## 3 Results and Discussion  
Figure 1 demonstrates the contributions of various generators against the IC1 import price and CO\({}_{2}\) tax in 2030. In the case of a CO\({}_{2}\) tax being \(\E 50/\text{ton}\), the share of the generators in power production would be CHPs 21.7%, that of wind farms would be 21.7%, that of solar PVs would be 7.7%, that of hydropower plants would be 1.4%, that of nuclear plants would be 18.1%, and that of CCS-equipped coal power plants would be 2.9%. Increasing the IC1 import price would not affect the power outputs of the above-mentioned technologies. The contribution of CCS-equipped CCGT power plants would be 1.1% if the IC1 price is lower than \(\E 40/\text{MWh}\), or 2.5% for higher IC1 prices. The biomass-fired power plants will produce about 0.5% of the power at IC1 prices greater than \(\E 60/\text{MWh}\). IC2 would provide 3.4-5% of electricity, and the electricity importing via the IC1 would drop from about 17.3% to 0.2% as the IC1 price increases. Raising the CO\({}_{2}\) tax from 50 to \(\E 60/\text{ton}\) had a negligible effect on the contributions of CHPs, wind farms, solar power, hydropower, nuclear power plants, biomass-fired power plants (when the IC1 price < \(\E 60/\text{MWh}\)), and the IC1 (when the IC1 import price > \(\E 40/\text{MWh}\)). As the CO\({}_{2}\) tax increases from 60 to \(\E 70/\text{ton}\), the power delivered by CCGT power plants will face a 75% reduction. Moreover, increasing the CO\({}_{2}\) tax from 60 to \(\E 70/\text{ton}\) will result in 19-times growth of power import via IC1. CHP units, wind farms, and nuclear plants will produce nearly 61% of the power in 2030, because the contribution of generators in power production will depend on their marginal cost, seasonal availability, and the installed capacity. In all scenarios, the total amount of wind curtailment was nearly 4.3 TWh. The over-demand wind generation can be stored for a long time in different forms [27; 28; 29; 30]. Energy storage in large volumes can be achieved by the conversion of renewable energy to hydrogen and then CO\({}_{2}\) hydrogenation to synthesize gas and/or chemicals [31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39]. Figure 2 illustrates the capacity factor of the generators versus CO\({}_{2}\) tax and IC1 import price in 2030. The capacity factor is the averaged generated power divided by the installed generator capacity. Nuclear power plants have the highest capacity factor (ca. 74%). This is due to the fact that this technology is the base-load technology with a low marginal cost. For the case that of the CO\({}_{2}\) tax being \(\E 50/\text{ton}\), the capacity factors of solar PVs, wind farms, and CCS-equipped coal plants will be nearly 15.28%, 21%, and about 66%, respectively. The variations in capacity factors of biomass-fired and nuclear plants are ca. 0.04-2.52% and 74.20-74.25%. The capacity factor of hydropower plants is 64.45%, and for CCGT plants it fluctuates between 8% and 30.96%. The capacity factor of abated CCGT power plants goes from 26.67% to 60.83% as the IC1 importing increases (theoretically). For IC1, the capacity factor tends to decline as the IC1 import price rises. Furthermore, the fluctuations of the IC2 capacity factor lie within 59.56% and ca. 70%. Figure 1: _Cont._  
If the CO\({}_{2}\) tax changes from 50 to \(\varepsilon\)60/ton, the capacity factor of unabated CCGTs and CCS-equipped coal power plants will drop. This owes to the fact that increasing CO\({}_{2}\) tax increases the marginal costs of these technologies. The IC2 capacity factor tends to decline when the IC1 price is below \(\varepsilon\)40/MWh. For the cases with CO\({}_{2}\) tax of \(\varepsilon\)70/ton, the reduction in the capacity factor of CCGTs at IC1 price of \(\varepsilon\)60/MWh was 74.76%, whereas at other IC1 import prices, the capacity factor reduction was less than 1%. Moreover, the IC1 capacity factor at the IC1 price of \(\varepsilon\)60/MWh was more than 19-fold that in the case with a CO\({}_{2}\) tax of \(\varepsilon\)60/ton.