March 6, 2024
(The Japanese version: January 24, 2024)

Development of Transition Roadmaps
for Net-zero Emissions (2023 Edition)
Systems Analysis Group,
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth(RITE)
sysinfo@rite.or.jp

Motivation and aim of developing
transition roadmaps2It is necessary to strengthen measures in each sector to achieve the 2℃ and 1.5℃ long-termtargets of the Paris Agreement and carbon neutrality early in the second half of the 21st
century.

On the other hand, there is a wide range of transitions that can lead to emission reductions.
Even if they are consistent with the global CN, the emission reduction pathways for eachindustrial sector differ from sector to sector in terms of the life span of existing infrastructure
and the difficulty level of emission reduction measures. Uniform emission reductions may
increase the cost of measures and make emission reductions more difficult to achieve.

In general, however, the pathways to consistent emission reductions, including technologies,
are not always well understood, and there is a need for quantitative information to makejudgments about the appropriateness of investments. Therefore, the NGFS and otherorganizations are developing emission reduction scenarios using integrated assessment
models that allow for quantitative analysis. On the other hand, these models do not provide
sufficient information on emission reduction pathways for each sector.



The Government of Japan has developed transition roadmaps for FY2021-2022 to provide
specific transition directions toward achieving carbon neutrality, with an intention to utilize
these for transition financing. While the roadmaps provide useful information, these weredeveloped on a sector-by-sector basis, thus, there is a need to improve the accountability interms of consistency with the overall 2℃ and 1.5℃ emission reduction pathways.



Therefore, we have developed sectoral transition roadmaps using the bottom-up global
assessment model for energy and climate change, the DNE21+, that allows for consistentanalysis among countries, regions, and sectors.

Remarks of existing scenarios/pathways that are widely referenced
internationally:
Material for the Study Group to Formulate a Roadmap for Promoting Transition Finance in the Economic and Industrial Sector in FY2021





3

The ICMA report indicates the issues regarding the consideration of regional and industrial
characteristics for the SBTi, TPI, and IEA, which are listed as scientifically based references in the
ICMA Basic Guidelines. When formulating the roadmap, it is necessary to select technologies basedon the characteristics of Japan, while referring to the above.
In addition, the NGFS scenarios that have been used in the financial industry have estimated values
by country and sector, but it is assumed that they will be adjusted on their own when used.
Remarks of existing scenarios/pathways that are widely referenced internationally:

Organizations

Remarks

IEA•

The IEA presents pathways for emissions from energy use by country/region or by energy
sector/industry, so regional and industrial characteristics are taken into account, but nopathways are presented that take into account both (country and industry), simultaneously.

SBTi

•

The Absolute Contraction Approach requires the same reduction rate for all actors and does
not take into account regional and industry characteristics.
The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) shows pathways based on the 2DS and B2DS
scenarios in the IEA-ETP, but regional characteristics are not taken into account except for
current emissions and production.

•

TPI

•

The sectoral approach used by SBTi is utilized by referring to the IEA-ETP, etc., but does nottake into account regional characteristics.

NGFS

•

The NGFS scenarios are disaggregated by country and industry, but there are issues with theaccuracy of industry (final consumption) estimates, and industry-specific data based onregional characteristics need to be adjusted to reflect the characteristics of each country indetail.

(Source) Based on the ICMA Overview and Recommendations for Sustainable Finance Taxonomies and materials by each organization

1. Examples of Existing
Scenarios

IPCC Scenarios

Classification of emissions scenarios andillustrative pathways of the AR6 of IPCC

6

Emission pathways （Fig. 3.10）
C8

＞4℃

C7

4℃

C6

3℃

C5

2.5℃

C4

2℃（＞50%）C3

2℃（＞67%）C2

1.5℃-high overshootC1

1.5℃-no/limited
overshootIllustrative Pathways (IPs)（Fig. 3.5）
IPs

The pathways
consistingwith the longterm goals of
Paris
Agreement(IMPs)

CurPolCurrent Policies

C7

ModActModerate Actions

C6

GS

Gradual strengthening

C3

Neg

Extensive use of net negative emissions

C2

Ren

Focus on Renewables

C1

LD

Focus on Low Demands

C1

SP

Shifting Pathways

C1

NDCs and long-teem goals under Paris Agreement

7

Fig. SPM.4

GHG emissions[GtCO2eq/yr]

Trend forimplemented policies

Likely below
2C, NDCs
until 2030

Note)
NDCs, announced prior to COP26 up to 11
October 2021. (The NDCs announced after thisdate are not included.)“Unconditional elements: 53 (50–57)
GtCO2eq/yr, Including conditional elements: 50(47–55) GtCO2eq/yr” (SPM, Table SPM 1)

Likely below 2C,
with immediate
action1.5C with no or
limited overshoot Sectoral scenarios are analyzed inaccordance with three scenarios
presented in IPCC Fig. SPM.4,
consistent with meeting the longterm “well below 2°C” and 1.5°C
goals of the Paris Agreement.

Several opportunities to achieve CN: IPCC AR6

8

Fig. SPM.5“The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable
if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved.” (SPM C.11)
In all scenario except Low Demand scenario, CDR options including large-scale afforestation are costeffective to achieve net zero of CO2. Furthermore, for net zero GHG emissions, CDR is indispensable.

Global primary energy supply in each of
the Illustrative Pathways (IPs)9Fig. 3.8

Electricity systems powered predominantly by renewables will be increasingly viable over the
coming decades, but it will be challenging to supply the entire energy system with renewable energy.
(Chapter 6 ES) Fossil fuels use is likely to increase continually up to 2050 in CurPol and ModAct scenarios.
 Fossil fuels use would be varied even in 2050 under 2°C, 1.5°C scenarios.

Actualizing CN: Decade in which sectoral CO2 emissions
first reach net negative values
Fig. 3.19

There are few assessments in IAM scenarios which indicate net zero emissions within
this century in Industry, Transport, and Buildings sectors under any emission pathways
including 1.5°C pathways. => Offsetting with CDR would be cost-effective.

10

Global final energy consumption by sector
Industry

Building

Transport

Source) IPCC AR6 (2022)

11

Global CO2 emissions by sector for the 2 C and 1.5 Cscenarios (C1, C2, and C3 categories)

Source) IPCC AR6 (2022)
Note) Boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, while whiskers indicate 5th and 95th percentiles.

12

NGFS Scenarios

NGFS: Network for Greening the Financial System

NGFS scenario participating research institutions andmodel overview（Source）NGFS (2022)

 GDP and population estimates used in the IAMs are based on the projections
under the SSP2 (intermediate scenario).
 A database of climate scenarios with technical reports is available from the
NGFS portal.
https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/

14

Overview of the three models employed
for the NGFS transition scenarios

Source: NGFS (2022)15

Six scenarios of NGFS (2021, 2022 versions)

16(Source) NGFS (2022)

Orderly
Net Zero 2050: Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5℃ and achieving net-zeroglobal CO2 emissions around 2050, through ambitious climate chance policies
and innovation
Below 2℃: Increasing the stringency of climate change policies in stages, with a
67% probability of limiting global temperature increase to less than 2℃
Disorderly
Divergent Net Zero: Achieving Net zero around 2050, but at a high cost due todifferent policies introduced across sectors
Delayed transition: Annual emissions will not decrease until 2030, and stringent
policies are needed to keep emissions below 2℃. In addition, there areconstraints on the removal of CO2.
Hot House World
NDCs: Using NDCs as of March 2022 (2022 version)
Current Policies

CO2 emissions and carbon prices
for each NGFS scenario（Source）NGFS (2022)•

The NGFS scenarios are also very similar to IPCC Fig. SPM.4 for the 2℃ and 1.5℃
equivalent scenarios.

17

Outlook for CO2 removal technology CDR
in the NGFS scenario

18（Source）NGFS (2022)••

In the NGFS scenario, land use change (afforestation) and BECCS are considered, but
DACCS is not.
Nevertheless, a CDR of about 7 GtCO2/yr is projected under the Net Zero 2050 scenario.

Emissions by sector
in the NGFS Net-Zero 2050 (example)（Source）NGFS (2022)

19

Composition of total primary energy supply
in the NGFS Net-Zero 2050 (example)

20（Source）NGFS (2022)

Major updates
in the 2023 version of the NGFS scenarios（Source）NGFS (2023)•

In addition to reflecting the latest trends, the 2023 version of the NGFS transition
scenario assumed exogenous constraints on CCS availability.

21

NGFS scenarios of 2023 version

22

GHG emissions in the NGFS 2023 version(compared to IPCC estimates)（Source）NGFS (2023)

23

Example of carbon prices and CO2 emissions
under the NGFS scenarios (REMIND model)（Source）NGFS (2023)

24

IEA Scenarios

Emissions reduction scenario in SDS in ETP2020

26

Emissions from Industry
subsector

SDS: Sustainable Development Scenario
A scenario with less than 1.8 °C, equivalent to“well below 2 °C” target under the Paris
agreementElectricity generation scenario in SDS in ETP2020

27

Iron and steel sector emissions and energy
consumption in SDS in ETP2020

28

Cement sector emissions and energy consumption
in SDS in ETP2020

29

Chemical sector emissions andenergy consumption in SDS in ETP2020

30

Transport emissions scenario in SDS in ETP2020

31

Global primary energy supply in the NZE scenario
in ETP2023

32

Energy-related and process CO2 emissions andtemperature rise by scenario in WEO2022

STEPS: Stated Policy Scenario
APS: Announced Pledges Scenario
NZE: Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenarioNote) CO2 emissions from energy and industrial process33

CO2 emissions by sector and gross and net
emissions in the NZE scenario in WEO2022

34

Total primary energy supply in the NZE scenario
in WEO2022

35

Final energy consumption in industry sub-sectors
in the NZE scenario in WEO2022

36

Energy use in transport by scenario in WEO2022

37

Comparison with selected IPCC scenarios andthe NZE scenario in WEO2022

38

Note) The IPCC scenarios forcomparison are only thosethat reach zero CO2emissions from energy by2050 (16 scenarios). The IPCC
1.5 °C scenarios (C1, C2) have
230 scenarios registered.

The NZE scenario by
IEA can be argued,
when compared withscenario analyses byinternational IAM, as a
scenario with
 considerably lessenergy consumption
 higher wind and solar considerably small
biomass
 considerably less
CCS/CDR,
thus rather a “deviated”
scenario than an
average one

Total final energy consumption by sector
in the NZE scenario in WEO2022

IEA WEO2019

IEA WEO2022 NZE2050[Source] J. Millward-Hopkins et al., Global Environmental Change (2020)
with additional texts

39

Global electricity sector emissions and CO2 intensityof electricity generation in the NZE Scenario (2023)

A rapid decline in fossil fuel generation without CCUS is expected.
 Nearly-zero CO2 intensity of electricity generation is expected in 2040.


40

2. Development of Quantitative
Scenarios and Transition
Roadmaps by Using DNE21+
Model

Note) The developed scenarios and roadmaps using the model present average transition
pathways for countries and sectors. Decisions about technology choices or investments byindividual entities and projects should be made under various circumstances. Individual entities
and projects should not treat these roadmaps uniformly as a basis for investment decisions andsuch, as these could be changed depending on various assumptions.

Energy Assessment Model: DNE21+(Dynamic New Earth 21+)42



Systemic cost evaluation on energy and CO2 reduction technologies is possible.

Linear programming model (minimizing world energy system cost; with appox. 10mil. variables
and approx. 10mil. constrained conditions)

Evaluation time period: 2000-2100
Representative time points: 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2070 and 2100

World divided into 54 regions
Large area countries, e.g., US and China, are further disaggregated, totaling 77 world regions.

Interregional trade: coal, crude oil/oil products, natural gas/syn. methane, electricity, ethanol,hydrogen, CO2 (provided that external transfer of CO2 is not assumed in the baseline)

Bottom-up modeling for technologies on energy supply side (e.g., power sector) and CCUS

For energy demand side, bottom-up modeling conducted for the industry sector including steel,cement, paper, chemicals and aluminum, the transport sector, and a part of the residential &commercial sector, considering CGS for other industry and residential & commercial sectors.



Bottom-up modeling for international marine bunker and aviation.



Around 500 specific technologies are modeled, with lifetime of equipment considered.

Top-down modeling for others (energy saving effect is estimated using long-term price elasticity.)••

Regional and sectoral technological information provided in detail enough to analyze consistently.
Analyses on non-CO2 GHG possible with another model RITE has developed based on US EPA’s assumptions.
•

Model based analyses and evaluation provide recommendation for discussions on some energy and climatechange policy making processes, e.g., cap-and-trade system, Environmental Energy Technology Innovation
Plan, 6th Energy Strategic Plan for the Government of Japan, and also contribute to IPCC scenario analyses.

The structure of DNE21+ model43

Oil prices in baseline assuming no climate measures are exogenously assumed,
and other price factors, e.g., unit production costs, concession fees, are adjusted.
In emission reduction case, prices are endogenously decided accordingly.

Fossil fuels
Coal (coal, lignite)
Oil (conventional, unconv.)
Gas (conventional, unconv.)
Unit
production
costEnergy conv.
processes(oil refinery,coal gasification,
bio-ethanol,gas reforming,
water electrolysis,etc.)ElectricPower
generation

propylene, ammonia)

Transport
Vehicle, shipping, aviation
Solid, liquid and gaseous fuels,and electricity

Unit
supplycost

Residential & Commercial

CCUS

Nuclear power
Facility cost and efficiency ofeach technology are
exogenously assumed.

Paper & pulp
Chemical (ethylene,

Solid, liquid and gaseous fuels,and electricity

Renewable energies

Annual production

CementAluminum

Cumulative production

Hydro power & geothermalWind power
PV / CSP
Biomass, Marine energy

Industry
Iron & steel

Air conditioner, refrigerator, TV,
etc.
Solid, liquid and gaseous fuels,and electricity

DAC

For main sectors
modeled in abottom-up way,
economic
activities andservice demands(e.g., productionof crude steel
and cement,
passenger
service demand)are exogenously
assumed.

The caveats of the model analyses
44

 The DNE21+ model features a capability of global energy system assessment while

maintaining consistencies in prices and volumes of energy trade. The model emphasizes
worldwide consistency for assumptions. For example, the potentials of solar, wind, or CO2
storage for each country are estimated with the same estimation methodology, based on
worldwide GIS data.
 This feature allows it to easily conduct comparative assessments of technology and economic
potentials among countries. On the other hand, each country’s situation (e.g. social andphysical constraints towards nuclear, renewable energies, or CCS in Japan) is not fully
considered.
 Therefore, a more detailed analysis of Japan requires separate and further consideration ofcountry-specific constraints. For example, power grid configuration in Japan is not consideredin the model which makes it difficult to assess differences in grid integration costs of VRE
among areas.
=> The results of the study with the power generation mix model by the
University of Tokyo and the IEEJ are employed (see next page).
 This scenario analysis does not consider energy security issues, although actual policies shouldtake GHG reduction measures while considering energy security.
 Being a dynamic optimization model, a midpoint (e.g. 2050) assessment can be done while
capturing the future outlook towards 2100. It assesses based on cost minimization, andtherefore arbitrary scenario settings are excluded to the utmost; however, this may cause
extreme changes such as sudden and complete technology replacement once economic
rationality is established. Especially, analysis results of transition should be interpreted withcaution. (There exist various decision-makers in the real world and technology choices often
follow a diffusion curve instead of abrupt change. Compared to econometric models that canrepresent them well, this optimization model may show abrupt changes.)Integration cost of VRES: integration with apower generation mix model by Univ. of Tokyo and IEEJ

45

 As DNE21+ is a global model and not suitable for the analysis regarding internal power grid and regional

conditions of renewable energy, it applies the results of the study on the assumption of integration cost underhigh VRE penetration based on an optimal power generation mix model, by Fujii-Komiyama Laboratory, theUniversity of Tokyo and the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.
 Time fluctuation of VRE output is modeled based on nationwide meteorological data, e.g., AMeDAS, to estimate
the optimal configuration (power generation and storage system) and the annual operation by linear
programming.
 Calculated with hourly modeling by 5 divided regions (Hokkaido, Tohoku, Tokyo, Kyushu and others).
Prerequisites for power generation cost, resource constraint, etc, are defined in line with DNE21+.
Considered in modeling・・・ Output control, power storage system (pumped hydro, lithium-ion battery and hydrogen storage),
reduction of power generation facility utilization, inter-regional power transmission lines,
electricity loss in storage and transmission
Not considered in modeling・・・ Intra-regional power transmission lines, power grid, influence of decrease of rotational inertia,
grid power storage by EV, prediction error of VRE output, supply disruption risk during dark doldrums
Grid integration costs approximated from the analysis of the Univ. of Tokyo – IEEJ
power generation mix model＝Assumption on grid integration costs in DNE21+(Marginal cost when each implementation share is realized）
700

77

66

600

55

500

44

33

22

Output example of PV[US$/MWh]
System系統統合費用
integration cost
[US$/MWh][¥/kWh]Solar PV太陽光

As the VRE ratio increases, marginal
integration costs tend to rise relatively
rapidly.
This is because under thecircumstance where a large amount of VRE
has already been installed, if it is further
installed, it will be required to maintain an
infrequently used power storage system ortransmission line to deal with the risk thatcloudy weather and windless conditions willcontinue for several days or more.

風力
Wind

400

300

200

11

100

0

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Share
of total power generation[%](%)
総発電電力量に対するシェア

45

50

55

60

Assumed scenarios for the 2 C and 1.5 C goals
46

Scenarios

Globalaveragetemp.
increase

Policyspeed#

Disorderly
Below 2 C

1.7 C in
2100(peak:1.8 C)

Gradual(NDCs
in 2030)

Orderly
Below 2 C

1.7 C

Rapid

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

Gradual(NDCs
in 2030)

Orderly 1.5
C

1.4 C in
2100(peak:1.6 C)

1.5CCO2_CN

Approx.
below 1.5 C

CDR
contribution

Renewabl
es andBEV

Differencesin policy
intensity
among
regions

mediumMediumcost
reductions

IPCC AR6(IPCC 2022)

NGFS(2022)IEA

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

Likely below 2 C,
NDC [C3b]

Disorderly:
DelayedTransition

APS
(WEO
2022)

Small

High cost
reductions

Small (equal
MAC amongcountries)

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

SDS
(WEO
2021)

Large

Mediumcost
reductions

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

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

Medium(majordeveloped
countries:
CN by 2050)

1.5 C with no or
limited overshoot[C1]

Orderly:Net
Zero2050

High cost
reductions

Large (major
developed
countries:
CN by 2050)

1.5 C with no or
limited overshoot
[C1]

Rapid

Medium

Rapid

Small
(Near-zero of
CO2 bysector)# The emission reduction targets in 2030 of NDCs submitted in the end of December 2021 are considered.



Relation to other scenarios

NZE* The emissions pathway is rather similar to the Orderly 1.5 C

The assumed scenarios are consistent with the long-term goals of Paris Agreement, and cover
the existing scenarios which are widely referred globally.
The scenarios also cover a certain range of uncertainties in technologies and policies.

Global emissions pathways
80

47

CO2

70

CO2 emissions [GtCO2/yr]

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10

Historical
Baseline
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

-20
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

GHG

2100
90

70
GHG排出量 [GtCO2eq/yr]

 Global CO2 emissions reach net zeroby around 2050-60 under 1.5C
scenarios, and the GHG emissions
reach net zero by around 2075-80.
 For the 2.0C scenarios, the CO2 andGHG emissions reach net zero byaround 2065-80 and 2090-2100,
respectively.
 GHG emissions in 2030 are estimatedto be 51 GtCO2eq./y due to NDCs.

80

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
2000

Historical
Baseline
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Global average temperature rise for the assumed
scenarios

Global average temperature rise relative toin 1850-1899 [C]
1850～1899年比全球平均気温上昇
[℃]

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8

Disorderly 2.0C

0.6

Orderly 2.0C

0.4

Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

0.2
0
1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

48

(0) WorldCO2 marginal abatement costs for the 2 C scenarios
Disorderly 2.0C

Unit: $/tCO2
2030

2040

2050

Japan

470

298

500

US

199

241

229

EU27

282

208

284

Korea

147

China

35

80

118

OthersDifferent among countries due todifferent NDCs

2030

2040

2050

81

251

158

Orderly 2.0C
Japan
US
EU27
Korea
China
Others50

CO2 marginal abatement costs for the 1.5 C scenarios
51

Disorderly 1.5C

unit: $/tCO2
2030

2040

2050

Japan

423

456

686

US

211

291

276

EU27

283

291

324

Korea

141

China

39

291

269

OthersDifferent among countries due todifferent NDCs

2040

2050

518

466

Orderly 1.5C
2030
Japan
US
EU27

234

301
492

323
267

Korea, China and others

1.5C-CO2_CN
2030

2040

Japan
US
EU27
Korea, China and others

2050
345

281

706

310
350
293

GHG emissions (World)

52

80000
DACCS

70000

Non-CO2 GHGs
Prosess CO2

60000

LULUCF CO2Other energy conversion
Power generation

40000

Residential and commercial

30000

International naviation
International aviation

20000

Other domestic transport

10000

Domestic aviation
Road transport

0

Other industries-10000ChemicalPaper and pulp

-20000Cement-30000

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Iron and steel

Baseline

GHG emissions [MtCO2eq/yr]

50000

2050

Note) The 1.5C-CO2_CN scenario analyzes only on CO2, but the figure includes non-CO2 GHG emissions of Orderly 1.5C.

 The amounts of CO2 fixations due to CDR is approximately 20GtCO2eq/yr in 2050 for the Disorderly 1.5C,and those for other scenarios are below 10 GtCO2eq/yr.
 Non-CO2 GHG emissions of approx. 10 GtCO2eq/yr remain in 2050 even in both 2C and 1.5C scenarios.

Primary energy supply (World)

53

25000
Non-energy use gas
Non-energy use oil
Non-energy use coal

20000
Primary energy supply [Mtoe/yr]

Solar thermal
Solar PV
Wind power

15000

Nuclear power
Hydro and Geothermal
Biomass w/ CCUS

10000

Biomass w/o CCUS
Gas w/ CCUS

5000

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

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline0

Coal w/o CCUS

2050

 Thanks to CDR contributions, fossil fuel uses without CCS still remain in 2050 even for
the 1.5C scenarios.

Electricity supply (World)

54

90000
Solar PV (w/o grid)Wind power (w/o grid)

80000

Ammonia (cofiring with coal)
70000

Ammonia
Hydorogen (cofiring with gas)

60000

Solar thermal

50000

Solar PV
40000

Wind power
Nuclear power

30000

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

20000
10000

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

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C0Baseline

Electricity generation [TWh/yr]

HydrogenGas w/ CCUS
Gas CGSGas w/o CCUS
Oil wi/ CCUS

2050

 Potentials of CO2 geological storage is large in the world, the shares of gas power with
CCS are relatively high compared with those in Japan.
 In the Orderly 1.5C/2.0C scenarios which assume larger constraints of the access of
CO2 geological storage, larger deployments of solar PV and wind power are estimated.

Final energy consumption in industry (World)
7000

6000

45

Non-energy use: gas

40

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

5000
30
25
20

3000

15
2000

1000

0

2040

2050

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

Orderly 2.0C

2030

Ammonia
Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)Natural gas

10

Biofuels5

e-fuels (synthetic oil)

0

2015

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

35

4000

55

Oil products
Biomass
Coal
Electrification ratio(right axis)

 Coal uses reduce, and gas and electricity uses increase for the 2C/1.5C scenarios in the world.
 The shares of hydrogen, ammonia, and synthetic methane (e-methane) uses are relatively small
compared with those of Japan due to cheaper renewables and CCS, and larger power gridconnections.

Final energy consumption in iron & steel (World)
1200

Electricity
Hydrogen

1000

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

56

e-methane (synthetic
methane)800

Natural gas
Biofuels

600

e-fuels (synthetic oil)400
Oil products
Biomass

200

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 Total final energy consumption will decrease due to energy savings and shifts to electric furnace.
Meanwhile coal is still major energy sources by around 2040.
 After 2040, hydrogen from outside of steel making processes (e.g., Super COURSE50) are used, andhydrogen-use DRI are cost-effective options in 2050, and large hydrogen uses are observed

Final energy consumption in cement (World)
600

57

Electricity
Ammonia

500

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)400

Natural gas
300

Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)200
Oil products
Biomass

100

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 A shift from coal to gas is cost-effective under 2C/1.5C scenarios.
 While efficiency continues to improve, there are some cases in which slightly more energy isconsumed compared with the Baseline, due to energy use for CO2 capture, especially in 1.5CCO2_CN which assumes a small contribution of CDR.

Final energy consumption in paper & pulp (World)
58
250

Electricity
Ammonia

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

200

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)150

Natural gas
Biofuels100

e-fuels (synthetic oil)Oil products

50

Biomass
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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050Note) The use of black liquor is included in biofuels consumption.



A shift from coal to gas is cost-effective.
The uses of ammonia and synthetic methane are observed in the world, even though the amount is small. (There arecertain amounts of those uses in 1.5C-CO2_CN, which assumes a small contribution of CDR.)

Final energy consumption in petrochemical(ethylene, propylene, and BTX productions) (World)
300

59Electricity
Ammonia

250

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)200

Natural gas
150

Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)100
Oil products
Biomass

50

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050Note) The graph shows only energy usage consumption, and energy for raw material is not included.

 CN fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen, are used under emissions reduction scenarios, especiallyin 1.5C-CO2_CN where a small contribution of CDR is assumed.

Final energy consumption in building (World)

60

80

5000

Electricity
4500
4000

60

3000
50

2500
2000

40

1500

Electrification ratio [%]e-methane (synthetic
methane)3500

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Hydrogen70

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

1000

30

Coal

500
20

2015

2030

2040

Electrification ratio(right axis)

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 In building sector, electricity consumptions will increase greatly even for the baseline scenario.
Under the 2C/1.5C scenarios, larger shares of electricity consumptions will be economicalmeasures.
 On the other hand, for the 2C scenarios and Disorderly 1.5C, a certain amounts of natural gas uses
are still economical measures.

Final energy consumption in transport (World)
3500

25

61

Electricity
Hydrogen

3000
20

e-methane (synthetic
methane)

15

2000

1500

10

1000

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

2500

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

5
Coal

500

0

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

0Electrification ratio(right axis)

2050

 The uses of electricity, bioenergy, hydrogen, and e-fuels will increase, and oil
consumptions will decrease.
 However, a certain amount of oil consumptions will remain by 2050 even under the 2C/1.5C scenarios.

(1) JapanCO2 emissions reduction cost (Japan)

63

Unit: billion US$/yr

2030

2040

2050

Disorderly 2.0C

48

92

161

Orderly 2.0C

0

8

20

Disorderly 1.5C

44

116

202

Orderly 1.5C

12

80

145

1.5C-CO2_CN

22

158

95

Note) Annual cost increases in energy systems from those of the baseline scenario

GHG emissions (Japan)

64

1400

DACCS
Non-CO2 GHGs

1200

Prosess CO2
LULUCF CO2

GHG emissions [MtCO2eq/yr]

1000

Other energy conversion
Power generation

800

Residential andcommercial
International naviation

600

International aviation
Other domestic transport

400

Domestic aviation
Road transport

200

Other industries
Chemical0Paper and pulp
Cement

-200

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

Iron and steel

2050Note) For the GHG emissions other than CO2 in 1.5C-CO2_CN, the values in Orderly 1.5C are shown here.

To achieve CN in GHG emissions in 2050, DACCS, the use of LULUCF CO2 (fixation by forestation), and the measures for net
negative CO2 emissions in the Power sector, such as BECCS and e-methane+CCS, will be applied.
In Orderly 2.0C where CN in GHG emissions in 2050 is not assumed, the total GHG emissions will be approximately ▲69%
relative to 2013, with positive CO2 emissions from the Power sector and the Iron and steel sector.

CO2 balance (Japan)

65

CO2 capture, storage and utilization [MtCO2/yr]

150

Captureg
Captureg

DAC
Ammonia production
Cement
BF-BOF
Hydrogen production
Biomass-fired
Gas-firedOil-fired
Coal-fired

100

50

0

Storage, utilization-50

CO2 geological storage
CCU
CO2 overseas transport-100

Storage,utilization

2030

2040

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

-150





g

2050

CO2 capture through fossil-fired power generation and BF process (Super COURSE50) are observed in 2040.
CO2 capture through DAC and Biomass processes will be large in 2050.
Under 1.5C-CO2_CN, with limited CDR uses including BECCS and e-methane+CCS in the Power sector, CO2 is captured from coalfired (incl. Biomass co-firing) and gas-fired, and in the Cement sector in 2050. Captured CO2 via DAC is used for CCU.

Primary energy supply (Japan)

66

500

Non-energy use gas
Non-energy use oil

450

Non-energy use coal
Import of hydrogen and ammonia
Import of biofuels

350

Solar thermal
Solar PV

300

Wind power

250

Nuclear power
Hydro and Geothermal

200

Biomass w/ CCUS

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)

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C0Baseline

Primary energy supply [Mtoe/yr]

400

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

2050

Import of hydrogen and ammonia, e-methane, and biofuels would be cost-effective as the MAC of Japan is higher
than other countries. However, those amounts in Orderly 2.0C are relatively small (approx. ▲69% relative to 2013 in2050).
Coal use incl. with CCUS is scarcely observed in the scenarios of GHG CN in 2050. However, in Orderly 2.0C, somecoal w/o CCUS and a reasonable amount of gas w/o CCUS are likely to remain.
Import of hydrogen and ammonia, e-methane, and biofuels would be cost-effective as well in 1.5C -CO2_CN.

Electricity supply (Japan)
67
1800

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

1600

Ammonia (cofiring with coal)
Ammonia

Electricity generation [TWh/yr]

1400

Hydorogen (cofiring with gas)
Hydrogen

1200

Solar thermal
Solar PV

1000

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 CGS

2015

2030

2040

2050

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline0

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

 Electricity supply is in an upward trend, especially in the strict emissions reduction scenarios.
 The deployment of renewable energy, such as solar PV, the use of CCS, and power generation with importedhydrogen and ammonia are observed. Also, e-methane is used for gas power generation in 2050 in the
scenarios other than Orderly 2.0C.
 Solar PV and wind power are likely to diffuse further due to high cost reduction in Orderly 1.5C.
 In 1.5C-CO2_CN, a portion of coal with CCUS increases due to the constraint of BECCS and e-methane+CCS.

CO2 intensity of electricity (Japan)
120- Renewables and nuclear power- Phased down of fossil power- Biomass mix power etc.

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

68

80- CCUS- Ammonia and hydrogen mix power etc.

60

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

40
Disorderly 2.0C

20

Orderly 2.0C

0

Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

-20

1.5C-CO2_CN
-40
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 There is no big differences in the trend of CO2 intensity among Disorderly 1.5C/2.0C andOrderly 1.5C, which assume GHG net zero emissions in 2050, although the power mixes arevaried, and achieving CN by around 2040 would be cost-effective as a whole.

The RM level
by GoJ (2021)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1500

1.5C-CO2_CN

3500

Orderly 1.5C

4500

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

4000

Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO
[MtCO
2] 2]
累積CO

5000

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

3000

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

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

CO2 emissions in power sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
6920312050

3500

3000

2500

2000
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

1000
500
0

Supply and demand of hydrogen (Japan)
8060SupplyMarginal CIF price$/toe 826
円/Nm3 23

951
27

697
20

1028 714
29
20

733
21

788
22

988
28

1202 1295
34
37

848
24

910
26

1425 1200
40
34

70

SupplyImport740
21

Water electrolysis (Grid)
Water electrolysis (Wind power, w/o grid)
Water electrolysis (Solar PV, w/o grid)
Biomass gasification
Gas reforming

20

Coal gasification
Petrochemical (Net output)0

Oil refinery (Net output)

Demand-20

Power generation
Iron and Steel-40

CementPulp and Paper-60

Other industries
Passenger car

Demand

2030

2040

2050

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

-80

Baseline

Hydrogen supply and demand [Mtoe/yr]

40

Bus
Truck
International navigation
Aviation
Residential and Commercial
e-methane production
e-fuels production
Methanol production
DACCS Large hydrogen uses for iron and steel sector are estimated in 2050.
 In the Orderly 1.5C/2.0C scenarios, domestic hydrogen productions are also economic, but most ofhydrogen is imported in many scenarios.
 The marginal prices of CIF of the 1.5C scenarios are high due to competitions among countries.

Supply and demand of ammonia (Japan)
50

$/toe

631

1053 1034

1319 1121

614

652

858

1101 615

SupplyImport30

Water electrolysis (Grid)

20

Water electrolysis (Solar PV, w/o grid)10

Gas reforming
Coal gasification

Water electrolysis (Wind power, w/o grid)0

DemandPower generation-10

Oil refinery
Cement-20

Pulp and Paper
Petrochemical-30

International navigation-40

Demand2030

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

-50
Baseline

Ammonia supply and demand [Mtoe/yr]

SupplyMarginal CIF price

40

71

2050

 In the Disorderly 1.5C/2.0C scenarios, the cost reductions of VRE are gradual, and blue ammonia
from overseas plays an important role in the power sector.
 Ammonia uses for industrial sectors are also economical options in Japan.

Supply and demand of e-methane (synthetic methane)(Japan)80

Marginal CIF price

$/toe

1937

1766

1582

1712

1891

2070

2376

1548

1157

円/Nm3

211

193

173

187

206

226

259

169

126

Supplyg
ImportInnovative methanation
Convensional methanation

40

Demand20

Power generation
CGS (Industry)
CGS (Commercial)0

CGS (Residential)
Oil refinery-20

Iron and Steel
CementPulp and Paper-40

Petrochemical
Chemical

Demand Other industries

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

-60

Baseline

Synthetic methane supply and demand [Mtoe/yr]

60

Supply72

Road transportation
Other transportation
Residential and Commercial

2050

 e-methane will contribute to power sector as well as building and industrial sectors.
 Productions of e-methane overseas are dominant due to differences in renewableenergy costs.

Gas supply (Japan)

7350

Enegy supply [Mtoe/yr]

45

Non-energy use
natural gas

40
35

Hydrogen &ammonia30
25
20

e-methane(synthetic
methane)15
10Natural gas

5
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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

0

2015
2030
2040
2050
Note) The uses in power, iron & steel, and petrochemical sectors are not included here and described in each sectoral analysis.

 In Orderly 2.0C, natural gas supply would keep the current level or slightly decrease by 2050. Other
scenarios predict greater uses of hydrogen or e-methane after 2040.
 The choice between hydrogen and e-methane is sensitive depending on preconditions, such as theassumption of cost reduction timing.

CO2 emissions from gas (Japan)

74

120- Shift to e-methane and hydrogen

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

100

80

60
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C
20

- Shift to e-methane (innovative
methanation) and hydrogen

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 As for Orderly 1.5C, it can be interpreted that the MAC would be close to those of other countries in 2040,
causing competition in importing synthetic fuels and hydrogen (the marginal CIF price is also high), andthe CO2 emissions in 2040 is relatively large.

800

600

400

200

0
1200

1.5C-CO2_CN

1200

Orderly 1.5C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

1000

[MtCO
2] 2]
累積CO
Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO

1400

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

排出量 [MtCO
2] 2]
累積CO
Cumulative
CO22emissions[MtCO

CO2 emissions in gas sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
7520312050

2000

1800

1600

1400
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

1000
800

600

400

200
0

Oil (liquid fuels) supply (Japan)

76

160

Non-energy use
oil products

140
120
Energy supply [Mtoe/yr]

Biofuels
100
80

e-fuels(synthetic oil)60
40

Oil products

20

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050Note) The use in the power sector is not included.

Oil use is considerably decreasing due to efficiency improvement of automobiles, EV diffusion, and so on, in any scenarios.
This trend is notable especially in Orderly 1.5C, which assumes high cost reduction of renewable energy and EV. (Please referto the results of the transport sector.)
The use of e-fuels is observed in 2050. In particular, oil would be replaced with e-fuels in Orderly 1.5C, in which emission
offset is limited due to strict constraints on CCS, and the price of e-fuels decreases because of a decline of renewables costs.

CO2 emissions in oil refinery: Scope1 (Japan)

77

120
Disorderly 2.0C

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

100

Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C

80

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

60

40

20

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 Scope1 emissions are decreasing as oil refining volume decreases. This trend is particularly strong
in Disorderly scenarios, where there are large differences in CO2 MAC with other countries.

CO2 emissions from oil (Japan)

78

120

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

100- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift

80

60
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C
20

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN- Shift to syn. fuels

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 In Orderly 1.5C, which assumes strict constraints on CCS, CO2 emissions in 2050 would be reduced
to almost zero because there is a small room for offsetting emissions through DACCS, etc.

3000

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500
500

0
0

1.5C-CO2_CN

3500

Orderly 1.5C

3500

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

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

4000

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO
累積CO
[MtCO
2] 2]

CO2 emissions in oil sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
7920312050

2500
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

2000

1500

1000

80

180

45

Non-energy use: gas

160

40

Non-energy use: oil
products

140

35

120

30

Non-energy use: coal
Electricity
Electrification ratio [%]

25

100

Ammonia
Hydrogen

2015

2030

2040

2050

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

0
1.5C-CO2_CN

0
Orderly 1.5C

e-fuels (synthetic oil)

Disorderly 1.5C

5

Orderly 2.0C

20

Disorderly 2.0C

BiofuelsBaseline

10

1.5C-CO2_CN

40

Orderly 1.5C

15

Disorderly 1.5C

60

Orderly 2.0C

20

Disorderly 2.0C

80

Baseline

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Final energy consumption in industry (Japan)

e-methane (synthetic
methane)Natural gas

Oil products
Biomass
Coal
Electrification ratio(right axis)

 Coal uses remain for BF-BOF in the iron and steel sector in 2040.
 In 2050, coal is not used, and the uses of hydrogen, ammonia, and e-methane are observed in
the scenarios other than Orderly 2.0C.

Final energy consumption in iron & steel (Japan)
60

Electricity
Hydrogen50

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

81

e-methane (synthetic
methane)40

Natural gas
Biofuels30

e-fuels (synthetic oil)20
Oil products
Biomass

10

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 Coal is used in BF-BOF in 2040. Hydrogen use from other sectors (Super COURSE50) is also observed.
 In 2050, coal is not used and replaced with hydrogen-based DRI in other scenarios than Orderly 2.0C, inwhich total emission is predicted to be ▲69% relative to 2013. E-methane is used in scrap-based EAF.

Steel production by technology (Japan)

82

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

Crude steel production [Mt-Crudesteel/yr]

100

Scrap-based EAF, low efficiency
Hydrogen-based DRI

80

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
BF-BOF, low efficiency

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 By 2040, CCS will play an important role.
 In 2050, hydrogen-based DRI will play a main role in iron and steel production processes.
 Under the 1.5C-CO2_CN scenario, hydrogen use from other sectors in BF (e.g., SuperCOURSE50 like technologies) will be large.

CO2 intensity of iron and steel sector (Japan)

83

120- H2 input to blast furnace- CCUS(e.g., Super COURSE50)

CO2CO2排出原単位
emission intensity[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

100

80

60
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C
20

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN- H2-based DRI

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 In any scenarios, nearly zero emissions would be achieved in 2050 by CCUS and hydrogen input to BF
after 2030, and by a shift to hydrogen-based DRI after 2040. However, a part of emissions remains in 2050
in Orderly 2.0C.

1000

500

0

1.5C-CO2_CN

1500

Orderly 1.5C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

2000

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

2500

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

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

CO2 emissions in iron & steel sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
8420312050

2500
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Final energy consumption in cement (Japan)
4.5

Electricity

4

Ammonia

3.5

Final enerrgy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

85

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)3

Natural gas

2.5

Biofuels2

e-fuels (synthetic oil)1.5
Oil products
1
Biomass
0.5

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 A shift from coal to gas is cost-effective in 2030 except Orderly 2.0C.
 A further shift to gas is promoted toward 2040, and synthetic methane is evaluated to be costeffective around 2050 in the scenarios which assume CN in Japan.

Clinker production by technology in cement sector (Japan)
8660

Large size, best
available efficiency
Crinker production [Mt-Clinker/yr]

50

Large size, highefficiency w/ CCUS

40

Large size, highefficiency w/o CCUS

30

Large size, low-mid.
efficiency

20

Small size, best
available efficiency
Small size, highefficiency

10

Small size, low-mid.
efficiency

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

 CO2 capture in clinker production is not selected as a cost-effective measure in Japan in otherscenarios than 1.5C-CO2_CN. Some possible reasons are that CCS cost is relatively high in the
cement sector and that negative emission measures, such as DACCS, are prioritized due to theconstraint on overall CO2 storage potential.
 On the other hand, CO2 capture is also introduced in large size production facility in 1.5C-CO2_CN.

Energy-related CO2 intensity of cement sector (Japan)
120
100

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

80
60
40
20
Disorderly 2.0C0

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

Orderly 2.0C

-20

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

Disorderly 1.5C

-40

Orderly 1.5C

-60

1.5C-CO2_CN

-80
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

87

CO2 intensity of cement sector (Japan)

88

120

CO2 CO2排出原単位
emission intensity[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]10080- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift (from coal to gas)60
40

Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

20

Disorderly 1.5C

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

Orderly 1.5C

0
2015

2020
2025
1.5C-CO2_CN

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

-20
 In other scenarios than 1.5C-CO2_CN, emissions from processes still remain in 2050 as there is no
CCS deployment.
 In 1.5C-CO2_CN, CN is achieved by the introduction of synthetic methane+CCS.

300

250

200

150

100

0
400

1.5C-CO2_CN

350

Orderly 1.5C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

400

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

500

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

450

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

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

CO2 emissions in cement sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
8920312050

700

600

500
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

300

200

100

50

0

Final energy consumption in paper & pulp (Japan)
90
10Electricity

9

Ammonia8

HydrogenFinal energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

7

e-methane (synthetic
methane)6

Natural gas

5

Biofuels4
e-fuels (synthetic oil)3
Oil products
2
Biomass
1
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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050Note) Black liquor use is included in biofuels consumption.

A Shift from coal to gas, biomass and electricity are observed in 2030.
After 2040, a shift to blue ammonia produced overseas in Disorderly 2.0C/1.5C, which assumes relatively modest
constraints on CCS, and a shift to synthetic methane in Orderly 1.5C, in which ammonia production is difficult due torelatively strict constraints on CCS, are observed.

CO2 intensity of paper & pulp sector (Japan)

91120- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift (from coal to gas)

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

100

80

60
- Energy saving and efficiency improvement- Fuel shift (from coal to gas, syn. methane, ammonia)

40
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

20

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 A certain amount of emissions remains in Orderly 2.0C, where emissions reduction is modest.
 In other scenarios, zero emission is achieved in 2050 by the introduction of synthetic methane or ammonia.

100

80

60

40

0
100

1.5C-CO2_CN

120

Orderly 1.5C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

160

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

200

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

140

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO
累積CO
[MtCO
2] 2]

CO2 emissions in paper & pulp sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
9220312050

250

180

200

150

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

50

20

0

2015
2030
2040
2050

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Final energy consumption in ammonia productionsof chemical sector (Japan)

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4
Oil products

0.2
Biomass

Coal

0

93

Electricity

Ammonia

Hydrogene-methane (synthetic
methane)Natural gas

Biofuels

e-fuels (synthetic oil)

Final energy consumption in ethylene, propylene, and
BTX productions of chemical sector (Japan)
10Electricity

9

Ammonia8

Hydrogen7

e-methane (synthetic
methane)6

Natural gas

5

Biofuels4

e-fuels (synthetic oil)3

Oil products

2

Biomass

1

Coal

2015

2030

2040

Note) Only energy consumption for production is shown, and raw material is not included.

 The use of ammonia expands in 2040 and 2050.

2050

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C0Baseline

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

94

CO2 emissions in chemical sector (Japan)

95120- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel sift (from coal to gas) - Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel sift (use of ammonia)

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

100

80

60

- Energy saving andefficiency improvement- Fuel shift(Use of syn. methane, ammonia)

Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C
20

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 Emissions reduction is progressed by use of ammonia and synthetic methane and electrification.

100

50

0

1.5C-CO2_CN

150
200

Orderly 1.5C

200

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

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

300

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

250

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

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

CO2 emissions in chemical sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
9620312050

300

250

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

150

100

50

0

Final energy consumption in building (Japan)
120

97

90
Electricity
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
Biomass
20

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

0

30

Coal

20

Electrification ratio(right axis)

2050

 The improvement of electrification ratio is cost-effective as emissions reduction is stricter.
 In Orderly 2.0C, natural gas remains even in in 2050. It is replaced with synthetic methane in otherscenarios.

98

80

40

70

35

Hydrogen60

30

e-methane (synthetic
methane)Electricity

50

25

40

20

30

15

Electrification ratio [%]Natural gas
Biofuels
e-fuels (synthetic oil)Oil products
Biomass
20

10
Coal

2015

2030

2040

Electrification ratio(right axis)

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

0Disorderly 1.5C

0

Orderly 2.0C

5Disorderly 2.0C

10

Baseline

Final energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

Final energy consumption in transport (Japan)

2050

 Oil remains to some extent even in 2050 in the scenarios other than Orderly 1.5C.
 The uses of hydrogen and synthetic fuels, etc. are observed after around 2040 toward 2050.

Final energy consumption in road transport (Japan)
99

60

Electricity
50
HydrogenFinal energy consumption [Mtoe/yr]

40
Natural gas
30
Biofuels20
e-fuels(synthetic oil)10
Oil products

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

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

02050

Electricity notably increases from around 2040 in Orderly scenarios, which assume significant cost reduction in
renewables and EV.
Synthetic fuels are also used in 2050. Almost all passenger cars would be BEV, and synthetic fuels are used mainly
for trucks in Orderly 1.5C.

 For trucks, in Orderly scenarios,
most of them are internal
combustion trucks, while BEV
and FCEV are partly observed.
2015
2030
2040
2050

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

HEV

Disorderly 1.5C

20

Orderly 2.0C

PHEV

Disorderly 2.0C

40

Baseline

BEV

1.5C-CO2_CN

50

Orderly 1.5C

FCEV

Disorderly 1.5C

30

Orderly 2.0C

2050

1.5C-CO2_CN

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

1.5C-CO2_CN

70

Disorderly 2.0C

2040

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

60

Baseline

2030

Number of trucks owned [million vehicles]

2015

Disorderly 2.0C

Baseline

Number of passenger cars owned [million vehicles]

Number of vehicles owned (Japan)
100

Passenger cars
 In
Disorderly
scenarios,
PHEV is cost-effective.
 In Orderly scenarios, BEV
becomes cost-effective fromaround 2040, an FCEV can beobserved around in 2050.

10

ICEV

0

Trucks

8

7

6

FCEV

5

BEV

4

3

PHEV

2

HEV

1

0

ICEV

CO2 emissions in road transport (Japan)

101

120
- Fuel and electricity efficiency improvement- Introduction of HEV/PHEV/BEV

COCO2排出量
2 emissions[Y2015=100][Y2015=100]

100- Fuel and electricity efficiency improvement- Introduction of HEV/PHEV/BEV/FCEV- Use of syn. fuels and hydrogen

8060- Fuel and electricity efficiency
improvement- Introduction of HEV/PHEV/BEV/FCEV- Use of syn. fuels and hydrogen

Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C

40

Disorderly 1.5C
20

Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

0
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

 Continuous CO2 emissions reduction is expected due to the enlarged introduction of HEV/PHEV/BEV.
 The use of hydrogen and synthetic fuels is expected from around 2040.

1200

1000

800

600

400

200
200

0
0

1.5C-CO2_CN

The RM level by GoJ (2021)

Orderly 1.5C

1800

Disorderly 1.5C

20202030

Orderly 2.0C

1600

Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO
[MtCO
2] 2]
累積CO

2000

Disorderly 2.0C

1.5C-CO2_CN

1400

Orderly 1.5C

Disorderly 1.5C

Orderly 2.0C

Disorderly 2.0C

Cumulative
CO22排出量emissions
[MtCO
累積CO
[MtCO
2] 2]

CO2 emissions in road transport sector (Japan):comparison with the RM by GoJ
10220312050

1600

1400
The RM level by GoJ (2021)

1200

1000
800

600

400

3. The Scenarios Developed byUsing DNE21+ Model and theComparison with Other Scenarios

Comparison with global CO2 emission scenarios of IPCC104

DNE21+
Scenarios
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C
1.5C-CO2_CN

Source) DNE21+ scenarios are plotted on the figures of IPCC AR6 (2022).
Note) Boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentiles, while whiskers indicate
5th and 95th percentiles in IPCC scenarios.

The DNE21+ scenarios are almost consistent with thoseof IPCC, covering their ranges of upper and lower limits.
Some parts are slightly out of the range, probably due tothe assumption of DACCS.

Comparison with global CDR scenarios of IPCC105

DNE21+
Scenarios
Disorderly 2.0C
Orderly 2.0C
Disorderly 1.5C
Orderly 1.5C

Source) DNE21+ scenarios are plotted (only for 2050) on the figures of IPCC AR6 (2022).
Note) As for IPCC AR6, only the scenarios categorized as C1-C3 are shown.

1.5C-CO2_CN

The CO2 amounts for DACCS in Disorderly 1.5C are around at the upper most level of those in IPCC scenarios,
and the amounts for DACCS in other scenarios and for BECCS and Removal from AFOLU are around at the
middle of those in IPCC scenarios. (Slightly higher in DACCS while slightly lower in BECCS.) It can be said that
RITE scenarios are quite reasonable considering that not many models explicitly evaluate DACCS in IPCC AR6.

CO2 marginal abatement costs:
compared with IPCC and IEA

106

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+

IPCC(25-75 percentile, approx.)Note) The MAC having the ranges of
DNE21+ are differences across countries.

-

Disorderly 2.0C

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

Most of the carbon prices in the IPCC reports had been estimated under the equal MAC acrosscountries. The prices of DNE21+ scenarios are consistent with those of the IPCC report.
Most of the IPCC scenarios had not considered DACCS explicitly, while DNE21+ considers. Thanks
to DACCS, the carbon prices of DNE21+ for the C1 categories are sligly lower than those of the IPCC.

CO2 marginal abatement costs:
compared with NGFS107

DNE21+ scenarios in 2050
Disorderly 1.5C
(1.4C)

Disorderly 2.0C
(1.7C)

Orderly 1.5C
(1.4C)
1.5C-CO2_CN(approx. 1.5C)

Orderly 2.0C
(1.6C)

Note) the parentheses numbers are temperature rise in 2100

 Thanks to DACCS, the carbon prices
of DNE21+ for the 1.5C scenarios areslightly lower than those of NGFS
scenarios.
 Generally, the carbon prices (MAC)
are consistent with the NGFS’s.

4. Conclusion and Future Works

Conclusion and future works

109[Conclusion]









We developed five scenarios consistent with the 2℃ and 1.5℃ targets, which arecomparable with the NGFS and IEA scenarios to derive sector-specific measures,
including transitions to carbon neutrality, using the DNE21+ model that enables
quantitative and consistent analysis.
Emission pathways vary widely from sector to sector. They also vary widely dependingon the assumed scenario. In particular, there can be considerable differences
depending on the projection of CDR.
Among them, in relative terms, CO2 intensity reduction in the power sector is required
to be reduced relatively quickly (consistent with IPCC and IEA scenarios, etc.).
Japan's sectoral roadmap is generally consistent with the sectoral roadmap preparedby the Japanese government in 2021-22, although there are differences depending on
the scenario. In other words, the government roadmap is generally consistent with not
only 2℃ but also 1.5℃.
Taking cost-effective measures from among a wide range of countermeasure options
as much as possible will be a closer path to achieving CN at an earlier stage, and this
scenario analysis and roadmap will be effective for such a strategy.

[Future works]Continue to monitor technological trends, etc., and update as appropriate.
Prepare roadmaps for individual countries and regions other than Japan to contributeto the promotion of use in a wide range of countries.

Appendix 1:
The Model Assumptions

Examples of literature for DNE21+ model
111[Peer-reviewed papers]
K. Akimoto, F. Sano, T. Homma, J. Oda, M. Nagashima, M. Kii, Estimates of GHG emission reduction potential bycountry, sector, and cost, Energy Policy, 38-7 (2010) 3384–3393.
K. Akimoto, T. Homma, F. Sano, M. Nagashima, K. Tokushige, T. Tomoda, Assessment of the emission reduction targetof halving CO2 emissions by 2050: macro-factors analysis and model analysis under newly developed socioeconomic scenarios, Energy Strategy Reviews, 2(3-4) (2014) 246-256.
T. Nagata, F. Sano, K. Akimoto
Analyses on the Contribution of Natural Gas in the World and Japan as Medium- and Long-term Global WarmingCountermeasures, Journal of Japan Society of Energy and Resources 41-5 (2020).
F. Sano, T. Nagata, K.AkimotoRole of Hydrogen and Synthetic Methane under Long-term Scenarios toward Carbon Neutrality, Journal of Japan
Society of Energy and Resources 42-1 (2021).
K. Akimoto, F. Sano, J. Oda, H. Kanaboshi, Y. Nakano, Climate change mitigation measures for global net-zeroemissions and the roles of CO2 capture and utilization and direct air capture, Energy and Climate Change, 2, 100057(2021).
K. Akimoto, F. Sano, Y. Nakano, Assessment of comprehensive energy systems for achieving carbon neutrality in roadtransport, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 112, 103487 (2022).
K. Akimoto, Assessment of road transportation measures considering comprehensive energy systems under global netzero emissions, IATSS Research, IATSSR, 47-2 (2023) 196-203.
K. Akimoto, F. Sano, T. Homma, M. Nagashima, N. Onishi, Analysis of the 2030 emissions reduction targets of theprevious and current nationally determined contributions of Japan, and a comparison between countries using
energy-technology and energy-economic models, Asia-Pacific Sustainable Development Journal, 30-1 (2023).

[Others]
K. Akimoto, F. Sano "Scenario analysis towards achieving carbon neutrality in 2050 (interim report)",Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Strategic Policy Committee, May 13, 2021
https://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/committee/council/basic_policy_subcommittee/2021/043/043_005.pdf

Assumed socioeconomic scenarios (Overview)112

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSP1 to 5, are developed in response to a call from IPCC.
Among the quantitative scenarios developed by RITE in line with these SSPs storylines, thisstudy assumes SSP2 “middle of the road” scenario to deliver the analyses.

[World]
2030

2050

2100

Population (billion people)

8.36 (8.14-8.59)

9.21 (8.61-10.05)

9.31 (7.00-12.73)

GDP (%/year)

2.7 (2.4-3.1) [2010-]

2.2 (1.3-2.8) [2030-]

1.4 (0.6-2.2) [2050-]

Crude steel production (billion ton)

1.96 (1.88-2.00)

2.13 (1.93-2.27)

2.29 (1.47-2.65)

Cement production (billion ton)

4.16 (3.90-4.30)

4.40 (3.85-4.66)

4.47 (2.94-5.91)

Passenger transport demandin Road sector (trillion p-km)

30.2 (31.2-37.3)

60.0 (56.8-74.2)

83.3 (66.8-88.8)

2030

2050

2100

Population (billion people)

0.118 (0.116-0.126)

0.102 (0.096-0.122)

0.084 (0.047-0.105)

GDP (%/year)

1.6 (1.3-1.9) [2010-]

0.4 (-0.1-1.2) [2030-]

0.4 (-0.9-1.5) [2050-]

Crude steel production (billion ton)

0.09 (0.081-0.097)

0.095 (0.073-0.111)

0.085 (0.045-0.090)

Cement production (billion ton)

0.054 (0.050-0.068)

0.044 (0.031-0.075)

0.040 (0.023-0.065)

Passenger transport demandin Road sector (trillion p-km)

0.77 (0.69-0.85)

0.64 (0.61-0.82)

0.61 (0.51-0.70)[Japan]Note: The values in parentheses show the scenario ranges among SSP1-SSP5. Energy demands and electricity generation are
endogenously calculated in the model.

Assumptions on facility costs of power generation
Capital costs in2000 [US$/kW]

113
Capital costs in2018 [US$/kW]

Low efficiency (e.g., Conventional (sub-critical), currently used in developing countries)

1000

1458

Middle efficiency (e.g., mainly used in developed countries (super-critical) – Combined
power generation including Integrated Coal Gasification (IGCC) in the future)

1500

2187

High efficiency (e.g., mainly used in developed countries (super-critical) – Combined power
generation including IGCC and Integrated Coal Gasification Fuel cell Combined Cycle(IGFC) in the future)

1700

2479

Co-firing ratio: up to 5%

+85

+124

Co-firing ratio: up to 30%
Co-firing ratio: up to 20%+680+264-+132+992+385-+193

Co-firing ratio: up to 60%+271-+135+395-+197

Low efficiency (e.g., diesel)

250

365

Middle efficiency (sub-critical)

650

948

High efficiency (super-critical)

1100

1604

CHP

700

1021

Low efficiency (steam turbine)

300

437

Middle efficiency (combined cycle)

650

948

High efficiency (combined cycle with high temperature)

1100

1604

CHP

700

1021

+55

+80

Low efficiency (steam turbine)

2720–2400

3967–3500

High efficiency (combined cycle)

3740–3030

5454–4419

Nuclear power

2743

4000

IGCC/IGFC with CO2 Capture

2800–2050

4083–2989

Natural gas oxy-fuel power

1900–1400

2771–2042

Hydrogen power（FC/GT）

1160

1692

Ammonia power generation (single fuel firing)3040-1444

4433-2106

Electricity storage (e.g., pumping-up)

1000

1458

Note 1) The DNE21 + employs the 2000 price, which is the initial year of the model. The 2018 price shown is converted using the US GDP deflator.
Note 2) Facility costs are assumed to decrease over time within the range shown in the table.
Note 3) This figure is an assumed value for the United States, and is multiplied by the location factor depending on the country/region, and there is a slight difference(up to + 3% in Japan). The assumptions on renewable energy are shown in other slides.

Coal power

Co-firing of biomassin coal power(Additional cost to medium and high efficiency coal power
generation)

Co-firing of ammonia
in coal power(Additional cost to medium and high efficiency coal power
generation)

Oil power

Gas power

Co-firing of Naturalgas / hydrogen
Biomass power(Additional cost to medium and high efficiency natural gas power
generation)

Co-firing ratio: up to 20%

Assumptions on conversion efficiency for thermal power
114

Generating efficiency (%LHV)
Coal
power

Oil power

Gas power

Biomass
power

2010

2020

2030

2050

Low efficiency (e.g., Conventional (sub-critical), currently used indeveloping countries)

23.0

24.0

25.0

27.0

Middle efficiency (e.g., mainly used in developed countries (supercritical) – Combined power generation including Integrated Coal
Gasification (IGCC) in the future)

37.8

39.6

41.4

45.0

High efficiency (e.g., mainly used in developed countries (supercritical) – Combined power generation including IGCC and Integrated
Coal Gasification Fuel cell Combined Cycle (IGFC) in the future)

44.0

46.0

48.0

58.0

IGCC/IGFC with CO2 Capture

34.0

35.5

38.5

50.3

Low efficiency (e.g., diesel)

23.0

24.0

25.0

27.0

Middle efficiency (sub-critical)

38.6

40.2

41.8

45.0

High efficiency (super-critical)

52.0

54.0

56.0

60.0

CHP*1

39.0

41.0

43.0

47.0

Low efficiency (steam turbine)

27.2

28.4

29.6

32.0

Middle efficiency (combined cycle)

39.8

41.6

43.4

47.0

High efficiency (combined cycle with high temperature)

54.0

56.0

58.0

62.0

CHP*1

40.0

42.0

44.0

48.0

Natural gas oxy-fuel power

40.7

41.7

43.7

48.7

Low efficiency (steam turbine)

22.0

22.5

23.5

25.5

High efficiency (combined cycle)

38.0

40.0

42.0

46.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

62.0

Hydrogen power (GT/FC)*1 Exhaust heat recovery efficiency is assumed to be 5 to 20% that varies by region, considering supply and demand balance.

Assumptions on nuclear power generation cost
115

Facility cost ($/kW)
Year

Unit price of electricity($/MWh)2000 price2018 price2000 price2018 price

2020

2763

4029

75

110

2030

2779

4053

76

111

2050

2794

4075

78

114

2100

2824

4117

79

115

*1 The figures in the table are assumed values for Japan. For the rest of the world, location factors are multiplied,
resulting in slightly different assumptions.
*2 Since the base year of the model is 2000, the 2000 price is also shown; the conversion from the 2000 price tothe 2018 price is multiplied by 1.46 (based on CPI of U.S.).
*3 The unit prices of electricity shown in the table are converted using a capacity factor of 85%.

Assumptions on the costs and potentials of
solar PV and wind power
200

116

Solar PV: standard scenario

180

140

Solar PV: high cost reduction

120

200

100

180

80

160

60
40
20
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000
50000
60000
発電ポテンシャルPower Generation
Potential [TWh/yr]

発電コスト
Power Generation
Cost [$/MWh]

発電コストPower Generation
Cost [$/MWh]

160

140
120
100

7000080

80000

90000

60
40
20
0
0

10000

United States
⽶国Wind power: standard scenario
200

100000

20000

30000

Other North America
その他北⽶

China
中国

East and Middle East Asia
東・東南アジア

Other Africa
その他アフリカ

Brazil
ブラジル

180

70000

80000

90000

100000EU
EU

Other Western Europe
その他⻄欧

Australia and New Zealand
豪州・ニュージーランド

インド
India

Other Asia
その他アジア

Middle East and North Africa
中東・北アフリカ

Other Latin America
その他中南⽶Russiaロシア

Other Former Russia andその他旧ロシア・東欧
Eastern Europe

Wind power: high cost reduction

160
200

140
120

180

100

160

80
60
40
20
0
0

500

1000
1500
発電ポテンシャルPower Generation
Potential [TWh/yr]

Power Generation
Cost [$/MWh]
発電コスト

発電コスト
Power Generation
Cost [$/MWh]

40000
50000
60000
発電ポテンシャルPower Generation
Potential [TWh/yr]

140
120
100
80
60

2000

40

2500

20
0
0

500

1000
1500
発電ポテンシャルPower Generation
Potential [TWh/yr]

2000

2500

Assumptions on co-generation system (CGS)
Facility Cost ($/kW, Price in 2000)
2015

2030

Industry (equivalent to 5 MW)

1250

Business 1 (1-2 MW)

1875

Business 2 （0.5MW）

2500
15167

Household （PEFC/SOFC）

2050

3575

3575

Note) The listed price is the price in 2000. The US consumer price index is 1.46 in 2015 if year 2000 is 1.

Efficiency Assumption (LHV%)
Industry (equivalent to 5 MW)
Business 1 (1-2 MW)Business 2 （0.5MW）
Household （PEFC/SOFC）

2015

2030

2050

PGE
HRE
PGE

49.0
36.2
42.3

51.0
34.8
47.5

54.5
31.2
50.7

HRE

36.2

31.0

27.8

PGE
HRE
PGE
HRE

41.0
34.0
39.7
55.3

44.0
31.0
47.8
45.0

47.0
28.0
55.0
37.8

Note) PGE = Power Generation Efficiency, HRE=Heat Recovery Efficiency

117

Assumptions on CO2 capture technology

118

Capital costs (price in2000) ($/kW)

Generating efficiency(LHV%)

CO2 capture
ratio (%)

IGCC/IGFC with CO2 Capture*1

2800 – 2050

34.0 – 58.2

90 – 99

Natural gas oxy-fuel power*1

1900 – 1400

40.7 – 53.3

90 – 99

Capital costs (price in2000) (1000$/(tCO2/hr))

Required electricity(MWh/tCO2)

CO2 capture
ratio (%)

Post-combustion CO2 capture fromcoal-fired power plants*1

851 – 749

0.308 – 0.154

90

Post-combustion CO2 capture fromnatural gas-fired power plants*1

1309 – 1164

0.396 – 0.333

90

Post-combustion CO2 capture frombiomass-fired power plant*1

1964 – 1728

0.809 – 0.415

90

CO2 capture from gasification*1

62

0.218

90 – 95

CO2 capture from steelworks blast
furnace gas*1

386 - 319

0.171 – 0.15090Capital costs (price in2000) (1000$/(tCO2/hr))

Required fuels (GJ/tCO2)
Recovered electricity(MWh/tCO2)

CO2 capture
ratio (%)

2485 - 2246

4.87 – 3.66
0.199 – 0.150

90

CO2 capture from clinker
manufacturing*2*1 The range of values in the table indicates improvement from 2015 to 2100.
*2 It is assumed that the assumed values have a range shown in the table depending on the fuel type used in the kiln body, CO2 capture, andcompression equipment.
Note) It is 2000 price. The US consumer price index (CPI) in 2018 is 1.46 when the CPI in 2000 is 1.
Not only the CO2 capture technologies in the power sector, but also CO2 capture from fossil fuel gasification (in hydrogen production
processes), from blast furnace gas in steel making processes, and in clinker production processes, are explicitly modeled.

The assumptions on the costs and potentials of
CO2 geological storage
CO2 storage potentials (GtCO2)【References】
IPCC SRCCS (2005)(GtCO2)

Storage costs($/tCO2)*1

Japan

World

Depl. oil well (EOR)

0.0

112.4

Depl. gas well0.0

147.3 – 241.5

Deep saline aquifer

11.3

3140.1

103–104

5 – 85

Coalbed (ECBMR)

0.0

148.2

3–200

47 – 274*2

675–900

92 – 227*2
10 – 32

Note 1: It is assumed that the CO2 storage potentials of depl. gas well could be expanded to the upper limit in the table with the increase of future mining
volume.
Note 2: It is assumed that the storage costs could rise within the range in the table with the increase of accumulated storage amount.
*1 The costs for CO2 capture are not included. They are assumed separately.
*2 Oil and gas profits from enhanced oil recovery and enhanced methane recovery are not included in this figure, but they are assumed separately.

The constraint on CO2 storage expansion is assumed considering the difficulties such as limited
number of available drilling rigs, i.e., in Orderly scenario, the CCS is assumed available since 2026
onwards and CO2 storage growth is based on 0.004%/yr to gross domestic/regional CCS
implementation(maximum storage potential in 2050 in Japan’s case is 11MtCO2/yr). CCS is assumed
available since 2026 onwards for Disorderly and 1.5C-CO2-CN scenarios as well however, the storage
amount is assumed to grow by 0.01%/yr until 2030 and by 0.02%/yr onwards(maximum storage
potential in 2050 is 51Mt CO2 /yr in Japan’s case).

【CO2 transportation cost】
The CO2 transportation costs from the sources to the reservoirs are assumed separately as
1.36$/tCO2 (per 100km) and 300km for average transport distance in Japan’s case.
For large area countries which are disaggregated in the models (US, Russia, China and Australia),
the interregional CO2 transportation costs are estimated according to the transportation distance.
Cross-border CO2 transport is also assumed. Annual export ceiling of 91 Mt CO2 is set for Japan.

119Assumption for Direct Air Capture (DAC)120

 DAC is a technology to capture atmospheric CO2 at low level of about 400ppm, requiring moreamounts of energy than capturing exhaust gas emissions from fossil fuels combustion.
 On the other hand, DACCS (including CO2 storage) can achieve negative emissions.
 It is economical to deploy in area
Required energy (horizontal axis),
Land areas (color), Investments
close to CO2 storage and where(circle size) etc.
energy supply is available at low
cost such as low cost PV.

EW: Enhanced weathering
AR：Afforestation and reforestation

Smith et al. (2015)

Climeworks

Assumed energy consumption and facility costs of DAC in 2020 based on M. Fasihi et al., (2019):
This analyses adopt “Conservative” among 2 scenarios, “Base” and “Conservative”, by Fasihi et al.
Energy consumption （/tCO2）

High temperature (electrification)system (HT DAC)
Low temperature systems（LT DAC）: use of hydrogen or gas for heat

Facility costs（Euro/(tCO2/yr)）

2020

2050

2020

2050

Elec. (kWh)

1535

1316

815

222

Heat (GJ)

6.3 (=1750 kWh)

4.0

730

Elec. (kWh)

250

182

199

Assumption: Negative Emission Technologies（NETs）・Carbon Dioxide Removal（CDR）Technology121

 The implementation of BECCS and DACCS will be at a low level in the Orderly

scenario because imposing constraints on the expansion rate of CO2 storage(refer to page 119) is used.

 The maximum supply of commercial biomass is assumed to be 50EJ/yr in theOrderly scenario and the 1.5C-CO2-CN scenario, considering the impact onfood prices and biodiversity. BECCS implementation will be low in thesescenarios due to biomass utilization constraints.
 Since reproducing a scenario close to the IEA NZE scenario in 1.5C-CO2_CN,

significant constraints are imposed on negative emission technologies(NETs). It is assumed there will be no use of DACCS, biomass-only power
generation + CCS, and e-methane + CCS power generation, which is one of
the NETs, in 1.5C-CO2_CN. (Coal co-firing biomass power generation + CCS
is possible if there is a condition for establishing economic efficiency as atransition.).

Assumption for hydrogen production andenergy transport technologies

122

Hydrogen production technologies
Facility cost (US$/(toe/yr))

Conversion efficiency (%)

Coal gasification

1188 - 752

60%

Gas reforming

963 - 733

70%

Biomass gasification

1188 - 752

60%

Water electrolysis

2050 - 667

64 - 84%

Facility cost (US$/(toe/yr))

Electricity consumption (MWh/toe)Natural gas/Synthetic methane

226

0.36

Hydrogen

1563

1.98

Liquefaction technology

Transport cost
Facility cost

Variable cost*1

Electricity: $/kW
Other energy: US$/(toe/yr)
CO2：US$/(tCO2/yr)

Energy: US$/toe
CO2: US$/tCO2

283.3+1066.7L-

Pipeline*3

210.0L

5.0L

Tanker

69.5L

7.26+0.60L

Pipeline*3

99.4L

2.35L

Tanker

47.5L

1.77L

Pipeline*2

128.3L

3.5L

Tanker

35.1L

8.09+0.39L

Electricity*2
Hydrogen

CO2
Natural gas(The same applies tosynthetic methane.)

L: Distance between regions (1000km)*1 For ships, the distance-independent term assumes fuel costs. For pipelines, the distance-dependent terms assume fuel costs and compression power costs, respectively.
*2 For submarine transmission lines, fixed costs are assumed to be 10 times higher than the above.
*3 For submarine pipelines, fixed costs are assumed to be three times higher than above.

Modeling of e-methane (methanation)
域外 the Area
Outside域内the Area
InsideHydrogen
水素製造
production(by(副生水素、化石
producthydrogen,fossilfuel/biomass
燃料・バイオマス(+CCU), water(＋CCS)、水電解)

ﾃﾞｨｽﾄﾘﾋﾞｭｰｼｮﾝ



Recovered CO2 can beobtained from fossil fuel /biomass combustion
emissions or by DAC. The
most economical one isselected according theassumed scenarios.

Hydrogen
水素需要

ﾊﾟｲﾌﾟﾗｲﾝで
Export bypipeline
他地域に輸出Export by
ﾀﾝｶｰで
tanker
他地域に輸出ﾃﾞｨｽﾄﾘﾋﾞｭｰｼｮﾝ

Distribution

ﾃﾞｨｽﾄﾘDistriﾋﾞｭｰｼｮﾝ
butionHydrogen
水素需要
demandRegasification
再ガス化

CO
2排出
CO
2
emissions

Methanation
ﾒﾀﾈｰｼｮﾝ

(Sabatier(ｻﾊﾞﾃｨｴ反応)
reaction)

Hydrogen is not limited torenewable-based hydrogen(green hydrogen). The mosteconomical one is selectedaccording to the assumed
scenarios.

demandLique液化
factionRecovered
回収CO2
CO2 (DAC(化石燃料もしくfrom fossil
はバイオマス燃焼
fuel or
排出から、DAC)
biomassfunctionalemissions)

Distribution

electrolysis)

CO2emissions
CO2排出

Gas

ガス需要
demandMethanation

ﾒﾀﾈｰｼｮﾝ
(SOEC co-Export by
ﾊﾟｲﾌﾟﾗｲﾝで
pipeline
他地域に輸出(SOEC共電解)
electrolysis)

Electricity
電気

Lique液化
factionExport by
ﾀﾝｶｰで
tanker
他地域に輸出ﾃﾞｨｽﾄﾘﾋﾞｭｰｼｮﾝ

123

Distribution

Gas
ガス需要
demandRegasification
再ガス化Note) In this analysis in order toprovide incentives to use ofsynthetic fuels for the countries
that use the fuels, CO2
emissions are not recorded in the
countries that use them, but inthe countries that produce them.

Balance in Methanation（Assumption in 2050）
Sabatier
reaction

SOEC coelectrolysis

Hydrogen1.22 toe⇒CO2

2.33 tCO2

Electricity

15.7 MWh(=1.35 toe)CO2

2.33 tCO2

Methane⇒1 toe

Modeling of e-fuels (synthetic oil)124

 Hydrogen is not limited to renewable-based hydrogen (green hydrogen). The mosteconomical one is selected according to the assumed scenarios.
 Recovered CO2 can be obtained from fossil fuel / biomass combustion emissions or by DAC.
The most economical one is selected according the assumed scenarios.
Balance in synthetic oil generation in 2050
Hydrogen1.25 toeCO2

3.02 tCO2

Electricity

0.02 toe⇒

Synthetic
oil

1 toe
(Available
energy:0.71 toe)CO2 emission

Electricity
Export/Import

Gasolinesynthesis

CO2 emission

Electricity

Audi e-diesel

Hydrogen productionNote) In this analysis in order toprovide incentives to use ofsynthetic fuels for the countries
that use the fuels, CO2 emissions
are not recorded in the countries
that use them, but in the countries
that produce them.

Gasolinedemand(By-product hydrogen,
Fossil fuels/biomass (+CCS),
Water electrolysis)

Export/ImportLight oilsynthesis

Light oildemandCO2 emission

Electricity
Export/Import

Recovered CO2(From fossil fuel/biomass
combustion emissions or
by DAC)Jet fuel
synthesis

Jet fuel
demandModeling and assumption of H2-based DRI process

125 The fuel used for existing direct reduced iron (DRI) production is natural gas, etc. (see left Fig).
 H2-based DRI is a process that replaces fuel with hydrogen (see right Fig).
 DNE21+ assumes a set of integrated processes up to EAF and hot rolling in addition to the H2based DRI process [capital cost: 438.1$/(t-cs/yr), H2 consumption: 12.1GJ/t-cs, power
consumption: 695kWh/t-cs]
 In the H2-based DRI acceleration scenario, it is assumed that new construction will be possible
from 2041.

Example of gas-based DRI making process

Demonstration plant for H2-based DRI

https://www.midrex.com/
J. Kopfle et al. Millenium Steel 2007, p.19

https://www.kobelco.co.jp/releases/1201993_15541.html

Assumptions for vehicle: compact cars

126

Standard technology scenarios
2015

2020

2030

2050

1700

1700

1800

1850

2100

2090

2020

2010

Plug-in hybrid (gasoline)

2700

2480

2190

2100

Pure electric (BEV)

3110

3050

2650

2250

Fuel cell (FCEV)

5980

5140

3880

2440

Conventional internal
combustion engine
Hybrid (gasoline)

Unit: thousand JPY per vehicle

High cost reduction in EVs (rapid cost reductions in BEV and FCEV)(Battery costs: 10,000 JPY/kWh in 2030, 5,000 JPY/kWh in 2050)
2015

2020

2030

2050

1700

1700

1800

1850

2100

2080

2010

2010

Plug-in hybrid (gasoline)

2700

2440

2100

2050

Pure electric (BEV)

3110

2850

2100

2050

Fuel cell (FCEV)

5980

4120

2440

2050

Conventional internal
combustion engine
Hybrid (gasoline)

Unit: thousand JPY per vehicle

Assumptions for vehicle: large cars

127

Standard technology scenarios
2015

2020

2030

2050

Conventional internal
combustion engine

3700

3700

3800

3850

Hybrid (gasoline)

4180

4150

4040

4020

Plug-in hybrid (gasoline)

5210

4820

4290

4140

Pure electric (BEV)
Fuel cell (FCEV)

6220
10460

5500
9020

4900
6820

4300
4670

Unit: thousand JPY per vehicle

High cost reduction in EVs (rapid cost reductions in BEV and FCEV)(Battery costs: 10,000 JPY/kWh in 2030, 5,000 JPY/kWh in 2050)
2015

2020

2030

2050

Conventional internal
combustion engine

3700

3700

3800

3850

Hybrid (gasoline)

4180

4150

3920

3910

Plug-in hybrid (gasoline)

5210

4710

4040

3970

Pure electric (BEV)

6220

5200

4070

4000

Fuel cell (FCEV)

10460

7480

4670

4020

Unit: thousand JPY per vehicle

Appendix 2:Transition roadmap by sector
provided by the Government ofJapan (FY 2021, 2022)

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Power129

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Gas

130

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Oil

131

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Iron & Steel

132

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Cement

133

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Paper & Pulp

134

The roadmap by GoJ (2021 edition): Chemical

135

The roadmap by GoJ (2022 edition): Automobile

136