A literary review of relevant external studies is a best practice approach when undertaking a complex task such as developing scenario for the ENTSOs and EU28 perimeter. The purpose of the exercise is to understand whether or not the input assumptions and methodologies that ENTSOs employ result in credible and plausible outcomes compare to other expert opinions and methods.
As part of our internal quality process for scenario building, the ENTSOs have compared its TYNDP 2020 scenarios to the following relevant studies (but not limited to):
1. TYNDP 2018 Scenarios (ENTSOs, 2018).
2. EU Reference Scenario: Energy, transport and GHG emissions – Trends to 2050 (EC, 2016).
3. EUCO3232.5 scenario (EC, 2019).
4. A Clean Planet for all – A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy (EC, 2018).
5. Decarbonization pathways (Eurelectric, 2018).
6. e-Highway2050 – Modular Development Plan of the Pan-European Transmission System 2050 / Europe’s future secure and sustainable electricity infrastructure (eHighway, 2015).
7. World Energy Outlook 2018 (IEA, 2018).
8. Gas for Climate (Navigant, 2018).
It is acknowledged that there are different approaches and purposes for each of the listed studies. The studies each have a view on the EU28 electricity and gas sectors. It is possible to create plausible ranges for scenario parameters such as, low to high ranges for demand; EV uptake, Heat Pump uptake; installed capacity for generation, low to high range gas for imports etc. In the following sections ENTSOs have focused their benchmarking on the overall electricity and gas demand, electrification and gas supply.
7.1 Final Electricity Demand
The highest final electricity demand corresponds to Distributed Energy, with the actual growth being due to the very strong increase in electric vehicles and heat pumps. The Global Ambition scenario has the lowest final electricity demand, due to the higher gas share. In the EU-28, total electricity generated from renewable energy sources covers about 61–64 % of electricity demand in 2030 and about 81–83 % in 2040.
Variable renewable energies (wind and solar) play a key role in renewables expansion as their share of the electricity mix increases to 43-45 % by 2030 and to 62–65 % by 2040. Wind is the most important driver and generates about one third of the final electricity demand in 2030 and 45–50 % in 2040. Solar covers 10–15 % of the demand in 2030 and 13–20 % in 2040. The remaining share of renewable energies consists of biomass and hydropower.
Figure 34: Benchmarking of projected electricity demand and wind/solar generation for EU28
The final electricity energy demand divided by final energy demand indicates the direct electrification of different scenarios. The general increase in share illustrates that electrification is one key driver trying to achieve a sufficient decarbonization up to 2050. The electrification trajectories of the TYNDP 2020 scenarios are in between the upper and respectively lower benchmarking limits which are set by the of Eureletric Scenario 3 on the one hand and the EC reference case 2016 scenario on the other hand. As displayed for the year 2050, the Distributed Energy scenarios achieves roughly the same electrification rate as the EC 1.5 TECH scenario, which is close to 50 %. The Global Ambition scenario follows approximately the same electrification path as the EU LTS Baseline scenario and additionally Eurelectric Scenario 1, which accomplishes the goal of 80 % emission reduction up to 2050.
The sectorial breakdowns of the industry, residential and commercial sectors illustrate that the COP 21 scenarios are, with regard to electrification, in the order of magnitude compared to other external scenarios.
A similar statement can also be made to the transport sector for the mid-term horizon (2030 and 2040), where the electrification is in the ballpark of other external scenarios. For 2050, the transport electrification in the ENTSOs’ COP 21 scenarios matches the EC’s 1,5TECH scenario, but is lower compared to Eurelectric’s scenarios.
Figure 35: Benchmarking of projected electrification rate for EU28
Figure 36: Benchmarking of projected electrification rate for EU28
Figure 37: Benchmarking of projected electrification residential and commercial for EU28
Figure 38: Benchmarking of projected electrification in transport for EU28
7.2 Gas demand
Although ENTSOs scenarios follow their specific assumptions and methodologies, they are designed to meet the same EU climate objectives as other external scenarios.
ENTSOs scenarios in the range of IEA and EC scenarios
The total gas demand considered in the COP21 scenarios is in the range of the New Policies Scenario and the Sustainable Development Scenario published by the IEA in the World Energy Outlook 2018. Additionally, Distributed Energy reaches the EU climate targets in 2050 with a similar gas demand to the “1.5 TECH scenario” of EC’s Long-Term Strategy, and Global Ambition reaches the same objectives with a gas demand in 2050 in the range of EC’s P2X and 1.5 TECH scenarios.
In the timeframe 2020–2040, National Trends, based on current draft NECPs, shows a lower gas demand in 2030 than any of the IEA scenarios, including Sustainable Development, and ca. 10 % higher than the EUCO32/32.5 scenario. As shown in Figure 39, part of the difference with EUCO32/32.5 comes from the consideration of some national coal to gas switch policy objectives in the respective draft NECPs and therefore translated into National Trends.
Figure 39: Total gas demand – benchmark vs iea weo 2018 and ec lts
Gas demand for final use and for power generation follow different evolutions
When looking into the gas demand more in detail, the total gas demand (methane and hydrogen) can be divided in the gas demand for final use, where gas is directly used as energy or feedstock (Residential, Tertiary, Industry and Transport demand) and the gas demand for power generation, where the energy is converted into electricity.
Gas demand for final use in National Trends is very close to the Sustainable Development scenario of IEA and to Global Ambition up to 2030. In 2040, the gas demand for final use of National Trends is around 3,000 TWh, between Distributed Energy and Global Ambition. Regarding the gas demand for power, until 2030, NT shows the lowest of all ENTSOs and IEA scenarios, close to EUCO32/32.5. in 2040, the gas demand for power is close to IEA SDS and between Distributed Energy and Global Ambition.
Gas demands for Global Ambition and Distributed Energy show opposite trends: as a consequence of its centralised approach, Global Ambition has the highest gas demand for final use, close to IEA NPS in 2030, and between IEA NPS and CPS in 2040, whereas Distributed Energy indicates an evolution of the final demand close to IEA SDS until 2040. However, regarding the gas demand for power, the decentralised scenario Distributed Energy has the highest demand close to IEA NPS in 2030 and decreasing to reach IEA SDS levels in 2040, whereas Global Ambition and National Trends show a lower demand further below the IEA SD scenario in 2030.
Figure 40: Gas demand for final use and for power generation – benchmark vs iea weo 2018 and ec lts
7.3 Renewable gas supply
The gas production in the next thirty years can be divided in three different categories: production of biomethane, Power-to-Methane (P2CH4) and Power-to-Hydrogen (P2H2).
Biomethane in the range of EC LTS scenarios and Gas for Climate study
Biomethane generation in Global Ambition is comparable to 1.5 TECH and 1.5 LIFE scenarios of EC LTS, whereas Distributed Energy considers a higher generation of biomethane within the EU comparable to the P2X scenario. with National Trends having the most limited penetration of biomethane, all scenarios are therefore in the range of the EC Long-Term Strategy. Additionally, Distributed Energy shows comparable generation to the Gas for Climate study by Navigant (1,200 TWh in gross calorific value).
Power-to-gas sees a limited development compared to EC LTS
As a result of the assumptions on the generation potential as well as the development rate of P2G technologies, the ENTSOs scenarios all look more conservative than EC LTS, explaining the limited gap between the overall indigenous generation considered in EC LTS and ENTSOs scenarios.
Figure 41: Renewable gas production – ENTSOs vs EC LTS (P2X, 1.5TECH, 1.5LIFE)
7.4 Gas imports
All scenarios show an increasing import demand for the timeframe until 2030, which is similar to the IEA WEO scenarios – only EUCO32,5/32 shows decreasing import shares, which can be partly explained by out-dated data for indigenous natural gas production. In contrast to National Trends, both Global Ambition and Distributed Energy have declining import shares after 2025.
With high shares of indigenously produced renewable gases, Distributed Energy shows alignment with EC’s most ambitious 1.5 Tech scenario, where Global Ambition shows a balanced development of gas imports being in between levels given by the two more ambitious IEA scenarios NPS and SDS. The difference in imports for 2020 reflects the recent reduction of Groningen field production decided by the Netherlands, which is not considered in the other external scenarios.
Figure 42: Total gas demand – benchmark vs iea weo 2018 and ec lts
Benchmarking the demand, renewable generation and electrification with peer studies and former TYNDPs illustrates the reasoning behind the 2020-scenarios in their assumptions and methodologies. National Trends is based on the national policies towards meeting the EU’s climate targets for 2050. However, the benchmark confirms both Global Ambition and Distributed Energy scenarios to be plausible pathways towards meeting the COP21 targets considering contrasted evolutions of the energy system.
ENTSOs scenarios robust and fit for purpose
The contrasts in demand and production technologies as well as the centralised/de-centralised approach to the development of renewable technologies and its impact on the energy imports make the ENTSOs scenarios the best support for assessing the infrastructure needs of the energy system for the next decades.