1. Development of a National Vision
An Analytic Framework – Irish TIMES
Brian Ó Gallachóir, Alessandro Chiodi, Maurizio Gargiulo & Paul Deane
Ireland in 2050: A Low Carbon Future – EPA/NESC
14th November 2012 Customs House Dublin
November 2012, Customs House, Dublin
*

2. Irish TIMES Project
Partners
Funded by

3. >200 MARKAL / TIMES Users

4. TIMES Modelling
Cost and emissions balance
TIMES model
source availability
GDP
Coal processing
Process energy
Domestic Industry
sources Heating area
Refineries
a
Population
P l ti
Commercial and
Power plants tertiary sector Light
and
ces, Res
Transportation Communication
Households Power
Dem
C
CHP p a ts
plants Person
mands
Ener pric
and district kilometers
heat networks
rgy
Imports Transportation Freight
kilometers
Gas network
Primary energy
Pi Final
Fi l energy Service Demands
S

5. Why bother modelling?
• We can’t predict the future
• Can’t small changes in inputs change the results?
However ….
• We have targets and goals that we need to meet
• Uncertainty is not an excuse for inaction
…. and robust well bounded models ….
• avoid chaotic solutions
id h ti l ti
• can provide very useful insights regarding the future
• can generate a knowledge base to underpin policy
• can point to least risk choices via scenarios
p
• can strengthen our negotiating position

6. One purpose – Improved negotiation
EU Analysis 2008
y
SEC[2008] 85 Vol II - Page 43 Table 4
– cost optimal 10% EU-non-ETS target €40 - €50/tCO2
– non-ETS GHG reduction for Ireland of 17%
Irish
I i h TIMES S
Scenario A l i 2011
i Analysis
[€2000/ton CO2] Scenario 2020
Non ETS
Non-ETS emissions NETS GHG
NETS-GHG 212.9

7. Second purpose – Inform climate policy
Scenario Description
energy system demands met in the absence of emissions reduction
REF
targets.

8. Second purpose – Inform climate policy
Scenario Description
energy system demands met in the absence of emissions reduction
REF
targets.
80% CO2 emissions reduction below 1990 l l b 2050 A i lt
i i d ti b l levels by 2050. Agriculture
CO2-2050
emissions are implicitly assumed to meet 80% reduction also.

9. Second purpose – Inform climate policy
Scenario Description
energy system demands met in the absence of emissions reduction
REF
targets.
80% CO2 emissions reduction below 1990 l l b 2050 A i lt
i i d ti b l levels by 2050. Agriculture
CO2-2050
emissions are implicitly assumed to meet 80% reduction also.
95% CO2 emissions reduction target below 1990 levels (-96.6% relative
GHG-2050 to 2005). Agriculture is assumed to meet a 50% emissions reduction
by 2050.
y

10. Scenarios: REF
50
40 REF
30
Mt CO2eq
20 ‐23.8% below 2005 34 Mt
M
+12.2% above 1990
+12 2% b 1990
10
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
‐10

11. Scenarios: CO2-2050
50
40 REF
30
Mt CO2eq
20
M
CO2‐2050
CO2 2050
10
6 Mt
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
‐10

12. Scenarios: GHG-2050
50
40 REF
30
Mt CO2eq
20
M
Agriculture GHG in 2050 = CO2‐2050
CO2 2050
Agriculture GHG in 2020
10
GHG‐20501 ‐8 Mt
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
‐10

13. Scenarios : GHG-2050
50
40 REF
30
Mt CO2eq
20
≈50% expected
50% expected
M
CO2‐2050
CO2 2050
reduction in
10 Agriculture GHG GHG‐2050
1.5 Mt
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
‐10

14. EE, Fuel Switching and RE

15. M
Mt CO2eq
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
44.7
2005
REF
F
33.7
Transport
t 14.8
Electricity
5.8
generationn
Industry
y 3
3.6
Residential 2.3
Services
s 1.2
6.0
CO2‐2050
0
2050 Transport
t 0.0
Electricity
1.2
generationn
Industry
y 0.0
Residential 1.7
Services
s 0.7
Agriculture 0.8
e
1.5
GHG‐2050
0
Scenario Results: 2050 Emissions Reductions

16. M
Mt CO2eq
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
44.7
2005
REF
F
33.7
Transport
t 14.8
Electricity
5.8
generationn
Industry
y 3
3.6
Residential 2.3
Services
s 1.2
6.0
CO2‐2050
0
2050 Transport
t 0.0
Electricity
1.2
generationn
Industry
y 0.0
Residential 1.7
Services
s 0.7
Agriculture 0.8
e
1.5
GHG‐2050
0
Scenario Results: Sectoral Emissions Reductions

17. Scenario Results: 2050 Residential TFC
3500
3000
2500
2000 Electricity
toe
Elec‐th
kt
1500 Heat
Renewable
1000 Gas
G
Oil
500
Coal+Peat
0
2005
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
2050
2050
2050
2050
2050
2
CO2‐2
GHG‐2
CO2‐2
GHG‐2
CO2‐2
GHG‐2
CO2‐2
GHG‐2
CO2‐2
GHG‐2
. 2010 . 2020 . 2030 . 2040 ‐ 2050

18. Scenario Results: 2050 Transport
2500
2000
1500
ktoe
Electricity
k
Biogas
1000
Biodiesel
Natural Gas
Diesel
500
Gasoline
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
REF
REF
REF
Private Freight Public
Transport Transport
2050

19. Scenario Results: 2050 Electricity Demand
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Transport
ktoe
e
2500 Residential
Industry
2000
Power Sector
1500 Services
Agriculture
1000
500
0
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
0
CO2‐80
CO2‐95
2005
5
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
. 2010 . 2020 . 2030 . 2040 ‐ 2050

20. Scenario Results: 2050 Electricity Generation
6000
5000
4000
Other
Import/Export
3000
Renewables
ktoe
Gas CCS
2000 Gas
Oil
1000 Coal CCS
Coal+Peat
0
2005
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
‐2050
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
CO2‐
CO2‐
CO2‐
CO2‐
CO2‐
GHG‐
GHG‐
GHG‐
GHG‐
GHG‐
‐1000
. 2010 . 2020 . 2030 . 2040 ‐ 2050

21. Scenario Results: 2050 Renewable Energy
6000
CO2‐2050 GHG‐2050
68% RES
68% RES 85% RES
85% RES
5000
Currently
Biomass
RES‐E 467 ktoe
4000 RES‐T 98 ktoe
RES‐H 218 ktoe
oe
3000 BioEthanol BioEthanol
kto
Biogas Biogas
2000 Wind
Wind Biodiesel Biomass Biodiesel
1000 Biomass
Ocean
Hydro
Hydro
0 Biogas and Waste Biogas and Waste
RES E
RES‐E RES T
RES‐T RES H
RES‐H RES E
RES‐E RES T
RES‐T RES H
RES‐H
CO2‐2050 GHG‐2050
2050

22. The costs .. MACC..
Scenario 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2 80
CO2-80 33 136 99 273
CO2-85 33 131 158 523
CO2-90
CO2 90 33 127 158 694
CO2-95 =GHG-80 65 185 173 1308
NETS-20/CO2-80 167 113 116 273
NETS-80
NETS 80 141 97 87 554

23. The costs .. System Costs..

24. The costs .. System Costs / GDP

25. Next Steps
• Consultation with stakeholders
• Update input assumptions
• Improve energy efficiency options
• Reintegrate within European PET model
• Model electrification (heating and transport) within
PLEXOS
• Move to co-optimisation (energy and agriculture
together).
• Feedback to economy (elastic demand and CGE)

26. Thank You
Energy Policy
&
Modelling Group
Energy Policy and Modelling Group on