powerswitch! – from coal to clean

8/14/2019 PowerSwitch! From Coal to Clean

1/27

PowerSwitch! From Coal to Clean

Background analysis for Germany

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)

Regine Gnther

Jennifer Morgan

Dr. Stephan Singer

Scientific advisor:

Dr. Felix Christian Matthes

Berlin, May 2003


2/27


3/27

3

1 Introduction

In this background analysis, the requirements of the PowerSwitch! Programmeare submitted to quantitative analysis. It is examined how these varied de-

mands (see below) correspond with different development paths of the power

sector, and also which costs are to be expected.

The analysis relates to the power sector as a whole, in terms of the German

energy balance. Thus determined, the power sector encompasses public sup-

ply (power supply industry) and all other power plants including industrial instal-

lations1. The results of such an analysis cannot be applied in every detail to

public power supply or to individual companies, because demarcations as well

as the structure of the respective power plants can vary widely.

With the PowerSwitch Programme five different starting points for the develop-

ment of a sustainable power supply system are investigated:

The reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power generation by

50 per cent by the year 2030 (base year 1990) as part of an overall 80 per

cent reduction by the year 2050.

A share of 25 to 30 per cent for power generation from new renewable en-

ergy sources

2

by the year 2030 (at least 20% by 2020).

A 20 to 25 per cent improvement in the energy efficiency of fossil-based

power generation in the period to 2020/2030.

Renunciation of further investment in hard-coal and lignite (brown coal)

power plants.

Ambitious measures in the area of energy efficiency and savings in the use

of energy.

1In the year 2000, the share of public power supply in total power generation amounted to about 90%.However, the share of individual energy sources varied considerably. Whereas power generation inlignite (brown coal), nuclear and hydroelectric power plants has to be assigned almost completely topublic supply, the share in total power generation of gas (62%), oil (45%) and other fuels (50%) issubstantially lower. A particular situation arises with respect to power generation from hard coal. Pub-lic supply accounts for approximately 89% of total power generation from hard coal; the remainingshare is achieved largely in hard-coal mining, which is therefore part of the power industry.

2For the purpose of this analysis, new renewable energy sources for power generation comprise wind

power and biomass.


4/27

4

The attainability and effects of these five indicators are separately analysed in

the form of scenarios.

The analysis is limited to the period to 2030. Up to this point in time available

options in the area of power generation, despite uncertainties in detail, appear

to be relatively easy to assess. The next two decades will decide whether and

to what extent additional options can acquire long-term significance for power

generation. The decisive questions, as seen at present, are:

Which role can solar hydrogen play in power supply?

To what extent will imports of power be possible, which are generated from

renewable energy sources in distant regions with more favourable climaticor geographic conditions (Mediterranean area, North Africa, Russia)?

Will the technology for CO2 separation from fuels or power plant flue gases

and storage in geological formations prove to be a feasible and acceptable

option?

These technologies can possibly play an important role in the achievement of

further CO2 reduction targets. So far as necessary initial steps in the next two or

three decades are concerned, however, it is most unlikely that they will make a

significant contribution.


5/27

5

2 The methodical framework

The investigation is conducted on the basis of scenario analysis. A referencescenario is compared with four other scenarios, each with different characteris-

tics, enabling comparisons to be made of emissions, use of energy resources

and costs.

All cost analyses are based on the concept of comparison of additional costs.

The cost structures of each scenario are compared with those of the reference

scenario and, in this way, differences in costs are deduced. With such an ap-

proach, existing power plants do not have to be assessed as to their costs,

since costs differences do not arise. New plants are only brought into operation

when this is made necessary or possible by the shutdown of existing powerplants at the end of their service life. Premature shutdown of plants and

changes in the fuel used in existing plants are not considered. The order of clo-

sure of existing plants does not vary between different scenarios.

Capital investment (including imputed interest and an investor's internal re-

sources), fixed operating costs and variable operating and fuel costs are exam-

ined with respect to different power generating technologies.

For the assessment of costs, the approach employed is based on an individual

investor's perspective. To distinguish this approach from other models, whereanalysis is directed at the entire economy, reference has to be made above all

to three points:

Interest rate requirements for investments are based on private-sector yield

expectations. An interest rate of 10% (adjusted for inflation) is assumed as

reference value; in one model a lower rate of 6% is set3.

Depreciation of capital employed is carried out over a period of time that is

orientated towards depreciation for tax purposes, and ranges from 10 years

(wind power plants) to 30 years (hydroelectric power plants)4.

With fuel costs, taxes (and tax exemptions) are considered in full5.

3Energy system models that are orientated towards entire economies normally assume interest ratesof 3 to 5 per cent.

4In other energy-system models, investments are written off over the technical lives of the respectiveplants.

5

Taxes and subsidies as societal transfers are not accounted for in many energy-system models.


6/27

6

For the purpose of illustration, respective additional costs are shown per capita.

Because, in certain scenarios, options for a reduction in power consumption areincluded in the analysis, and because, within the scope of the current investiga-

tion, (complex) interaction with end-user sectors (private households, industry,

trade and services, traffic) could not be taken into consideration, measures for

power savings were accounted for with a flat-rate cost estimate.

It is assumed in all scenarios that the share of power imports and exports does

not change, but remains frozen at the current level.

Finally, in each of the cost analyses a variant is presented by which CO2 emis-

sions are monetarized through a CO2 tax or a CO2 allowance. This shouldmake clear that measures for climate protection not only involve costs, but also

by way of avoidance of the cost of harmful effects returns (even if these are

difficult to monetarize, and then only with pragmatic approaches).


7/27

7

3 Basic data

A major factor influencing the modelling of German power plants as a whole isthe necessity for the replacement of capacities in the course of time. The re-

placement of power plants can become necessary when plants have reached

the end of their technical lives, or when their operation is restricted on account

of the setting of a political framework (withdrawal from nuclear power).

Illustration 1 shows the possible order of shutdown of presently-operated power

plants, which is determined by three different processes:

A large number of conventional power plants will reach the end of their use-

ful lives in the next three decades. Though a number of uncertainties exist,it can be assumed that the main component groups of plants can no longer

be operated after a service life of 35 to 40 years. Even when service life

can be prolonged through intermediate repair and remediation, this only

postpones shutdown for a maximum of 10 to 15 years.

The use of nuclear power in Germany will be brought to an end on the ba-

sis of laid down remaining operating life. Even when a certain flexibility has

been created through the transfer of total remaining power, the use of nu-

clear power will be ended in Germany between 2020 and 20306.

Replacement measures can also be expected in the case of plants built in

recent times. This primarily concerns the repowering of existing wind power

sites, by which small installations are replaced with modern converters, and

will affect a lot of onshore wind power plants after 2010.

Apart from power plant shutdowns due to liberalization this concerns reduc-

tions in over-capacity amounting to approximately 10,000 MW a replacement

need of 50,000 to 70,000 MW can be expected. Even if the period of time is

longer, on the basis of general trends and options as well as development pat-

terns, fundamental changes are not to be expected.

6Transfers of total remaining power between nuclear power plants from Obrigheim to Philippsburg 1and from Mlheim-Krlich to other RWE nuclear power plants were taken into account in the analy-

ses.


8/27

8

Illustration 1 Development of existing power plants, related to service life

and shutdown, by fuels

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

GW

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Natural gas

OilLignite

Hard coal

Nuclear

Replacement

demand

So far as capital investment is concerned, recourse was made to the detailedanalyses of the Study Commission of the German Bundestag on "Sustainable

energy in the framework of globalization and liberalization. The following op-

tions were considered for the construction of new power plants:

Hard-coal condensing power plants

Lignite (brown-coal) condensing power plants

Gas condensing power plants, thermal and CHP

On- and offshore wind power plants

Biomass condensing power plants, thermal and CHP

Run-of-river, reservoir and pumped storage power plants

All other possibilities for new power plants are likely to play only a minor role in

the period under consideration.

The particular parameters taken into consideration for the power plants men-

tioned are presented in the Appendix (Table 1).


9/27

9

Illustration 2 Costs of importing and producing different fuels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

/GJ(LHV)

Crude oil Scenario 1

Crude oil Scenario 2

Hard coal Scenario 1

Hard coal Scenario 2

Natural Gas Scenario 1

Natural Gas Scenario 2

Lignite Scenario 1

Lignite Scenario 2Biomass Scenario 1

Biomass Scenario 2

Fuel costs play an important role. Fuel prices were determined for different cir-

cumstances on the basis of import and production costs. In doing so, not onlywere transport and feed-in costs estimated (on the basis of expected trends, in

transmission fees for example), but also different tax rates (on the basis of cur-

rently prevailing regulations, for nuclear power plants for example).

Two different projections for each fuel were made for sensitivity analyses. The

starting point (Scenario 1) is the fuel price projections of the Study Commission

of the German Bundestag on "Sustainable energy in the framework of global-

ization and liberalization. Here, more or less pronounced price increases are

expected for all energy sources7. For sensitivity analyses the possibility was

also taken into account with Scenario 2, however, that fuel prices could levelout at around the level of the average from 1990 to 2002, and that no further

marked price increases would occur.

With this range of assumptions on price development, sufficiently robust results

can be expected with respect to sensitivity regarding fuel price developments.

7For the projection of biomass prices, the development was in each case tracked with an appropriate

dynamic.


10/27

10

4 Scenarios in detail

4.1 Reference Scenario

The Reference Scenario presents those developments that could ensue on the

basis of expected general trends (energy prices, capital investment etc.) and

implemented policies. The political framework includes

withdrawal from nuclear power;

Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz - EEG);

special provision for offshore wind power until 2006;

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Act (Kraft-Wrme-Kopplungs- (KWK-)

Gesetz); and

special provisions (tax exemption for natural gas) for CHP and highly-

efficient combined gas- and steam-turbine power plants within the scope of

ecological tax reform.

The demand for power grows in this scenario as an extrapolation of current

trends by about 0.5% annually, so that there is a total growth in power de-

mand and thus in power production of about 16% for the period 2000 to2030. This corresponds to a net production of approximately 86 billion kilowatt

hours (terawatt hours) of electrical output.

Against this background, the following cornerstones can be derived for refer-

ence development8:

The replacement of base-load and intermediate-load capacities due to expi-

ration of service life and withdrawal from nuclear power occurs primarily

with lignite and hardcoal power plants9, with new hard-coal power plants

(fired with imported hard coal) being increasingly used in base-load genera-tion. The net output of hard-coal power plants increases from the current

8This scenario is based with certain exceptions (renewable energy, nuclear energy) on the refer-ence scenario of the Study Commission of the German Bundestag on "Sustainable energy in theframework of globalization and liberalization.

9Whereas the share of power generation from hard coal results as a whole from the economic andenergy policy framework, combined with investor appraisal, the share of domestichard coal in totalpower generation from hard coal results in view of current and future non-competitive costs of Ger-man hard-coal extraction solely from available subsidies. These subsidies will probably be further

reduced, so that the share of German hard coal in power generation will correspondingly decline.


11/27

11

level of about 27,000 MW to about 45,000 MW in the year 2030. Against

the background of expected power plant shutdowns, this represents a con-

struction volume of about 38,000 MW during the next three decades. The

total net output of lignite power plants increases from about 20,000 MW to

24,000 MW. This represents a construction volume of about 15,000 MW,

which will be largely realized in the "old" Federal States of the former West

Germany (about 10 blocks with supercritical steam conditions). The lignite

power plant blocks in the Lausitz area [in the former East Germany], which

were upgraded in the 1990s, will be replaced by new installations towards

the end of the period under consideration.

Gas-fired generating capacity declines from about 21,000 MW to 16,000

MW, primarily as a result of shutdowns. New plants will be built only withinthe framework of the CHP Act and special measures of ecological tax re-

form. The total construction volume amounts to about 15,000 MW in the

period to 2030.

The development of wind powerremains dynamic, at least in the onshore

area. Repowering gains considerably in importance after 2010; offshore

development remains restricted to the initial installations (about 1,700 MW).

In 2015, the total installed capacity of wind power plants will reach about

22,000 MW, after which net output will remain stagnant.

The installed net output of biomass plantsincreases from about 500 MW to

3,000 MW in the year 2030. The bulk of biomass plants will, however, be

operated as wood burning plants without CHP, primarily for logistical rea-

sons relating to the supply of fuel.


12/27

12

Illustration 3 Net power generation in the Reference Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Oil

Natural gas

LigniteHard coal

Nuclear

In summary, this scenario can be characterized as a coal-focused develop-

ment. Despite strong growth in wind power, the share of coal-fired generationincreases to up to 75%.

4.2 Scenario Renewables-Coal

In the Scenario Renewables-Coal, increased expansion of renewable energy

sources is assumed with otherwise unchanged general conditions, as well as

further political measures for greater support of renewable energy and also

greater involvement on the part of energy supply companies and network op-erators. The following marked trends occur:

Additional to the unchanged onshore-use of wind power, there is a massive

expansion of offshore wind power generation. Altogether, about 27,000 MW

offshore wind power capacity will be installed by the year 2030, resulting in

a total wind power capacity of around 48,000 MW.

The use of biomass for power generation is greatly expanded, with a total

installed capacity of approximately 6,000 MW at the end of 2030, around

half of it in combined heat and power.


13/27

13

The expansion of renewable energy is compensated for solely in coal-fired

generation. The installed capacity of lignite power plants amounts to around

18,000 MW at the end of 2030 (Reference Scenario: 24,000 MW), and the

net output of hard-coal power plants is only 36,000 MW (Reference Sce-

nario: 45,000 MW). The construction volume thus decreases to 9,000 MW

for lignite and 29,000 MW for (imported) hard coal.

Illustration 4 Net power generation in the Scenario Renewables-Coal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Oil

Natural gas

Lignite

Hard coal

Nuclear

The contributions of all other energy sources to generally unchanged total

power generation remain constant.


14/27

14

4.3 Scenario Renewables-Gas

For the Scenario Renewables-Gas, a model was made of the demand for a halt

to all construction of new lignite and hard-coal power plants. As far as wind

power and biomass are concerned, developments were taken unchanged from

the Scenario Renewables-Coal.

Illustration 5 Net power generation in the Scenario Renewables-Gas

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Oil

Natural gas

Lignite

Hard coal

Nuclear

In view of the large share represented by coal, with the renunciation of new in-

vestment in coal there remains only massive investment in gas-based powergeneration. For this scenario, 70,000 MW has to be installed in new gas power

plants between 2005 and 2030. A large part of this new capacity will be in-

stalled in CHP plants, and CHP potential in Germany will then be largely ex-

hausted. In addition, gas power plants have to be utilized to a considerable ex-

tent in base-load production.

Coal-based generation is confined at the end of the period under consideration

to recently constructed lignite power plants in what was formerly East Germany,

as well as one block with supercritical steam conditions in the Rhineland area

and the remainder of the more recent hard-coal power plants. The share of


15/27

15

coal-based generation in total power generation amounts to a mere 18% in

2030.

Reference has also to be made in this scenario to the fact, that around half of

the highly ambitious expansion of wind power is offset by the growing demand

for electricity.

With such an expansion of gas-based generation, the demand for natural gas

increases strongly. Gas demand for power generation increases from 357 PJ in

2000 to about 2,400 PJ in 2030. Compared with total demand for natural gas in

2001, this represents an increase of about 60% in just 30 years; that is, around

1.6% annually. By comparison: from 1990 to 2001 natural-gas consumption in

Germany rose by approximately 35% (with variation limits of growth rates of 4.5 to + 11 per cent; on average 3.0%).

Though additional gas demand for this scenario is considerable, comparison

shows that an inconceivable or also with regard to price unmanageable

magnitude is by no means reached.

4.4 Scenario Renewables-Gas/Stabilization

All previously described scenarios are based on unchanged demand for power.

In the Scenario Renewables-Gas/Stabilization, it is assumed that power de-

mand is stabilized with effect from 2005.

Compared with the Reference Scenario, the result is a reduction in net power

generation in 2030 of about 11%, corresponding to almost 72 TWh. Lower de-

mand for power will be offset above all by a reduced need for additional gas

power plants.

The outcome will be a need for construction of about 55,000 MW from 2005.

Most of the plants will also in this case be built in the CHP sector. Demand for

gas from these power plants will amount to 1,800 PJ: corresponding, with anotherwise unchanged level of consumption, to an increase in German gas de-

mand of about 45%, which represents an annual growth rate of about 1.3%

over three decades.


16/27

16

Illustration 6 Net power generation in the Scenario Renewables-

Gas/Stabilization

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Oil

Natural gasLignite

Hard coal

Nuclear

Reference

4.5 Scenario Renewables-Gas/Savings

The Scenario Renewables-Gas/Savings continues the approach of the Sce-

nario Renewables-Gas/Stabilization.

In this case, it is assumed that power consumption and thus power production

is reduced by 0.5% annually from 2005 to 2030. The outcome is a reduction

in power generation in 2030, compared to the Reference Scenario, of around

22%, corresponding to generation of almost 140 TWh. Compared with the start-

ing position in the year 2000, the result is a reduction in power generation of

about 54 TWh (-10%).

Reduced power demand will once again be offset by the construction of fewer

gas power plants. Construction demand in the period 2005 to 2030 still

amounts to about 40,000 MW. Gas input for power generation increases in this

scenario only by about 1,000 PJ. Compared with total gas consumption in

2001, this represents an increase of 28% over nearly 30 years. This increase

corresponds to an annual rate of increase of 0.8%, and lies well below growth

rates of recent decades.


17/27

17

Illustration 7 Net power generation in the Scenario Renewables-

Gas/Savings

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TWh

Other

Biomass

Wind

Hydro

Oil

Natural gas

Lignite

Hard coal

Nuclear

Reference


18/27

18

5 Results and sensitivity analyses

5.1 CO2 emissions and power generation efficiency

Detailed data on the different scenarios are presented in the Appendix (Tables

2 to 6).

Illustration 8 CO2emissions in different scenarios

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

MilliontCO2

Reference

Renewables & coal

Renewables & gas

Renewables & gas with stabilized consumption

Renewables & gas with savings

The result of scenario analysis is first of all a considerable spread of CO2 emis-

sions. Whereas in the Reference Scenario the level of 1990 is exceeded in the

period 2015 to 2020, all other scenarios arrive at stable emission reductions:

Exclusive orientation towards renewable energy, in the case of a power

generating sector that is otherwise orientated towards coal (Scenario Re-

newables-Coal) results in a reduction in CO2 emissions of 12% compared

with 1990.

Scenarios orientated towards gas arrive at emission reductions, compared

with 1990, of 32% (Scenario Renewables-Gas), 41% (Scenario Renew-

ables-Gas/Stabilization) and 50% (Scenario Renewables-Gas/Savings); the

targeted 50% reduction only being achieved with scenarios that assume ef-

forts towards power savings (Scenarios Renewables- Gas/Stabilizationand

Renewables-Gas/Savings).


19/27

19

There is an interesting development with respect to the conversion efficiency of

fossil power plants. In the Reference Scenario, improvement in specific energy

consumption per kilowatt already achieved a value of 28% in the period from

1990 to 2030. In other scenarios, this value changes only insignificantly. This is

to be explained above all by the extensive replacement of power plants. In the

case of analysis over long periods of time, the validity of this indicator therefore

diminishes. Limited possibilities to improve energy efficiency in power produc-

tion only arise through the transition to combined heat and power.

5.2 Costs

Comparison of the costs of the scenarios is based on additional cost analysis

with the Reference Scenario, which, for the purpose of clarity, is presented as a

per capita value.

All cost comparisons were made on the basis of an interest rate of ten and six

per cent; and, from an investor's point of view, an expected interest rate of ten

per cent (adjusted for inflation) represents the more realistic variant. In addition,

a reference case for fuel price development was considered on the basis of

continued increase, with a lower variant based on stabilization at the averagelevel of the past decade.

For scenarios where activities on the demand side have been assumed, the

problem of economic assessment of power savings arises. A rough, pragmatic

estimate was made of 2 cents/kWh of power savings. For reasons of clarity, the

scenarios in question are in each case presented without economic assess-

ment of savings measures.

It turns out that, although variation of interest factors and fuel price scenarios

has a significant influence on costs, the basic scenario approach plays the de-

cisive role for the pattern of additional costs (Illustration 9).

Additional costs achieve their highest value for the scenario Renewables-Gas

with 110 to 150 Euros per capita (in the year 2030). Additional costs are much

lower in the Scenario Renewables-Coal, where, however, by far the lowest

emission reductions are achieved. As soon as the massive introduction of re-

newable energy is combined with power savings and (stronger) expansion of

gas-based generation, annual costs arise that are 40 to 90 Euros higher per

capita than in the reference case; in other words, a development not in line with

climate protection.


20/27

20

Illustration 9 Additional costs of different scenarios per capita in 2030

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Renewables & coal

Renewables & gas

Renewables & gas with

stabilized consumption*


stabilized consumption**


savings*


savings**

per capita

Energy prices low / Interest rate 6%

Energy prices Reference / Interest rate 6%



* Without considering the costs of energy savings

** Considering the costs of energy savings

A further differentiated picture is presented on the assumption that CO2 reduc-

tion is assessed monetarily and included in the balance. On the basis of 30 /t

CO2, it turns out that the economic effects of a strategy focused solely on a fuel

switch to gas are problematic. On the basis of estimates made here of the costs

of power savings, strategies with large contributions of energy efficiency prove

to be very attractive. This is particularly so considering the fact that the variant

with the greatest power savings also produces the highest CO2 reduction, and

therefore appears with corresponding monetarization of CO2 emissions to

be economically most attractive.

But also scenarios, which solely assume stabilization of power consumption,

arrive taking account of climatic effects at cost dimensions that can be ig-

nored in the final analysis. Irrespective of questions of economic efficiency, the

scale of additional costs in the different scenarios shows very clearly, that pur-

sued CO2 reduction targets might be realizable with acceptable additional costs

for the power sector. This applies all the more, when the quantity of CO 2 emis-

sions is reflected by way of CO2 taxes or CO2 allowances in price formation.


21/27

21

Illustration 10 Additional costs of different scenarios per capita in 2030,

allowing for the external costs of CO2emission

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Renewables & coal

Renewables & gas

Renewables & gas withstabilized consumption*


stabilized consumption**


savings*

Renewables & gas withsavings**

per capita





1 t CO2 = 30

* Without considering the costs

of energy savings

** Considering the costs of

energy savings


22/27

22

6 Conclusions

The PowerSwitch Programme has identified the central points of departure forthe achievement of ambitious climate protection targets, which even when

different in degree prove, on the basis of quantitative analysis, to be central

variables for climatically beneficial re-organization of the power generation sec-

tor:

Highly ambitious targets for renewable energy sources.

The absolutely vital combination of measures on the supply and demand

side.

The key role of coal-based power generation for the possibility or impossi-

bility of ambitious climate protection paths.

The costs of an ambitious change of course in the power generation sector ap-

pear to be manageable, even when considerable cost reductions can probably

be achieved through appropriate combinations of elements of the PowerSwitch

Programme (above all concerning measures for the stabilization or reduction of

power consumption).


23/27

23

Appendix

Table 1 Cost parameters for new power plants according to initial year

of operation

2000 2010 2020 2030Hard coal power plant

Efficiency net 43% 45% 49% 52%Capital investment /kWel 1,386 1,204 1,064 1,036

Fixed operating costs /kWel 95 42 41 40

Variable operating costs /GWhel 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650

Lignite (brown coal) power plantEfficiency net 41% 45% 49% 53%Capital investmenta /kWel 1,300 1,250 1,200 1,150


Variable operating costs /GWhel

2,150 2,150 2,150 2,150

Gas power plantEfficiency net 50% 58% 60% 62%Capital investmenta /kWel 567 459 432 405



Gas CHP plantEfficiency (electrical) net 40% 40% 40% 40%

Power-to-heat rat io kWel/kWth 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Capital investment /kWel 716 670 639 609



Hydroelectric power plantCapital investment /kWel 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500


Variable operating costs /GWhel 0 0 0 0

Wind power plant - onshoreCapital investment /kWel 1,035 725 700 675



Wind power plant - offshoreCapital investment /kWel 1,575 950 870 793



Biomass power plantEfficiency net 30% 40% 40% 40%Capital investment /kWel 2,000 1,950 1,900 1,850



Biomass CHP plantEfficiency (electrical) net 0% 40% 40% 40%

Power-to-heat rat io kWel/kWth 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8

Capital investmenta

/kWel 2,400 2,340 2,280 2,220



Notes:a

including investor's internal resources and imputed interest -b

without fuel costs


24/27

24

Table 2 Net power generation and CO2 emissions in the Reference

Scenario

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Nuclear Power 145 161 129 27 0

Hard coal 131 134 142 235 280

Lignite 154 134 149 166 177

Oil 10 3 1 0 0

Natural gas 40 47 53 62 61

Run-of-river 15 20 18 20 22

Reservoir 1 3 1 1 1

Pumped storage 4 3 5 5 5

Wind 0 9 37 44 40

Biomass 0 1 6 10 14

Other 15 16 16 16 16Total 514 531 558 586 616

CO2 emissions 355 325 316 374 387

GWh

Million t

Table 3 Net power generation, CO2 emissions and additional costs in

the Scenario Renewables-Coal

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030


Hard coal 131 134 152 205 224

Lignite 154 134 137 131 132

Oil 10 3 1 0 0

Natural gas 40 47 53 62 61

Run-of-river 15 20 18 20 22

Reservoir 1 3 1 1 1


Wind 0 9 40 102 127

Biomass 0 1 7 17 28

Other 15 16 16 16 16

Total 514 531 558 587 617

CO2 emissions 355 325 312 324 311

Additional costsa

Energy prices reference, interest rate 10% 3 27 30

Energy prices low, interest rate 10% 3 27 31



Additional costsb



Energy prices reference, interest rate 6% 1 5 -1


GWh

Million t

Notes: a Compared with Reference scenario - b Compared with Reference scenario and with monetarization of CO2 emissions

(30 /t CO2)

per capita


25/27

25


the Scenario Renewables-Gas

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030


Hard coal 131 134 120 65 42

Lignite 154 134 130 102 66

Oil 10 3 1 0 0

Natural gas 40 47 91 232 310

Run-of-river 15 20 18 20 22

Reservoir 1 3 1 1 1


Wind 0 9 40 102 127

Biomass 0 1 7 17 28

Other 15 16 16 16 16

Total 514 531 558 587 617

CO2 emissions 355 325 298 275 241

Additional costsa





Additional costsb





GWh

Million t

Notes:

a

Compared with Reference scenario -

b

Compared with Reference scenario and with monetarization of CO2 emissions(30 /t CO2)

per capita


26/27

26


the Scenario Renewables-Gas/Stabilization

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030


Hard coal 131 134 120 65 42

Lignite 154 134 130 102 66

Oil 10 3 1 0 0

Natural gas 40 47 77 188 237

Run-of-river 15 20 18 20 22

Reservoir 1 3 1 1 1


Wind 0 9 40 102 127

Biomass 0 1 7 17 28

Other 15 16 16 16 16

Total 514 531 544 544 544

CO2 emissions 355 325 291 255 208

Additional costsa


Energy prices low, interest rate 10% -1 50 50



Additional costsb





Additional costsc

Energy prices reference, interest rate 10% -9 16 9

Energy prices low, interest rate 10% -10 6 -15


Energy prices low, interest rate 6% -9 7 -10

Additional costsd





GWh

Million t

Notes: a Compared with Reference Scenario without taking account of the costs of energy savings - b Compared with

Reference Scenario taking account of the costs of energy savings (2 cents/kWh) - c Compared with Reference Scenario

without taking account of the costs of energy savings and with monetarization of CO2 emissions (30 /t CO2) -d Compared

with Reference Scenario taking account of the costs of energy savings (2 cents/kWh) and with monetarization of CO2emissions (30 /t CO2)

per capita


27/27


the Scenario Renewables-Gas/Savings

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030


Hard coal 131 134 120 65 37

Lignite 154 134 130 102 66

Oil 10 3 1 0 0

Natural gas 40 47 60 145 174

Run-of-river 15 20 18 20 22

Reservoir 1 3 1 1 1


Wind 0 9 40 102 127

Biomass 0 1 7 17 28

Other 15 16 16 16 16

Total 514 531 527 501 476

CO2 emissions 355 325 285 237 177

Additional costsa





Additional costsb





Additional costsc

Energy prices reference, interest rate 10% -23 -27 -61

Energy prices low, interest rate 10% -23 -33 -74



Additional costsd





GWh

Million t

Notes: a Compared with Reference Scenario without taking account of the costs of energy savings - b Compared with

Reference Scenario taking account of the costs of energy savings (2 cents/kWh) - c Compared with Reference Scenario

without taking account of the costs of energy savings and with monetarization of CO2 emissions (30 /t CO2) -d Compared

with Reference Scenario taking account of the costs of energy savings (2 cents/kWh) and with monetarization of CO2emissions (30 /t CO2)

per capita

powerswitch! – from coal to clean

Documents