UKERC Energy 2050:
Technology Acceleration
Mark Winskel
University of Edinburgh
UKERC Energy Supply Working Group
UKERC Energy 2050
Supply Working Group
Mark Winskel (Edinburgh, General)
University
of
Edinburgh
Geoff Dutton (RAL, Windpower)
Chiara Candelise (Imperial, Solar PV)
Technology
Specific Marine)
Experts
Henry
Jeffrey (Edinburgh,
Sophie Jablonski (Imperial, Bioenergy)
Gail Taylor (Southampton, Bioenergy)
Innovation Systems Experts
Donna Clarke (Southampton, Bioenergy)
Brighid Moran (Edinburgh, Bioenergy)
Nils Markusson (Edinburgh, CCS)
Energy Systems Modellers
Hannah Chalmers (Surrey, CCS)
Rutherford
Appleton
Laboratory
Paul Howarth (Manchester, Fission)
David Ward (Culham, Fusion)
Christos Kalyvas (Imperial, Hydrogen Fuel Cells)
Gabrial Anandarajah (KCL, Systems Modelling)
Nick Hughes (KCL, Systems Modelling)
University
College
London
Technology Acceleration: Background
Past
Present, Future
ƒ
We need to decarbonise by 2050,
with significant progress by 2020
ƒ
ƒ
Binding targets for UK carbon
emission reductions are now in place
for 2020 and 2050
Our concern: how can we most
affordably achieve these targets?
… many possible ways, including
technology and lifestyle changes
ƒ
Our interest: exploring the role of
technology progress over time, and
building this into our thinking,
planning and policymaking
UK Public Spending on Energy
RD&D, 1974-2007
Questions
ƒ
Which are the most promising emerging low carbon supply
technologies?
ƒ
ƒ
Can we speed-up their development?
ƒ
ƒ
Renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage, Nuclear Power, Fuel Cells
How? Who? By when?
What difference could this make to UK efforts to decarbonise?
ƒ
By 2020; by 2035; by 2050
Technology Acceleration: the challenges
ƒ
Innovation includes…
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Multiple emerging options
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
learning-by-research (‘technology-push’)
learning-by-doing (‘market-pull’)
‘underpinning’ innovation (e.g. materials, electronics)
‘enabling’ technologies (e.g. power storage, networks)
technology transfer (e.g. between offshore oil & gas and
offshore renewables)
different stages of development, different resource
needs, different system implications
We have had to be selective in our choice of technology
fields, and within the fields
Limited predictability
ƒ
ƒ
long term prospects, e.g. hydrogen technology
… and also over shorter-term e.g. CCS
Technology Acceleration: Our Approach
ƒ
Develop qualitative accounts of accelerated development
ƒ using roadmaps, international projections, expert consultation
ƒ both incremental trends and radical step-changes
ƒ Translate these into modelling data
ƒ accelerated development seen as reduced cost, improved
performance, earlier availability, or new pathways
ƒ Markal assembles a ‘least cost’ system at 5-yearly intervals to
2050
ƒ Compare accelerated and non-accelerated scenarios
ƒ how is the job of decarbonisation done differently?
ƒ changed supply mixes
ƒ wider effects on the energy system
ƒ NOT predictions: modelling is used to consider the ‘what-ifs?’
ƒ illustrate a range of different possible futures, under distinctive
assumptions
ƒ in our case, what if we are able to accelerate the development
of emerging low carbon supply technologies
Technology Acceleration Scenarios
Single Technology
Scenarios, 60%
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Windpower
Marine
Solar PV
Bioenergy
Aggregated Scenarios, 60% and 80%
Renew
Acctech
ƒ Nuclear
ƒ Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS)
ƒ Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Technology Acceleration Scenarios
Single Technology
Scenarios, 60%
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Windpower
Marine
Solar PV
Bioenergy
Aggregated Scenarios, 60% and 80%
Renew
Acctech
ƒ Nuclear
ƒ Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS)
ƒ Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Technology Acceleration: Wind power
ƒ
ƒ
Onshore technology is
mature
Offshore offers significant
scope for technology
acceleration
ƒ upscaling, advanced
materials, control, reliability
and installation techniques
ƒ
ƒ
Wind scenario involved a
more aggressive learning
rate of 10% to 2020
Then, a lower but sustained
learning rate between 20202050
• Windpower deployed to a far greater extent under
accelerated development scenario, but mostly after 2030
•Relatively long-term impact, compared to UK policy
ambitions for offshore: 30GW not achieved until 2050.
Technology Acceleration: Bioenergy
Focus on 5 areas offering potential for
accelerated development
ƒ Gasification technology: reduced capital
Electricity Generation from Bioenergy
and O&M cost, increased efficiency and availability.
2025
Year
2030
Year
2035 2040
2045
Accelerated Non Accelerated
Accelerated
Non Accelerated
ƒ
Significant bioenergy uptake after 2020 in accelerated scenario
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
In single technology scenario, biomass gasification is an attractive
medium term option to decarbonise the power sector
After 2040, biomass resources are used to decarbonise transport and
heating, rather than power generation
In aggregated scenarios, preferred application changes from
electricity to either heating or transport, depending on the overall
decarbonisation target and which other options are available
2050
2020
2045
2015
2040
2010
2035
2005
2030
reduced capital
and O&M cost, increased efficiency and availability.
0
2000
2025
Fast pyrolysis for bio-oil:
50
2020
ƒ
and O&M cost, increased efficiency.
100
2015
ƒ
150
400
300
200
100
0
2010
Agro-machinery for growing and
harvesting: reduced crop costs.
Ligno-cellulosic ethanol: reduced capital
200
2005
ƒ
leading to reduced costs.
improved yields
2000
Biotechnology of crops:
250
PJ
ƒ
Biomass for Residential Heat
300
PJ
ƒ
2050
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
ƒ Coal-fired CCS plays a major
role in UK energy system
decarbonisation after 2020
ƒ Reflecting ambitious /
aggressive assumptions in
the UKERC core scenarios
ƒ Other scenarios developed to
consider case if CCS
deployment is delayed (to
after 2030), or if it isn’t
developed
Marine
Energy
3000
Storage
Solar PV
2500
Wind
power
Marine
Imports
2000
Bioenergy
Wind
Hydro
1500
Oil
Nuclear
Power
Nuclear
1000
Gas CCS
Gas
500
Coal
CCS
Coal CCS
Coal
0
LC Core
LC Acctech
Late CCS
2050
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Absence or delayed deployment of CCS has significant
consequences across the system
More expensive electricity, so less overall demand for power
Bigger roles in power sector decarbonisation for nuclear
power (after 2020) and renewables (after 2035)
Reduced take-up of hydrogen fuel cells: use of bioenergy
resources for low-carbon transport, rather than heating
No CCS
Technology Acceleration: Fuel Cells
•
•
significant long-term prospects for accelerated
development of HFCs, internationally
In the accelerated scenario, transport sector decarbonises
using hydrogen based vehicles rather than electric vehicles
after 2030
Non-accelerated
Accelerated
Bus fleets
Bus fleets
Bus ‐ Methanol
10
10
Electric
Vehicles
Bus ‐ Hydrogen
9
8
9
8
Bus ‐ Hydrogen
Bus ‐ Battery 5
4
Bus ‐
Diesel/biodiesel
Hybrid
3
2
BVkm
7
6
6
4
3
1
0
20
00
20
05
20
10
20
15
20
20
20
25
20
30
20
35
20
40
20
45
20
50
20
50
20
45
20
40
20
35
20
30
20
25
20
20
20
15
20
10
20
05
0
Bus ‐ Battery 5
2
Bus ‐
Diesel/biodiesel
ICE
1
20
00
BVkm
7
Bus ‐ Methanol
Hydrogen
Vehicles
Bus ‐
Diesel/biodiesel
Hybrid
Bus ‐
Diesel/biodiesel
ICE
Acctech 80% (aggregated scenario)
Marine
Energy
E lec tric ity g en eratio n mix S tora g e
2500
S ola r P V
Ma rine
2000
Im ports
Bioenergy
B iowa s te &
othe rs
Wind
1500
H ydro
Wind
power
O il
1000
N uc le a r
G a s C C Nuclear
S
500
Gas
Power
C oa l C C S
0
20
50
20
45
20
40
20
35
20
30
20
25
20
20
20
15
C oa l
20
10
ƒ
20
05
ƒ
20
00
ƒ
Accelerated development scenarios have much greater
contributions from renewables and fuel cells
Coal-CCS has a key role in power sector decarbonisation after
2020, but long term output is limited by residual emissions
Nuclear Power has important role in some 80% scenarios,
especially if CCS is delayed
Much expanded power sector after 2030 in 80% scenarios, with
electrification of energy services and electrolysis for hydrogen
PJ
ƒ
Coal
CCS
ƒ
ƒ
By offering more attractive lowcarbon supply, less long-term
pressure on other ways to
decarbonise e.g. demand
reduction
The overall ‘social’ cost of
achieving 80% decarbonisation
is significantly reduced,
especially after 2030
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Or, a way to decarbonise more
deeply, for the same overall cost
Average ‘savings’ over next 40
years are just under £1bn p.a.
Economic / least cost view: noneconomic drivers for accelerated
deployment not factored-in here
£ billion
Technology Acceleration: Wider Benefits
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Year
Welfare Cost Savings associated
with technology acceleration
Summary, Implications
ƒ
ƒ
Much greater RD&D effort is
justified across a range of low
carbon supply technologies.
Need to consider spending
ƒ across the technology portfolio,
no clear winners and losers
ƒ balance between long term R&D,
shorter term demonstration &
deployment
ƒ public / private mix
ƒ UK focus areas as part of the
wider international effort
ƒ
Costs can be shared
internationally – but the benefits
are available to many
ƒ the UK’s share of costs of
acceleration appear much smaller
than the benefits
ƒ The UK should play a leading part
internationally
‘tomorrow belongs to the people
who prepare for it today’
African Proverb
For more Information:
ƒ Chapter 4 of Energy 2050 Report
ƒ Full Research Report available on
Technology Acceleration
www.ukerc.ac.uk
mark.winskel@ed.ac.uk
Thank You