the value of ccs: socio- economic impacts - national energy … · 2019-09-09 · 2020. 2025. 2030....
TRANSCRIPT
The value of CCS: socio-economic impacts
Piera Patrizio1,2, Yoga Pratama2, Niall Mac Dowell2
1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analaysis (IIASA)2 Imperial College London
Value ≠ cost
CF Heuberger, et al, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 2017
Can we measure social value?
• We need more than just a discussion around technologies…
• Wider social impacts are becoming popular (COP24, UN SDGs)
• How do we account for social equity in evolving energy systems?
• It’s an intertwined word…
Sustainable development
Environment
Society Economy
INTERTWINED socio-ecological Systems INTEGRATED dimensionsFolke, C et al., (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biospherebased sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41.
Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI)
US coal sector technology transition
65%
46%
52%
2° targetBAU
BECCS
Coal wCCS
NGCC
Coal
Bio w Coal
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Cum
ulat
ive
inve
stm
ent i
n El
gen
erat
ion
(MU
S$/y
ear)
CCSBECCSNGCCBAURCP 2.6
Patrizio et al. (2018)
Nation-Wide22,000
Great Lakes 12,000
40,000
Illinois14,000
JOB added
Biomass supply and transport
JOB preserved
Mining Jobs
26,000 Energy generation
US Employment
Nation-Wide
< 500 < 1000 < 2000 > 2000< 100 < 500 < 1000 > 1000
Patrizio et al. (2018)
US trade-offs: BAU vs 2° target
Socially equitable energy systems in Europe
• Over the last decade, the EU has pursued a proactive climate policy (20-20-20 targets),
resulting in high level of renewable energy penetration and energy efficiency increase.
• Local communities and stakeholders across Europe, are increasingly advocating the need for
the transition to low carbon society to be socially just.
• The new European Strategic Agenda (2019-2024) promote a green transition that poses keen
attention to social issues.
• The inevitable consideration of how best to value alternative approaches requires a
broadening of focus from project cost metrics to a wider societal perspective.
ESO - JEDI framework
Energy transition pathways in Poland
System’s transition: Installed capacity
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Inst
alle
d ca
pacit
y (GW
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Inst
alle
d ca
pacit
y (GW
)
GenStoPHStoInterStoInterImpSolarWind-OffshoreWind-OnshoreHydroOCGTCCGT-PostCCS(Ret)CCGT-PostCCSCCGTBECCSBioCoal-PostCCS(Ret)Coal-PostCCSCoalNuclear
BAU Renewables and Storage
Least cost energy system transition in Poland If CCS is not allowed, Poland will have an overbuilt and underutilised power system.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CI (t
CO2/
MW
h)
Ener
gy o
utpu
t (TW
h)
GenStoPHStoInterStoInterImpSolarWind-OffshoreWind-OnshoreHydroOCGTCCGT-PostCCS(Ret)CCGT-PostCCSCCGTBECCSBioCoal-PostCCS(Ret)Coal-PostCCSCoalNuclearCarbon intensity (CI)
13
Least cost versus social value maximization
Minimizing cost
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CI (t
CO2/
MW
h)
Ener
gy o
utpu
t (TW
h)
GenStoPHStoInterStoInterImpSolarWind-OffshoreWind-OnshoreHydroOCGTCCGT-PostCCS(Ret)CCGT-PostCCSCCGTBECCSBioCoal-PostCCS(Ret)Coal-PostCCSCoalNuclearCarbon intensity (CI)
Maximizing social value
Domestic coal brings the greatest value to the economy, even in a carbon constrained scenario.
In the pure least cost scenario, Polish power system is dominated by thermal plants
14
Critical sectors for the Polish economy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Min.TSC
Max.GVA
Current Wind Solar Battery Nuclear Gas
GVA
to T
SC r
atio
(%)
Elec
tric
ity ge
nera
tion
(TW
h)
Import scenario and objective function
GenStoPHStoInterStoInterImpSolarWind-OffshoreWind-OnshoreHydroOCGTCCGT-PostCCS(Ret)CCGT-PostCCSCCGTBECCSBioCoal-PostCCS(Ret)Coal-PostCCSCoalNuclearGVA to TSC ratio
202.8 213.5 226.4
474.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
BAU Diversification Social equity -max. GVA (gas)
Renewables &storage
GVA
to T
SC r
atio
(%)
Tota
l sys
tem
cos
t (bi
llion
£)
TSC GVA to TSC ratio
Pursuing a net-zero strategy, while focusing on strategic industrial sectors, increase the economic competitivness (higher GVA/TSC), thus the social benefits.
Benefits are maximized with greatest share of domestic natural gas, allowing to reduce the share of nuclear and imported electricity
Concluding remarks
• Traditional cost metrics (least cost approach) cannot capture socio-economic impacts of energy systems trasitions. We must focus on metrics that reflect other values (GDP growth and employment creation)
• Low carbon and just energy transition can be achieved by:- Promote deployment of thermal power plant by deploying CCS - Integrating strategic sectors (e.g gas industry) in national economy
