Electricity - REMIND-MAgPIE

From IAMC-Documentation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Alert-warning.png Note: The documentation of REMIND-MAgPIE is and is not yet 'published'!

Model Documentation - REMIND-MAgPIE

    Corresponding documentation
    Previous versions
    Model information
    Model link
      Institution Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK), Germany, https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/sustainable-solutions/models/remind.
      Solution concept
      Solution method
      Anticipation

      Around twenty electricity generation technologies are represented in REMIND-MAgPIE, see <xr id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIE_electricity_technologies"/>, with several low-carbon (CCS) and zero carbon options (nuclear and renewables).


      Table 1. Energy Conversion Technologies for Electricity (Note: † indicates that technologies can be combined with CCS). <figtable id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIE_electricity_technologies">

      Energy Conversion Technologies for Electricity
      Energy Carrier Technology
      Primary exhaustible resource
      Coal
      • Conventional coal power plant
      • Integrated coal gasification combined cycle†
      • Coal combined heat and power plant
      Oil
      • Diesel oil turbine
      Gas
      • Gas turbine
      • Natural gas combined cycle†
      • Gas combined heat and power plant
      Uranium
      • Light water reactor
      Primary renewable resource
      Solar
      • Solar photovoltaic
      • Concentrating solar power
      Wind
      • Wind turbine
      Hydropower
      • Hydropower
      Biomass
      • Integrated biomass gasification combined cycle†
      • Biomass combined heat and power plant
      Geothermal
      • Hot dry rock
      Secondary energy type
      Hydrogen
      • Hydrogen turbine

      </figtable>

      <figure id="fig:REMIND-MAgPIEtable_4"> 54067596.jpg </figure>

      Table 2. Techno-economic characteristics of technologies based on exhaustible energy sources and biomass [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13].

      <figtable id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIEtable_5"> Remind Table 5.PNG </figtable>

      Abbreviations: PC - pulverized coal, IGCC - integrated coal gasification combined cycle, CHP - coal combined heat and power plant, C2H2 - coal to hydrogen, C2L - coal to liquids, C2G - coal gasification, NGT - natural gas turbine, NGCC - natural gas combined cycle, SMR - steam methane reforming, BIGCC – Biomass IGCC, BioCHP – biomass combined heat and power, B2H2 – biomass to hydrogen, B2L – biomass to liquids, B2G – biogas, TNR - thermo-nuclear reactor; * for joint production processes; § nuclear reactors with thermal efficiency of 33%; # technologies with exogenously improving efficiencies. 2005 values are represented by the lower end of the range. Long-term efficiencies (reached after 2045) are represented by high-end ranges.

      For variable renewable energies, we implemented two parameterized cost markup functions for storage and long-distance transmission grids - see Section Grid and Infrastructure. To represent the general need for flexibility even in a thermal power system, we included a further flexibility constraint based on Sullivan [14].

      The techno-economic parameters of power technologies used in the model are given in <xr id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIEtable_5"/> for fuel-based technologies and <xr id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIEtable_6"/> for non-biomass renewables. For wind, solar and hydro, capacity factors depend on grades, see Section Non-biomass renewables.

      Table 3. Techno-economic characteristics of technologies based on non-biomass renewable energy sources [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19].

      <figtable id="tab:REMIND-MAgPIEtable_6"> Remind Table 6.PNG </figtable>







      1. Iwasaki W (2003) A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28:939–944
      2. Hamelinck C (2004) Outlook for advanced biofuels. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht
      3. Bauer N (2005) Carbon capture and sequestration: An option to buy time? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Potsdam
      4. Ansolabehere S, Beer J, Deutch J, et al (2007) The Future of Coal: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
      5. Gül T, Kypreos S, Barreto L (2007) Hydrogen and Biofuels – A Modelling Analysis of Competing Energy Carriers for Western Europe. In: Proceedings of the World Energy Congress “Energy Future in an Interdependent World”. 11–15 November 2007, Rome, Italy
      6. Ragettli M (2007) Cost outlook for the production of biofuels. Diploma Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      7. Schulz T (2007) Intermediate steps towards the 2000-Watt society in Switzerland: an energy-economic scenario analysis. PhD Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
      8. Uddin SN, Barreto L (2007) Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and storage. Renewable Energy 32:1006–1019. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2006.04.009
      9. Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35:4444–4454. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.009
      10. Takeshita T, Yamaji K (2008) Important roles of Fischer-Tropsch synfuels in the global energy future. Energy Policy 36:2773–2784. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.044
      11. Brown D, Gassner M, Fuchino T, Marechal F (2009) Thermo-economic analysis for the optimal conceptual design of biomass gasification energy conversion systems. Applied Thermal Engineering
      12. Klimantos P, Koukouzas N, Katsiadakis A, Kakaras E (2009) Air-blown biomass gasification combined cycles: System analysis and economic assessment. Energy 34:708–714
      13. Chen C, Rubin ES (2009) CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost. Energy Policy 37:915–924. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.093
      14. Sullivan P, Krey V, Riahi K (2013) Impacts of considering electric sector variability and reliability in the MESSAGE model. Energy Strategy Reviews 1:157–163. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2013.01.001
      15. Neij L, Andersen PD, Durstewitz M, et al (2003) Experience Curves: A Tool for Energy Policy Assessment (Extool Final Report). Lund University, Risø National Laboratory, ISET
      16. Nitsch J, Krewitt W, Nast M, et al (2004) Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland (Kurzfassung). BMU, DLR, ifeu, Wuppertal Institut, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Wuppertal
      17. IEA (2007a) Energy Balances of OECD Countries. International Energy Agency, Paris
      18. Junginger HM, Lako P, Lensink S, et al (2008) Technological learning in the energy sector. MNP
      19. Pietzcker et al. 2014