IEEE Power & Energy Magazine - March/April 2014 - 73

table 1. Summary table of results (scoring: red = 0; orange = 1; green = 2).
Scenario 0:
Today

Scenario 1:
ETS Only

Scenario 2:
ETS + New
NER 300

Scenario 3:
ETS + New NER
300 + RES Quota

Scenario 4:
Scenario 5:
2030 RES
CO2 Tax + New NER
Support Schemes 300 + RES Quota

Decarbonization
RES leadership
Nuclear and CCS
leadership
Import dependency
Free market
Cost efficiency

the next section will now assess how well or poorly the
various scenarios would fare based on criteria that are as
objective as possible, derived from the updated set of principles guiding eU energy policy as outlined above.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Scenarios
in our assessment methodology, we attempted to stay very
close to the principles we believe are driving eU energy
policy. nevertheless, some adjustments had to be made
to ensure a better "operationality" and a more clear-cut
assessment that avoids grey areas. the criteria we therefore
retained were the following:
1) Decarbonization: to operationalize this criterion
further, we specified that we understand it to refer to
the effectiveness and speed with which decarbonization is delivered.
2) RES leadership: this criterion refers to res technology development, which forms the first leg of the
low-carbon technology development.
3) Nuclear and CCS leadership: this criterion is
understood in terms of nuclear technology development and ccs leadership, which form the second leg
of the low-carbon technology development objective.
4) Import dependency: the import dependency and
fuel diversity criterion remains intact.
5) Free market: the free-market criterion is best understood when confronted with its opposite: government
intervention.
6) Cost efficiency: cost efficiency is understood to refer
to a preference for lower-cost options.
We have used what we call a semiquantitative approach:
for each criterion, a score of 0 (red), 1 (orange), or 2 (green)
is assigned, depending on the impact it has in the specific
scenario. the results are assembled in table 1.
scenario 0 will not bring the eU power sector to decarbonization by 2050, as the current cap's linear reduction factor
in the eU ets directive would lead to decarbonization only
in 2072. the current framework provides for res leadership
due to the heavy reliance on res subsidies (which amounted
to €38 billion in 2012, according to consultancy cera).
nuclear and ccs cannot be dragged into the market with
march/april 2014

a low co2 price, which means that they are contemplated
instead as marginal options in the current framework. the
current scenario fares well in terms of import dependency,
as endogenous res resources are massively supported. the
other side of the coin, however, is that this subsidy-driven
res support goes against free-market principles (although
some market-compatible res support types are used in
europe) and, above all, cost-efficiency objectives.
scenario 1 delivers only partially on decarbonization, as it
is plausible that an ets-only scenario would be more likely
to deliver a massive dash for gas, thereby locking in both co2
emissions and fuel imports, than to lead to a fast and consistent
decarbonization. due to the fact that res technologies are not
yet in the money, this framework would not manage-on its
own-to drag res technologies toward maturity, except perhaps for onshore wind, which is close to wholesale parity now.
the ets alone will not enable the demonstration of ccs, let
alone its widespread commercialization. as a market subject
to regular government intervention, the ets produces a price
unlikely to drive nuclear investments in europe on its own. on
the other hand, this framework would probably lead to a costefficient partial decarbonization, as market dynamics would
be leveraged to their maximum.
scenario 2 delivers a better result than scenario 1 in
terms of decarbonization and technology development. the
two outcomes are indeed linked, as it is precisely the fact of
pushing more low-carbon technologies (res, nuclear, and
ccs) to maturity through the ner 300 program that allows
a diversification of decarbonization and less reliance on gas.
"softer" than deployment subsidies and narrower in scope,
scenario 2 does not obtain the top score when it comes to
res leadership since funds would have to be shared with
other low-carbon technologies. From this it also follows that
the import dependency score under this scenario is intermediate. meanwhile, this scenario ranks highest in term
of free-market and cost-efficiency principles, as the instruments do not intrude into market dynamics and the financial
burden remains limited.
scenario 3 fares better than scenario 2 in terms of decarbonization due to its reliance on the res quota as a mechanism for the support of res deployment. For the same
ieee power & energy magazine

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine - March/April 2014