350200～350450～1000

1.5C-CO2_CN

Figure 6 Comparison with global CDR scenarios of IPCC

Figure 8 CO2 marginal abatement costs: compared with

Source) IPCC AR6 , with DNE21+ scenarios plotted (only for 2050)
Note) As for IPCC AR6, only the scenarios categorized as C1-C3
are shown.

IPCC

2)

3. JapanFigure 7 shows a comparison with NGFS in carbon

This section describes the quantitative scenario anal-

prices (CO2 marginal abatement costs; MAC) in eachysis for Japan.

scenario. For 1.5°C scenarios, carbon price levels in

3.1. GHG emissions

DNE21+ scenarios are almost consistent with those in

Figure 9 shows Japan’s GHG emissions by sector. For

NGFS scenarios, with a tendency of slightly lower MAC

three scenarios where net-zero emissions of GHG are

as DACCS are considered in the DNE21+ model. Com-achieved by 2050 (Disorderly 2.0C and Disorderly/Or-

parisons of MACs with scenarios in the IPCC report are

derly 1.5C), measures such as DACCS, land-use CO2 (CO2shown in Figure 8. Many models in the IPCC report es-

sequestration by afforestation), and net negative emis-

timate them under the condition of MACs being glob-

sions of CO2 in the power sector (achieved with biomass

ally equalized. MACs in DNE21+ scenarios are con-with CCS (BECCS) and e-methane with CCS) are intro-

sistent with those in the IPCC report. While many IPCC

duced. For the Orderly 2.0C scenario where net-zeroscenarios do not assume DACCS, DNE21+ does assume

emission of GHG by 2050 is not assumed and global

DACCS, thus leading to slightly lower MACs in 2050

cost minimization (equal MACs across countries) is as-compared to those in the C1 scenario in IPCC.

sumed, a reduction of approximately 70% compared to28

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

2013 is shown to be cost-efficient. In this case, residual
CO2 emissions from the power sector or iron and steel
sector are allowed.

3.2. Primary energy supply, electricity, and other energy
conversion
Figure 11 shows the primary energy supply in Japan.

Figure 10 shows the balance between CO2 capture

Japan's potential for renewable energy and CO2 seques-

and storage/utilization in Japan. In 2030 and 2040, CO 2

tration is not large compared to its energy demand,

captures from coal and gas power plants or BF-BOF are

therefore, importing and using carbon-neutral fuels

introduced. For some scenarios, captures from biomass

such as e-methane, e-fuels, and biofuels as well as hy-

power plants and DAC are introduced in 2040 and theirdrogen and ammonia are evaluated as cost-effective. In

amount increases in 2050. In the 1.5-CO2_CN scenario,

Orderly 2.0C with emission reductions of around 70%

BECCS and e-methane with CCS in the power sector,

below 2013 levels by 2050, those amounts are relatively

and DACCS are not allowed (CCU that utilizes CO2 cap-

small, and it is overall cost-effective to deepen emission

tured by DAC is allowed), therefore CO2 captures fromreductions in other countries to achieve the global 2°C

coal (including biomass co-firing) and gas power plants

target, leaving coal and gas supplies without CCS.

and cement sector are observed even in 2050.

Figure 12 shows the amount of electricity generated.
To promote electrification, the total amount of electric-

1400

DACCS

ity generated increases, especially under the severe

Non-CO2 GHGs

1200

Prosess CO2
LULUCF CO2

GHG emissions [MtCO2eq/yr]

1000

emission reduction scenario. In addition to expansions

Other energy conversion
Power generation

800

Residential andcommercial
International naviation

600

International aviation
Other domestic transport

400

of renewable energy sources (e.g., solar PV) and utilization of CCS, power generation using imported hydro-

Domestic aviation
Road transport

200

Other industries

gen and ammonia is being promoted to reduce CO2

Chemical0Paper and pulp
Cement-200

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2030

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

2015

generation with CCS in 2050 in all scenarios except Orderly 2.0C and 1.5C-CO2_CN. In the Disorderly scenarios,

2050

since variable renewable energy (VRE) is assumed to be

Figure 9 GHG emissions (Japan)

relatively high, imported from overseas hydrogen andCO2 capture, storage and utilization [MtCO2/yr]
CO2 capture, storage and utilization [MtCO2/yr]

150

CO2 overseas transport
CaptureCCU
CO2 geological storage
CaptureDAC
Ammonia production
CementCoal-fired
BF-BOF
Oil-firedHydrogen production
Gas-fired
Biomass-fired
Biomass-fired
Gas-firedHydrogen production
Oil-fired
BF-BOF
Coal-fired
Ammonia production

0

Storage,utilization
DAC

-100

CO2 geological storage
CCU

-50

CO2 overseas transport

2030

2040

2050

1.5C-CO2_CN
1.5C-CO2_CN 1.5C-CO2_CN

2050

Orderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C
Disorderly 1.5C Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN 1.5C-CO2_CN
Disorderly 2.0C

2040

Orderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 2.0C

2030

Disorderly 1.5C Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

2030

Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C

-150

Disorderly 2.0C
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

-150

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN-100

1.5C-CO2_CN
1.5C-CO2_CN
Disorderly 2.0C

-150

Orderly 1.5C

-100

CementDisorderly 1.5C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

-50

50
-50

Orderly 2.0C

0

100
0

2.0C1.5C
Orderly
Disorderly

50

150
50

Disorderly 2.0C
2.0C2.0C
Disorderly
Orderly

CO2 capture, storage and utilization [MtCO2/yr]

150 100

100

emissions. It is noted, e-methane is used for gas power

Iron and steel

2050

Figure 10 CO2 balance (Japan)

Storage,utilization

ammonia (since a high rate of expansion of CO2 storageis assumed, it is easier to produce blue hydrogen andblue ammonia abroad) tend to be used for power generation. On the other hand, in the Orderly scenarios, theuse of VRE, which is expected to become even cheaper,is relatively expanded, while power generation usinghydrogen and ammonia is rarely seen. The latter is because the expansion rate of CO2 sequestration is assumed to be low, making production overseas difficult.
Note that 1.5C-CO2_CN constrains the use of BECCS ande-methane with CCS to be unavailable, resulting in the
deployment of coal power with CCS.
Figure 13 shows the CO2 emission intensity in the29

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

power sector for each scenario. Although the power

500

source composition is different in Disorderly 2.0C/1.5C

400

Non-energy use gas
Non-energy use oil

450

Non-energy use coal

Solar thermal
Solar PV

300

Wind power

250

Nuclear power

Hydro and Geothermal

200

Biomass w/ CCUS

intensity, and it is evaluated to be cost-effective overall

150

Biomass w/o CCUS

100

Import of e-methane (synthetic
methane)Gas w/ CCUS

50

Gas w/o CCUS
Import of e-fuels (synthetic oil)to achieve net zero GHG emissions around 2040 in the2015

Figure 14 shows a comparison of the cumulative CO 2

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2030

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

power sector.

Orderly 2.0C

0
Disorderly 2.0C

nificant difference in the transition of the CO 2 emission

Import of biofuels

Primary energy supply [Mtoe/yr]

and Orderly 1.5C as mentioned above, there is no sig-

Import of hydrogen and ammonia

350

Oil w/o CCUS
Coal wi/ CCUS
Coal w/o CCUS

2050

Figure 11 Primary energy supply (Japan)

emissions in the power sector for 2020-2030 with theGovernment of Japan Roadmap6), which is slightly be-

and 1.5°C emission reduction pathways. Between 2031
and 2050, the government Road map is within the range

Solar PV (w/o grid)Wind power (w/o grid)

1600

Ammonia (cofiring with coal)
Ammonia

1400
Hydorogen (cofiring with gas)

Electricity generation [TWh/yr]

low the five DNE21+ scenarios, consistent with the 2°C

1800

Hydrogen

1200

Solar thermal
Solar PV1000

of the five DNE21+ scenarios, which is consistent.

Wind power
Nuclear power

800

Hydro and Geothermal
Biomass (cofiring with coal) w/ CCUS

600

Biomass w/ CCUS

400

Biomass (cofiring with coal) w/o
CCUS
Biomass w/o CCUS

200

Gas w/ CCUS
Gas CGSAs for hydrogen-based energy, hydrogen can be pro-

2015

2030

2.0C/1.5C and 1.5C-CO2_CN, where further cost reduc-Gas w/o CCUS

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

duced domestically by water electrolysis in Orderly

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C0

Oil wi/ CCUS
Oil w/o CCUS
Coal wi/ CCUS
Coal w/o CCUS

2050

Figure 12 Electricity supply (Japan)

tion of VRE is expected, while in other scenarios, it is
exclusively imported from overseas. In 2030 and 2040,

120

used in direct reduced iron (DRI) production in the iron80

and steel sector. As for ammonia, blue ammonia produced overseas is used in the power generation sector,

CO2 CO2排出原単位
emission intensity[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

most of it is used in power generation, but by 2050, it is100- Renewables and nuclear power- Phased down of fossil power- Biomass mix power etc.

- CCUS- Ammonia and hydrogen mix power etc.

60

- CCUS (BECCS)- Ammonia and hydrogen power etc.

40
Disorderly 2.0C
20

partly because the cost reduction of VRE is relatively0slow in Disorderly 2.0C/1.5C. It is also used in industrial-20

sectors such as petrochemical sector as carbon-neutral-40

Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN
2015

fuel. e-methane is used in the residential and commer-

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Figure 13 CO2 intensity of electricity (Japan)

cial sectors, other industrial sectors, and the power sector (with the introduction of CCS, it is practically a neg-

2500
2000
1500
1000

2000
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

1500
1000

500

500

1.5C-CO2_CN

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

0

0than e-methane are also used.

2500

Disorderly 1.5C

technology is also observed. Imported e-fuels other

The RM level
by GoJ (2021)

3000

Orderly 2.0C

domestic production using innovative methanation

3500

Disorderly 2.0C

low, and imported, however, under the 1.5C-CO2_CN,

3000
4000

CO22排出量[MtCO
Cumulativeemissions
累積CO
[MtCO
2 ] 2]

produced overseas where renewable energy costs are2031−2050
3500

4500

累積CO
[MtCO
2 ] 2]
CO2排出量[MtCO
Cumulativeemissions

ative emission like BECCS). The e-methane is mainly

2020−2030
5000

Figure 14 CO2 emissions in power sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ

30

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

3.3. Gas and oil supply

120- Shift to e-methane and hydrogen

Figure 15 shows the gas supply. Under Orderly 2.0C,

or slightly decreases by 2050. Other scenarios predictgreater uses of hydrogen or e-methane in 2040 and

CO2CO2排出量
emissions[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

the supply of natural gas supply keeps the current level

100

80

60
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

2050. The choice between hydrogen and e-methane isDisorderly 1.5C

sensitive depending on preconditions, such as the as-

20

sumption of cost reduction timing. As in Figure 16,0- Shift to e-methane (innovative
methanation) and hydrogen

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

2015

which shows CO2 emissions in the gas sector, the CO2

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Figure 16 CO2 emissions from gas (Japan)

emission intensity is not improved in 2030 and 2040,
compared to that in the power generation sector. Since160

Non-energy use
oil products

140

natural gas has a low CO2 intensity, its use is consistent

fuel efficiency, and the shift to EVs, etc. in any scenario.
This trend is notable particularly in Orderly 1.5C and1.5C-CO2_CN, which assumes high technological progress and cost reduction in renewable energy and EVs.
The use of e-fuels can be also seen in 2050. Especiallyin Orderly 1.5C, in which the constraint on CO2 storage
expansion is assumed, oil is replaced with e-fuels more
and more, as emission offset is limited and the price ofe-fuels decreases due to further reductions in renewable energy costs.

Oil products

20

2015

2030

2040

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

0

2050

Figure 17 Oil (liquid fuels) supply (Japan)Note) The uses in power sector are not included here.

3.4. Industry sector
Figure 18 shows the final energy consumption in industry. Coal use remains even in 2040 at a level close tothat in 2030, for the usage in BF-BOF in the iron andsteel sector. In 2050, there is no use of coal, and the usesof hydrogen, ammonia, and e-methane are observed in
the scenarios other than Orderly 2.0C.
Figures 19 and 20 show the final energy consumption
and crude steel production by technology in the iron50
45

Enegy supply [Mtoe/yr]

40

Orderly 2.0C

for transportation services, the improvements in vehicle

e-fuels(synthetic oil)

60

Disorderly 1.5C

use significantly decreases due to a decline in demand

80

Baseline

Figure 17 shows the oil (liquid fuels) supply. The oil

100

Disorderly 2.0C

2040.

Biofuels
Energy supply [Mtoe/yr]

with the 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios until around 2030 to120

Non-energy use
natural gas

40

and steel sector, respectively. As mentioned earlier,

35

Hydrogen &ammonia30

there is a considerable amount of coal used in 2040.

25
20

e-methane(synthetic
methane)15
10Natural gas

5

2030

2040

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline
2015

Disorderly 2.0C

0

2050

Figure 15 Gas supply (Japan)Note) The uses in power, iron & steel, and petrochemical sectors
are not included here and described in each sectoral analysis.

There are also scenarios where BF-BOF steel manufacturing using external hydrogen, such as SuperCOURSE50, becomes economically efficient. In 2050,
there is no use of coal, and the BF-BOF is completely
replaced by hydrogen-using direct reduced iron (DRI) +electric furnace (EF) except for Orderly 2.0C, where total
emission is predicted to be 70% lower than that in 2013.

31

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

The use of e-methane is used in the scrap EF process.

120
Scrap-based EAF, high efficiency
Scrap-based EAF, middle efficiency

Natural gas-based DRI
60

Hydrogen use from other sectors＋CCS（e.g., Super COURSE50）Internal hydrogen use＋CCS（e.g.,
COURSE50）

40

BF-BOF, next-generation coke oven
BF-BOF, high efficiency
20
BF-BOF, middle efficiency

some scenarios, and converting to the hydrogen-based

BF-BOF, low efficiency

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

0

Orderly 2.0C

after 2030, promoting the use of external hydrogen in

Hydrogen-based DRI

Disorderly 1.5C

sion is achieved in 2050 by introducing CCS in the BF

Scrap-based EAF, low efficiency
80

Disorderly 2.0C

iron and steel sector. In any scenario, nearly zero emis-

Crude steel production [Mt-Crudesteel/yr]

Figure 21 shows the CO2 emissions intensity in the100

DRI + EF from 2040 onwards. However, in Orderly 2.0C,

2015

where Japan does not make much progress in reducing

Figure 20 Steel production by technology (Japan)

2030

2040

2050

CO2 emissions, the BF-BOF without CCS continues to be
used and some emissions remain even in 2050. Figure120- H2 input to blast furnace- CCUS(e.g., Super COURSE50)

22 shows a comparison of the DNE21+ scenarios andfor CO2 emissions in the iron and steel sector. In thegovernment’s roadmap, while the upper limit for 20202030 has slightly higher emissions, other levels are

CO2 CO2排出原単位
emission intensity[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

100

the roadmap formulated by the government of Japan

80

60
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C

within the range of the five DNE21+ scenarios and are

20

consistent with the 2°C and 1.5°C emission reduction

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN- H2-based DRI02015

paths as a whole.

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

45

Non-energy use: gas

160

40

Non-energy use: oil
products

140

35

120

30

Non-energy use: coal

CoalElectrification ratio(right axis)

2050

Figure 18 Final energy consumption in industry (Japan)

60
Electricity

1000

500

0

1000

500

0

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

2030

Biomass

Orderly 1.5C

0Disorderly 1.5C

0

1500

Orderly 2.0C

5

1500

2000

Disorderly 2.0C

20

e-fuels (synthetic oil)

累積CO2排出量
[MtCO
2] 2]
CO2 emissions[MtCO
Cumulative

Biofuels

Natural gas

1.5C-CO2_CN

10

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Orderly 1.5C

15

40

2000

Disorderly 1.5C

e-methane (synthetic
methane)60

2015

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

HydrogenOrderly 2.0C

20

2500

Disorderly 2.0C

2580

CO2 emissions[MtCO
Cumulative
累積CO2排出量
[MtCO
2] 2]

100

2031−2050

2500
Ammonia

Oil products

Figure 22 CO2 emissions in iron & steel sector (Japan):Hydrogen50

e-methane (synthetic
methane)40comparison with the RM by GoJ

Natural gas
Biofuels30

e-fuels (synthetic oil)20
Oil products
Biomass

10

Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the final energy consumption and clinker production by technology in the

Coal

2015

2030

2040

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

0

Disorderly 2.0C

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

2020−2030

Electricity
Electrification ratio [%]Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Figure 21 CO2 intensity of iron & steel sector (Japan)
180

2050

cement sector, respectively. A shift from to gas is considered to be cost-effective in 2030 except Orderly 2.0C.

Figure 19 Final energy consumption in iron & steel (Ja-A shift to gas is further promoted towards 2040, and e-pan)methane is the main source by 2050. In 1.5C-CO2_CN,
which restricts the use of CDR, the deployment of CCS

32

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

progresses, and therefore energy consumption is

The scenario analysis and roadmap development forhigher than in other scenarios. Figure 25 shows the CO 2

the pulp and paper and the chemical sectors have been

emissions intensity of the cement sector. In scenarios

also conducted.

other than 1.5C-CO2_CN, no CCS implementation isseen, and emission including process-derived CO2 re-3.5. Transport sector

mains even in 2050. Net zero emission is achieved in

Figure 26 shows the final energy consumption in the

1.5C-CO2_CN by introducing e-methane with CCS (nettransport sector. In the Orderly scenario and the 1.5C-

negative emissions).

CO2_CN scenario, which assume significant reduction in
the costs of renewable energy and EVs, electricity con-

4.5

can be observed as well, from around 2040. In Orderly

Ammonia

3.5

Final enerrgy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

sumption particularly increases, and the use of e-fuelsElectricity

4

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)3

Natural gas

2.5
2

1.5C and 1.5C-CO2_CN, passenger cars are expected to
be BEVs or FCEVs, and e-fuels is mainly used in trucks in

Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)1.5
Oil products1

the road transport sector.

Biomass
0.5
Coal

40

70

35

Hydrogen60

30

e-methane (synthetic
methane)

50

25

40

20

30

15

20

10

Large size, best
available efficiency

105Large size, highefficiency w/ CCUS

00Electricity

Small size, highefficiency

10

2015

2040

Electrification ratio [%]Oil products

Orderly 1.5C

Electrification ratio(right axis)

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2030

Disorderly 1.5C

Small size, best
available efficiency

Baseline

20

Disorderly 2.0C

Large size, low-mid.
efficiency

Orderly 1.5C

Large size, highefficiency w/o CCUS

30

e-fuels (synthetic oil)Coal

1.5C-CO2_CN

40

2050

Figure 26 Final energy consumption in transport (Japan)

Small size, low-mid.
efficiency

2015

2030

2040

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

0

70

2050

Figure 24 Clinker production by technology in cement
sector (Japan)

120

Number of passenger cars owned [million vehicles]

Crinker production [Mt-Clinker/yr]

50

Biofuels

Biomass

Orderly 2.0C

60

Natural gas

Baseline

Figure 23 Final energy consumption in cement (Japan)

Disorderly 1.5C

2050

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

2030

80

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

2015

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

0

60

FCEV

50

BEV
40

PHEV

30

20

HEV

10

ICEV

2015

60
40

Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

20

- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift (from coal to gas) - Energy saving andefficiency improvement- CCS- Fuel shift (from coal tosyn. methane)
- CCS

2030

2040

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift (from coal to gas)

Disorderly 1.5C

80

Orderly 2.0C

CO2 CO2排出原単位
emission intensity[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

100

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

Figure 27 Number of passenger cars by technology (Japan)

Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

0
2015

2020
2025
1.5C-CO2_CN

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Figure 27 shows the number of passenger cars by-20

technology in Japan. In the Disorderly scenarios, which

Figure 25 CO2 intensity of cement sector (Japan)

assume a medium level of EV technological progress,

33

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

emission reduction measures for passenger cars focus

finding is consistent with IPCC and IEA scenarios. On theon HEVs around 2030, expand to PHEVs afterward, andother hand, natural gas, which has a small CO2 emission

PHEVs become the main focus in 2050. On the otherintensity, was assessed as a more economically efficient

hand, in scenarios which assume high cost reduction inmeasure to be increased toward 2030 in Japan, even inEVs, BEVs are expected to diffuse from an earlier stage

the 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios. In addition, the steel sector

and become dominant in 2040, and FCEVs are also ex-

was shown to have a scenario in which CO2 reduction

pected to diffuse in 2050.

measures are difficult to implement and emissions will
only be reduced by a maximum of 10% until around3.6. Residential and commercial sector

2040. These analyses are generally consistent with the

Figure 28 shows the final energy consumption in

sectoral roadmaps developed by the Government of Ja-

building. The improvement of electrification ratio is

pan for FY2021-22, and the government roadmap iscost-effective as emissions reduction is stricter. In Or-

consistent with not only the 2°C but also the 1.5°C emis-

derly 2.0C, city gas is used as before, and in other sce-sion reduction pathway.

narios, the gaseous fuels are e-methane or hydrogen.

In this analysis, we have presented only five scenarios.
Even so, there is a large range, but in reality, there are120

90Electricity
80

Hydrogen70

e-methane (synthetic
methane)

80
60
60
50
40

Electrification ratio [%]Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

100

Natural gas
Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)Oil products

40

uncertainties that cannot be fully taken into account in
the five scenarios, and therefore, the interpretation of
the scenarios needs to be carefully considered. Moreover, while the DNE21+ model is relatively detailed, theBiomass
20

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C
2040

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline

Disorderly 2.0C

Orderly 1.5C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 2.0C
2030

Disorderly 1.5C

Baseline
2015

Disorderly 2.0C

0

30

Coal

20

Electrification ratio(right axis)

2050

Figure 28 Final energy consumption in building (Japan)

model still provides a highly simplified representationof real-world situations. The reality is that there are diverse agents and both re-tiring and new construction
require a more complex transition process, including
time-consuming coordination with the local community,

4. Summary

however, the model is largely unable to account for

Five scenarios that are consistent with the 2°C andthese factors. To ensure transparency in the model anal-

1.5°C targets and consistent with the NGFS and IEA sce-ysis, non-transparent constraints are also intentionallynarios were assumed and were analyzed including tran-

not taken into account. Therefore, we believe that tak-sition pathways, using the DNE21+ model, which ena-

ing cost-effective measures from among the widest

bles quantitative and globally consistent analysis. Emis-

possible range of options, with a good understanding

sion pathways varied significantly by sector and variedof these issues, will lead to the realization of CN at an

substantially by assumed scenarios of technology andearlier stage, and that this scenario analysis andother factors. In particular, there can be large differ-roadmap will be useful in developing such a strategy.

ences depending on the projections of CDR. In addition,

It is an ongoing challenge to continue to follow tech-a comparison of emission pathways by sector shows

nological trends and update the roadmap as appropri-that the power generation sector, which offers moreate, as well as to develop roadmaps for individual coun-emission reduction options, is required to improve its

tries and regions other than Japan, to contribute to theCO2 emission intensity from a relatively early stage. This

promotion of its use in a wide range of countries.

34

R&D Activities ● Systems Analysis GroupRITE Today 2024

Reference
1） RITE: Transition to Carbon Neutrality, 2023 Edition
https://www.rite.or.jp/system/en/latestanalysis/2024/03/transition_roadmap_to_carbon_neutrality_2023_edition.html
2） IPCC: Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate
Change. Cambridge (2022)
3） NGFS: NGFS Scenarios for central banks and supervisors (2022)
4） ICMA: Overview and Recommendations for Sustainable Finance Taxonomies (2021)
5） IEA: Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the
1.5 °C Goal in Reach (2023)

6） METI: the Japan Public and Private Working Group on
Financed Emissions to Promote Transition Finance(2021, 2022)

35