# Renewables and Advanced Storage in Power Systems: The Iberian Case
## 4 Study Case: The Iberian System in 2030 According to the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs)
### Consumption and Cost Data
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**2019**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**2030 (According to the NECP)**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Spain**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Portugal**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Spain**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Portugal**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Type} & Installed & Gross & Installed & Gross & Installed & Gross & Installed & Gross \\  & Capacity & Generation & Capacity & Generation & Capacity & Generation & Capacity & Generation \\  & (GW) & (TWh) & (GW) & (TWh) & (GW) & (TWh) & (GW) & (TWh) \\ \hline Combustion & \multirow{2}{*}{46.5} & \multirow{2}{*}{126.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{34.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{24.56} & \multirow{2}{*}{27.61} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.30} & \multirow{2}{*}{14.2} \\ fuels & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Nuclear & 7.1 & 58.0 & - & - & 3.05 & 22.03 & - & - \\ \hline Hydro (*) & 20.1 & \multirow{3}{*}{90.7} & \multirow{3}{*}{24.3} & \multirow{3}{*}{48.55} & \multirow{3}{*}{109.46} & \multirow{3}{*}{9.3} & \multirow{3}{*}{50.7} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6} Wind & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-6} Solar PV & 7.0 & & 0.6 & & 38.40 & 65.18 & 9.0 & \\ \hline Batteries & 0 & \multicolumn{6}{c}{0} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (*) Including pumping hydro.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Generation mix in the Iberian Peninsula - Data from References [33; 34; 35]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Technology** & **Installed Power (MW)** & **Capacity Factor (\%)** \\ \hline Hydro plants & 21,650 & _7.47_ \\ \hline Biomass and others & 2330 & _79.76_ \\ \hline CPS & 7600 & 30.94 \\ \hline Pumping hydro & 10,940 & - \\ \hline Generated energy in 2030: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{367.01 TWh} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Additional technical data - Data from References [33; 34; 35]. capacity that must be recovered each year to pay up the investment and fixed O&M costs over the lifetime of the facility with a given discount rate. The chosen discount rate is 7%. Variable costs include a CO\({}_{2}\) price of 35 \(\upepsilon\)/tCO\({}_{2}\), as in the IMF assessment [41] of fossil fuel externalities. Data are shown in Table 3. The economic lifetime of batteries is lower than the predictable technology cycle life, which depends on the number of charging cycles. As will be shown below, the average depth of discharge of the batteries is approximately 20%, and according to [6], this allows for a longer technological life of the battery than the considered economic lifetime. The optimization problem was run for a renewable share of 80% of the total generation. Following the guidelines of the Spanish TSO, a minimum amount of 5.5 GW of thermal or hydro plants must always be connected for ancillary services and security reasons. A ramp constraint of 40% of the installed power for the combined cycle and 80% for the open-cycle plants was considered. Even if a combined cycle plant can give its full power in 1 h [40], it is not possible to switch on more than a given number of plants at a given time. This ramp is consistent with actual practice on the Iberian Peninsula.