REmap 2030 - Cost and benefits of doubling the global share of renewable energy between 2010 and 2030: a country's perspective

1. Cost and benefits of doubling the global share of
renewable energy between 2010 and 2030:
a country's perspective
34th edition of International Energy Workshop, Abu Dhabi – 3 June, 2015
A. Miketa, D. Saygin, D. Gielen, L. Gutierrez, M. Taylor, N. Wagner, R. Kempener

2. REmap 2030 - A roadmap for
doubling the RE share
• In 2011, UN Secretary-General initiated the global
Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative
• Doubling the share of renewables in the global energy
mix (compared to 2010 level)
• REmap explores the potential, cost and benefits of
doubling the renewables share in the global energy mix
• No target setting; technology options characterized by
their cost and potentials
• Focuses on power, district heat and end-use sectors
• Coverage: 40 countries; 80% of the global energy use
• Developed together with & validated by country experts2

3. 3
IRENA technology
database
IRENA
Costing studies
Learning curves/cost
reduction
assessments
Sectoral/technology
studies
Country Reference
Scenarios
Potentials
Reference FF/Nuclear
technologies
Cost curves
Fuel prices, taxes,
subsidies, capital cost
External
effects
Substitution
cost
REMAP
Options
REmap methodology: Overview (1/2)
RE share in total final energy consumption (TFEC)
IRENA (2014a)

4. 4
REmap methodology (2/2)
1. REmap Option: final
energy contribution of
selected RE technology
2. Substitution of
equivalent final energy
consumption from a
conventional
technology
REmapOption
substitutionandcosts
• Business perspective national energy prices including
taxes/subsidies, and national discount rate
• Government perspective international energy prices excluding
taxes/subsidies, and fixed discount rate
IRENA (2014a)

5. 5
Key findings: RE in TFEC (1/4)
Reference Case:
• Germany & Ukraine with
NREAPs and longer-term
strategies grow high
• China & Mexico doubling
(mainly power sector)
• US conservative Reference
Case
• India total energy demand
grows very fast and traditional
uses of biomass remain
REmap 2030
• All countries see significant
potential beyond the Reference
Case except for Germany
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Germany
USA
India
China
Poland
Ukraine
Mexico
UAE
ModernREshare
(excl.traditionalbiomass)
TFEC
2030 Reference Case REmap 2030 2010
IRENA (2014;2015)
Note: Results for Germany, India, Poland
in the rest of this presentation are draft

6. 6
Key findings: RE use breakdown (2/4)
IRENA (2014;2015)Note: Shaded areas refer to power sector technologies

7. 7
Key findings: Sector level (3/4)
• All countries focus on power generation, and high potential
• Building sector highest RE share, and a mix of technologies offer large
potential
IRENA (2014;2015)

8. 8
Key findings: Sector level (3/4)
• No focus on RE use for process heating. Biomass offer large potential
• All countries start at low RE share (<5%) in transport. Sector shows the
largest factor increase
IRENA (2014;2015)

9. 9
Potential of renewables to 2030 (4/4)
GlobalData; IRENA (2014;2015)

10. 10
Cost supply curves (government)
IRENA (2014;2015)
Key findings:
• Excluding subsidies in Mexico,
UAE & Ukraine, RE is cost-
competitive (more than two-
thirds)
• Solar & wind resources in
Mexico and UAE and low-cost
biomass in Ukraine contribute to
cost-competitiveness
• In coal producing countries,
China & Poland, only few RE
options are cost-competitive,
and mainly power sector (<20%)
• Cost-competitiveness of
Germany, India & US in
between
• In all countries, about 10
percentage point increase in RE
share with REmap Options, but
drivers for costs vary

11. 11
Cost-competitive REmap Options
IRENA (2014;2015)

12. 12
Benefits of renewables
IRENA (2014;2015)
CC: Climate change
HH: Human health

13. 13
Comparison with other studies
Kempener et al. (2015)
• Deployment levels according to REmap and ETSAP models comparable
• Differences due to deliberate choices of technology options in REmap
whereas techno-economic characteristics playing a role in models

14. 14
Limitations and next steps
Limitations
• Background assumptions of national plans may not be comparable
• Extent energy efficiency considered in national plans differs
• Not possible to gather complete data for national plans for all countries
• Criteria to identify REmap Options differ by country
• 2030 analysis only; interactions, dynamics between technologies excluded
• Energy efficiency, infrastructure, transmission, distribution costs excluded
Next steps
• Progress monitoring
• Updating analysis (Reference Case) on a continuous basis
• Analysis of intermediate years (2020, 2025)
• Identifying RE/EE synergies
• Better accounting of modern energy access
• Expanding the analysis to cover the full costs of renewables
IRENA (2014;2015); Kempener et al. (2015); Saygin et al. (2015)

15. 15
Conclusions
• REmap is powerful tool to assess country, sector,
technology level potential, cost and benefits of
renewables, based on country engagement and
dialogue
• Transparent framework that allows comparison of data
and results of countries
• Options analysis to communicate results with diverse
group of audience
• Approach and findings of energy system models and
REmap can complement each other
• Helps to identify technologies where technology
innovation is required by country and sector

16. THANK YOU!
REmap@irena.org