Energy conversion - TIAM-UCL
| Corresponding documentation | |
|---|---|
| Previous versions | |
| Model information | |
| Model link | |
| Institution | University College London (UCL), UK, https://www.ucl.ac.uk. |
| Solution concept | Partial equilibrium (price elastic demand) |
| Solution method | Linear optimisation |
| Anticipation | Perfect Foresight
(Stochastic and myopic runs are also possible) |
Contents
Conversion
The electricity and heat generation sector represents many different technology types, using a wide range of fossil-based and renewables sources. The existing system is represented in generic terms whilst the options for future investments are characterised in more detail. Electricity and heat supply is temporally disaggregated across six periods (or time slices), based on three season and two diurnal periods (Day / night) to represent changes in load based on sector demand profiles.
Electricity generation plant are additionally categorised as providing electricity to the centralised or decentralised grid (CEN or DCN). Decentralised producers tend to be small scale, connected to the distribution network or serving local grids, and produce one commodity in the model while centralised producers, connected to transmission network, produce a seperate commodity.
The electricity sector Base-Year template is used to calibrate the base-year electricity and heat generation. In the Base-Year template (providing information on existing plant), characterisation of plants is fairly generic, with all production of electricity categorised as ELCC. Off-grid production (via micro-generation technologies) is not explicitly captured in the model, with small-scale generation represented in the decentralised producer group.
Figure 3.2.1: Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by Region in 2005 (Model base year), GW
Figure 3.2.2: Existing Electricity Generation Capacity by Type in 2005 (Model base year), GW
New technologies
Key technology options
New electricity generation technologies are listed in Table 3.2.1. Further work is required to include new CHP technologies, which are not available for public system or industry investment.
Table 3.2.1: New technology options for electricity
| Technology Group | Model Technology Description |
| Coal | Atmospheric Fl Bed. |
| Air Blown IGCC. | |
| Oxygen Blown IGCC. | |
| Pressurized Fl Bed. | |
| Pulverized Coal. | |
| Gas | Gas Steam. |
| Fuel Cells. | |
| Dual gas / oil | Gas_Oil Comb Cycle. |
| Advanced Gas_Oil Turbine. | |
| Oil | Oil Steam. |
| Generic Dist Gen for Base Load. | |
| Generic Dist Gen for Peak Load. | |
| Nuclear | Advanced Nuclear. |
| Fusion Nuclear. | |
| Advanced Nuclear LWR. | |
| Advanced Nuclear PBMR. | |
| Hydro* | Generic Impoundment Hydro. |
| Generic Impoundment Hydro. | |
| Generic Impoundment Hydro. | |
| Generic Impoundment Hydro. | |
| Generic Impoundment Hydro. | |
| Generic ROR Hydro. | |
| Biomass | Crop Direct Combustion. |
| Crop Gasification. | |
| Biogas from Waste. | |
| MSW Direct Combustion. | |
| Sld Biomass Direct Combustion. | |
| Sld Biomass Gasification. | |
| Sld Biomass Direct Combustion.Decentralized | |
| Sld Biomass Gasification.Decentralized | |
| Geothermal | Shallow. |
| Deep. | |
| Very deep. | |
| Solar PV* | CEN.PV.T0 |
| CEN.PV. | |
| CEN.PV.T1 | |
| CEN.PV.T2 | |
| CEN.PV.T3 | |
| CEN.PV.T4 | |
| CEN.PV.T5 | |
| DCN.PV.T0 | |
| DCN.PV. | |
| DCN.PV.T1 | |
| DCN.PV.T2 | |
| PV.T3 | |
| PV.T4 | |
| PV.T5 | |
| Solar thermal | CEN.Thermal. |
| Wind* | CEN. |
| CEN.Offshore. | |
| CEN.Onshore. | |
| DCN.Onshore. |
- Different tranches of renewable technologies represent differences in the cost of resources (hydro) or quality of the resource (wind, solar).
The other important file is the transformation file, which allows for regional differences to be introduced without having to duplicate technologies. For the electricity sector, the following parameters are controlled, and varied by region:
- Costs parameters (INVCOST, FIXOM and VAROM). Operation and maintenance costs tend to be lower in developing regions, as do investment cost where those regions have a technology manufacturing base e.g. China.
- Technology discount rate set to 10%, except for solar technologies, where the rate is higher for some regions. Higher rates are typically used for developing regions.
- Seasonal AFs are set by region for solar technologies, accounting for different insolation values.
- Construction time is provided for hydro and nuclear technologies - 10 years for nuclear and hydro (dam) and 5 years for hydro (run-of-river). No differentiation is made between regions.
An overview of the key parameters for the different technology groups is shown in below.
Table 3.2.2: Overview of technology characteristics by technology group (for WEU region)
| Technology Group | Efficiency % (range) | Investment cost $/kW (range) | Comment | ||
| 2005 | 2050 | 2005 | 2050 | ||
| Coal | 40-49 | 40-49 | 1430-1870 | 1265-1662 | |
| Gas / Dual | 37-57 | 37-57 | 360-1000 | 300-1000 | Lower cost and higher efficiency values represent combined cycle technology |
| Oil | 31-35 | 31-35 | 660-1045 | 660-1045 | |
| Nuclear | 1760-1870 | 1760-1870 | Fusion costs set at 3300 $/kW | ||
| Hydro | 1650-6050 | 1540-5400 | Five dam-based technologies reflecting different cost of resource | ||
| Biomass | 33-34 | 33-34 | 1870-2200 | 1870-2200 | MSW plant significantly higher at 3850 $/kW |
| Geothermal | 1925-2780 | 1650-2310 | Three geothermal technologies reflecting different cost of resource | ||
| Solar PV | 7150-11000 | 1485-3025 | Low cost is centralised plant and high cost decentralised plant. Technology resource tranched on basis of AFs | ||
| Solar thermal | 13321 | 13321 | Single technology with no evolution on costs | ||
| Wind | 1065-1650 | 880-1310 | One backstop, one offshore (CEN) and 2 onshore (one is CEN and one is DCN) technologies. Offshore tech. represents the high costs. |
Power plants with CCS technologies
For low carbon analyses, sequestration technologies in the electricity generation sector are very important.
Table 3.2.3: Overview of Power plant with CCS technology characteristics
| Model Technology Description | Investment cost ($/kW) | Efficiency (%) |
| NGCC+Oxyfueling | 950-1250 | 48-55 |
| NGCC+CO2 removal from flue gas | 800-1000 | 49-57 |
| IGCC+CO2 removal from input gas | 1800-2300 | 40-48 |
| Conventional Pulverized Coal+Oxyfueling | 1900-2400 | 37-44 |
| Conventional Pulverized Coal+CO2 removal from flue gas | 1850-2250 | 38-44 |
| SOFC (COAL) +CO2 removal - 2030 | 2200 | 48 |
| SOFC (GAS) +CO2 removal - 2020 | 1600 | 58 |
| Crop Direct Combustion. With CCS | 2125 | 33 |
| Crop Gasification.with CCS | 2500 | 34 |
| Sld Biomass Direct Combustion.with CCS | 1700 | 33 |
| Sld Biomass Gasification.with CCS | 2420 | 34 |
- The first five technologies listed have vintages for 2010, 2020 and 2030.
Heat
Heat technologies are respresented as
- Public CHP plant, providing electricity to the grid and heat to local networks
- Sector CHP plant (autoproducers), providing electricity and heat to specific industries.
- Public heat generation plant (heat only plants), providing heat to local networks
Other conversion
Alternative fuels =
Table 3.2.4 contains technologies for the production of alternative fuels. The technologies are splits into two groups: 1) Ethanol and methanol production, either from coal or biomass and 2) Fischer-Tropsch processes, producing oil products from coal, gas and biomass.
Table 3.2.4: Alternative fuel technologies
| Model Technology Description |
| Ethanol from biomass |
| Cellulose ethanol plant |
| Methanol from Bioliquids |
| Methanol from coal |
| Methanol from coal with CO2 capture |
| Methanol from natural gas |
| Methanol from natural gas with CCS |
| FT fuels from natural gas |
| FT fuels from natural gas with CCS |
| FT fuels from coal |
| FT fuels from coal with CCS |
| FT fuels from coal low biomass and coal co production |
| FT fuels low biomass and coal co production with CCS |
| FT fuels high biomass and coal co production |
| FT fuels high biomass and coal co production with CCS |
| FT fuels solid biomass |
| FT fuels solid biomass with CCS |
Hydrogen
SubRes technologies include those used for hydrogen production and demand technologies in the transport sector that consume hydrogen. Production technologies (name starting 'H') are generic in nature and are defined by the type of fuel used - coal, natural gas, electricity and biomass.
There are also technologies, available from 2020, that allow for mixing of hydrogen into the natural gas supply to different sectors (name starting 'UP'). This mix is fixed at 15% hydrogen / 85% natural gas. A single distribution technology allows for hydrogen transport, with costs developed on the basis of unit of energy transported (using VAROM).
Table 3.2.5: Hydrogen production and supply technologies
| Model Technology Description |
| Hydrogen from Brown coal |
| Hydrogen from Hard coal |
| Electrolysis |
| Hydrogen from NGA |
| Hydrogen from NGA - Decentralized |
| Hydrogen from biomass gasification |
| Mix of Gas and Hydrogen - For COM |
| Mix of Gas and Hydrogen - For IND |
| Mix of Gas and Hydrogen - For RES |
| Distribution of hydrogen |
Hydrogen technologies for cars and light duty trucks are included in the model, with different types based on the use of combustion, hybrid or fuel cell technology. The associated Trans file puts different hurdle rates on these technologies, assuming 15% for developed regions and 30% for developing regions such as Africa. The Trans file is also used to adjust efficiencies and costs across all regions, for both transport and production technologies.
Table 3.2.6 Hydrogen technologies in transport sector
| Technology Description | Year | LIFE | INVCOST | FIXOM | EFF |
| CAR: .05.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2006 | 12.5 | 2000 | 80 | 0.372 |
| CAR: .10.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2008 | 12.5 | 1750 | 80 | 0.393 |
| CAR: .15.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2015 | 12.5 | 1600 | 80 | 0.404 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 1528 | 80 | 0.415 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 1929 | 80 | 0.446 |
| CAR: .05.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2006 | 12.5 | 2500 | 80 | 0.496 |
| CAR: .10.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2008 | 12.5 | 2000 | 80 | 0.498 |
| CAR: .15.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2015 | 12.5 | 1750 | 80 | 0.511 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 1674 | 80 | 0.525 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 2074 | 80 | 0.594 |
| CAR: .05.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2006 | 12.5 | 5000 | 80 | 0.685 |
| CAR: .10.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2008 | 12.5 | 2500 | 80 | 0.688 |
| CAR: .15.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2015 | 12.5 | 2200 | 80 | 0.707 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 1892 | 80 | 0.726 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 2293 | 80 | 0.780 |
| CAR: .05.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2006 | 12.5 | 2500 | 80 | 0.737 |
| CAR: .10.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2008 | 12.5 | 2000 | 80 | 0.740 |
| CAR: .15.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2015 | 12.5 | 1800 | 80 | 0.760 |
| CAR: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2020 | 12.5 | 1608 | 80 | 0.780 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .05.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2006 | 15 | 2000 | 75 | 0.248 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .10.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2008 | 15 | 1750 | 75 | 0.262 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .15.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2015 | 15 | 1600 | 75 | 0.269 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Liq sto. | 2020 | 15 | 1528 | 75 | 0.276 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Combustion.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 15 | 1929 | 75 | 0.030 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .05.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2006 | 15 | 2500 | 75 | 0.331 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .10.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2008 | 15 | 2000 | 75 | 0.332 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .15.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2015 | 15 | 1750 | 75 | 0.341 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Liq sto. | 2020 | 15 | 1674 | 75 | 0.350 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Hybrid.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 15 | 2074 | 75 | 0.396 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .05.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2006 | 15 | 5000 | 75 | 0.457 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .10.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2008 | 15 | 2500 | 75 | 0.459 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .15.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2015 | 15 | 2200 | 75 | 0.471 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Liq sto. | 2020 | 15 | 1892 | 75 | 0.484 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Carbon sto. | 2020 | 15 | 2293 | 75 | 0.520 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .05.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2006 | 15 | 2500 | 75 | 0.491 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .10.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2008 | 15 | 2000 | 75 | 0.493 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .15.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2015 | 15 | 1800 | 75 | 0.507 |
| LIGHT TRUCK: .20.AFV.HH2.Fuel cell.Gas sto. | 2020 | 15 | 1608 | 75 | 0.520 |
Table 3.2.7 Hydrogen production technologies in ETSAP-TIAM
| Technology description | Input | LIFE | DISCRATE | INVCOST | FIXOM | VAROM | AF | ENV_ACT |
| Electrolysis | 1.25 | 30 | 0.1 | 30 | 0.95 | 0.85 | ||
| Hydrogen from NGA | 1.23 | 20 | 0.1 | 10 | 0.56 | 0.95 | ||
| 56.10 | ||||||||
| 0.13 | ||||||||
| 0.62 | ||||||||
| Hydrogen from Hardcoal | 1.59 | 20 | 0.1 | 33.5 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.95 | |
| 98.30 | ||||||||
| 0.54 | ||||||||
| 1.81 | ||||||||
| Hydrogen from Browncoal | 1.59 | 20 | 0.1 | 33.5 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.95 | |
| 101.20 | ||||||||
| 0.54 | ||||||||
| 1.81 | ||||||||
| Hydrogen from NGA - Decentralized | 1.33 | 20 | 0.1 | 10 | 0.56 | 2.0 | 0.95 | |
| 56.10 | ||||||||
| 0.13 | ||||||||
| 0.62 | ||||||||
| Hydrogen from biomass gasification | 1.59 | 25 | 0.1 | 100 | 1.08 | 0.85 |
Sequestration
Sequestration technologies and storage options mainly relate to the electricity sector, and are described in the relevant sector chapter of this report.
There are two technologies that allow for the capture of CO2 emissions (process-based) in the upstream sector. The costs of such 'dummy' capture technologies are modelled simply, using variable costs of 0.001 (equivalent to $1/tCO2).
Another set of important technologies for integrated climate modelling are those that relate to emissions and removals by the forestry sector. Labelled SINKAF*. The levels of emissions and removals and the associated costs are controlled by the Trans file and are based on assumptions used in the EMF analysis. Finally, atmospheric CO2 may be partly absorbed and fixed by biological sinks such as forests; the model has six options for forestation and avoided deforestation, as described in Sathaye et al. (2005) and adopted by the Energy Modelling Forum, EMF-21 and 22 groups.
Land-use CO2
The SubRes file LUCO2 defines a single technology that emits fixed levels of emissions by region each period. It is net CO2 emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It does not include emissions from land use. The levels are calculated in the associated Trans file. The global emission level in 2005 is estimated at 2.7 GtCO2 per year, which decreases to 0.1 GtCO2 by 2100.Allocation by region is based on distribution of agricultural managed land. It is assumed that LULUCF emissions for UK is zero and therefore, WEU region?s LULUCF emission has not been changed. There are scenarios in the model with reduced emissions from deforestation based on the EMF 21 study scenarios.
Grid and infrastructure
No representation of grids in TIAM-UCL except Electricity generation can be centralised or decentralised (CEN or DCN). A generic cost and efficiency loss associated with distribution are included for Gas pipelines and electricity.
The range of CO2 storage technologies in the model are listed below.
Table 3.2.8: Types of storage technologies
| Model Technology Description |
| Removal by Enhanced Coalbed Meth recov <1000 m |
| Removal by Enhanced Coalbed Meth recov >1000 m |
| Removal by Depl gas fields (offshore) |
| Removal by Depl gas fields (onshore) |
| Removal by Storage in the deep ocean |
| Removal by Depl oil fields (offshore) |
| Removal by Depl oil fields (onshore) |
| Removal by Deep saline aquifers |
| Removal by Enhanced Oil Recovery |
| Mineralization for CO2 storage |
