Decarbonizing the EU energy system by 2050: an important role for BECCS

Abstract

This article examines the implications for the EU’s energy system if an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions is to be achieved by 2050 against 1990 levels, using the European TIMES Model (ETM-UCL) to project a least-cost pathway that meets this CO₂ constraint (‘Policy Success’), along with milestone targets for 2020. A Reference scenario (no CO₂ constraints post-2020) was analysed to allow for comparison. The key conclusions are as follows: (a) the achievement of negative emissions in the power sector via the use of biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) allows for much more limited decarbonization in the buildings and transport sectors; (b) CCS is also extensively used for decarbonization of the industrial sector; (c) because of the absence in the model of options for transport mode-switching and building fabric efficiency improvements, the transport and buildings sectors achieve relatively little abatement by 2050 – the inclusion of these options could considerably reduce the need for BECCS and the cost of abatement; (d) decarbonization of the EU’s energy system by 2050 would increase energy system costs by 14% compared to a Reference scenario with no CO₂ constraints; and (e) average EU-wide marginal CO₂ abatement costs in Policy Success reach $300/tCO₂ in 2050. Such a value is within the (wide) range of marginal carbon prices produced by comparable scenarios in other studies.

Policy relevance

The EU has set itself a target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, against 1990 levels. This will require a reduction of at least 80% in CO₂ emissions from the energy system. This article, using results from the European TIMES Model (ETM-UCL), demonstrates that in the absence of significant decarbonization in the buildings and road transport sectors, substantial negative emissions in the power sector must be achieved, through as-yet unproven technologies (involving BECCS) . Therefore, a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions across all energy-using sectors is required if this outcome is to be avoided. In addition, this article adds further evidence to the notion that substantial decarbonization of the EU’s energy system may be achieved through a relatively small additional investment above that required anyway.

Keywords:

• carbon capture and storage
• energy scenarios
• energy systems
• mitigation scenarios
• sectoral emissions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Paul Drummond http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6921-0474

Notes

1. See Solano and Drummond (2014) for a description and results of alternative Policy Success scenarios.

2. Actual values used in the model are calculated by Cambridge Econometrics for the E3ME model, and vary by region. However, these values aggregate to match those presented in Table 2.

3. ‘Industry’ is disaggregated in the model to Chemicals, Iron & Steel, Non-Ferrous Metals, Pulp & Paper, and ‘Other’ Industry.

4. Based on a 1.74% Linear Reduction factor, and scaled down to account for the removal of Norway and Iceland from the study. Permit ‘banking’ and ‘borrowing’ provisions are not considered.

5. Excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Indirect Land Use Change, international aviation, and shipping emissions.

6. The ESD establishes binding annual GHG emission caps for each Member State between 2013 and 2020 covering all non-EU ETS sectors. For more information on the ESD and the cap levels set, see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/index_en.htm

7. In the Reference scenario, import prices for different biomass products are $5–10/PJ in 2010, remaining static over time. In the Policy Success scenario, these prices approximately double by 2050, reflecting their greatly increased use.

8. The 3.5% value generally represents the upper end of possible annual reduction rates produced by the literature (Den Elzen, van Vuuren, & van Vilet, 2010), whilst the increase to 8% maintains the ability for the model to produce a solution.

9. Imports of biomass to the EU increases from around 0.5EJ to 3EJ between 2010 and 2050, despite increasing import prices. In the Reference Scenario, biomass imports reduce to zero after 2020. Biomass potentials in the EU are set by region based on a review of the literature, and particularly the AEBIOM 2012 Annual Statistical Report on the Contribution of Biomass to the Energy System in the EU27.

10. Investment costs for different fossil fuel CCS technologies are initially set at $1250–$2300/GW, with fixed operating costs (FOC) set at $50–92/GW, and variable operating costs (VOC) set at $0.3–1.6/GW. Investment costs for different BECCS technologies are set at $1700–2500/GW, with FOC of $60–77/GW and VOC of $2–3/GW.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Commission, under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research [grant number 308680].