To achieve the European Union's goal of climate neutrality by 2050, negative emissions may be required to compensate for emissions exceeding allocated carbon budgets. Therefore, carbon removal technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS) and direct air capture (DAC) may need to play a pivotal role in the power system. To design carbon removal strategies, more insights are needed into the impact of sustainable biomass availability and the feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS), including the expensive and energy-intensive DAC on achieving net-zero and net-negative targets. Therefore, in this study the European power system in 2050 is modelled at an hourly resolution in the cost-minimization PLEXOS modelling platform. Three climate-neutral scenarios with targets of 0, -1, and -3.9 Mt CO2/year (which agree with varying levels of climate justice) are assessed for different biomass levels, and CCS availability. Findings under baseline assumptions reveal that in a climate-neutral power system with biomass and CCS options, it is cost-effective to complement variable renewable energy with a mix of combined cycle natural gas turbines (CCNGT) for flexibility and BECCS as base load to compensate for the CO2 emissions from natural gas and additional carbon removal in the net-negative scenarios. The role of these technologies becomes more prominent, with -3.9 GtCO2/year target. Limited biomass availability necessitates additional 0.4–4 GtCO2/year DAC, 10–50 GW CCNGT with CCS, and 10–50 GW nuclear. Excluding biomass doubles system costs and increases reliance on nuclear energy up to 300 TWh/year. The absence of CCS increases costs by 78%, emphasizing significant investments in bioenergy, nuclear power, hydrogen storage, and biogas. Sensitivity analysis and limitations of the study are fully discussed.@en

We model the evolution of the Central Western Europe power system until 2040 with an increasing carbon price and strong growth of variable renewable energy sources (vRES) for four electricity market designs: the current energy-only market, a reformed energy-only market, both also with the addition of a capacity market. Each design is modelled for two decarbonisation pathways: one targeting net-zero emissions by 2040 for a 2 °C warming limit, and the other targeting −850 Mt CO₂ y‾ for a 1.5 °C warming limit. We compare these scenarios against the high-level objectives of delivering low-carbon electricity reliably to consumers at the lowest possible cost. Our results suggest that both 2 °C and 1.5 °C compliant systems could be achieved and deliver electricity reliably. In terms of cost, we find the 1.5 °C warming scenarios lead to system costs which are twice as high as the 2 °C scenarios due to the high cost of negative emission technologies – in particular direct air carbon capture (DAC). To make a 1.5 °C target more affordable, policymakers should investigate lower cost alternatives in other sectors, and increase research and development in DAC to reduce its cost.@en

District heating represents a viable way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the built environment. This paper aims to assess the extent to which the market revenues of multiple heat production technologies can cover their fixed costs in a competitive wholesale district heating market. Marginal-cost pricing is applied in a case study of the Netherlands. A linear programming model incorporating heat supply and demand is developed to obtain hourly dispatch and heat market prices. It is concluded that low carbon heat generation technologies tend to have low short-run marginal costs. All examined heat producers have an under-recovery of fixed costs in a range between 60% and 90% except the waste incineration combined heat and power plant. It has an overall return on investment of 44% and 12% within the reference and heat pump scenario respectively. Although marginal-cost pricing may ensure cost-efficient dispatch, the market revenues are far from enough to recoup the investment costs for the majority of the heat producer, let alone the network costs. Significant additional remuneration is required to sustain a competitive heat market and ensure sufficient investment in new generation capacity in the long run.@en

District heating represents a viable way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the built environment. This paper aims to assess the extent to which the market revenues of multiple heat production technologies can cover their fixed costs in a competitive wholesale district heating market. Marginal-cost pricing is applied in a case study of the Netherlands. A linear programming model incorporating heat supply and demand is developed to obtain hourly dispatch and heat market prices. It is concluded that low carbon heat generation technologies tend to have low short-run marginal costs. All examined heat producers have an under-recovery of fixed costs in a range between 60% and 90% except the waste incineration combined heat and power plant. It has an overall return on investment of 44% and 12% within the reference and heat pump scenario respectively. Although marginal-cost pricing may ensure cost-efficient dispatch, the market revenues are far from enough to recoup the investment costs for the majority of the heat producer, let alone the network costs. Significant additional remuneration is required to sustain a competitive heat market and ensure sufficient investment in new generation capacity in the long run.@en

District heating represents a viable way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the built environment. This paper aims to assess the extent to which the market revenues of multiple heat production technologies can cover their fixed costs in a competitive wholesale district heating market. Marginal-cost pricing is applied in a case study of the Netherlands. A linear programming model incorporating heat supply and demand is developed to obtain hourly dispatch and heat market prices. It is concluded that low carbon heat generation technologies tend to have low short-run marginal costs. All examined heat producers have an under-recovery of fixed costs in a range between 60% and 90% except the waste incineration combined heat and power plant. It has an overall return on investment of 44% and 12% within the reference and heat pump scenario respectively. Although marginal-cost pricing may ensure cost-efficient dispatch, the market revenues are far from enough to recoup the investment costs for the majority of the heat producer, let alone the network costs. Significant additional remuneration is required to sustain a competitive heat market and ensure sufficient investment in new generation capacity in the long run.@en

In power system studies the unit commitment problem (UC) is solved to support market decisions and assess system adequacy. Simplifications are made to solve the UC faster, but they are made without considering the consequences on solution quality. In this study we thoroughly investigated the impacts of simplifications on solution quality and computation time on a benchmark set consisting of almost all the available instances in the literature. We found that omitting the minimum up- and downtime and simplifying the startup cost resulted in a significant quality loss without reducing the computation time. Omitting reserve requirements, ramping limits and transmission limits reduced the computation time, but degraded the solution significantly. However, the linear relaxation resulted in less quality loss with a significant speed-up and resulted in no difference when unserved energy was minimized. Finally, we found that the average and maximum capacity factor difference is large for all model variants.@en

In power system studies the unit commitment problem (UC) is solved to support market decisions and assess system adequacy. Simplifications are made to solve the UC faster, but they are made without considering the consequences on solution quality. In this study we thoroughly investigated the impacts of simplifications on solution quality and computation time on a benchmark set consisting of almost all the available instances in the literature. We found that omitting the minimum up- and downtime and simplifying the startup cost resulted in a significant quality loss without reducing the computation time. Omitting reserve requirements, ramping limits and transmission limits reduced the computation time, but degraded the solution significantly. However, the linear relaxation resulted in less quality loss with a significant speed-up and resulted in no difference when unserved energy was minimized. Finally, we found that the average and maximum capacity factor difference is large for all model variants.@en

In power system studies the unit commitment problem (UC) is solved to support market decisions and assess system adequacy. Simplifications are made to solve the UC faster, but they are made without considering the consequences on solution quality. In this study we thoroughly investigated the impacts of simplifications on solution quality and computation time on a benchmark set consisting of almost all the available instances in the literature. We found that omitting the minimum up- and downtime and simplifying the startup cost resulted in a significant quality loss without reducing the computation time. Omitting reserve requirements, ramping limits and transmission limits reduced the computation time, but degraded the solution significantly. However, the linear relaxation resulted in less quality loss with a significant speed-up and resulted in no difference when unserved energy was minimized. Finally, we found that the average and maximum capacity factor difference is large for all model variants.@en

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO2 pipeline networks in the future.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential key-technology to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as its use can lead to lower mitigation cost. However, research on other economic impacts of using CCS is scarce. In this paper, we look into economic upstream impacts of CCS use in terms of employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and import dependency on the macro- and sector-level in Western Europe. We determine these impacts by a static comparison of two scenarios of power production with and without CCS (differences in energy efficiency investments between these scenarios were not accounted for). The two scenarios, both representing a stringent climate policy regime, were produced with the energy-system-simulation-model (TIMER) following the same emission profile until 2050. Data from the two scenarios were respectively implemented into a projected version of a global-multiregional IO-Model (EXIOBASE). Macro-level results suggest slightly higher gross employment, but lower Gross Value Added (GVA) (by 25%), and higher import dependency in the CCS-including scenario compared to the CCS-excluding scenario, given that biomass with CCS (BECCS) is available. Sector-level results show disproportionally higher differences between the scenarios in GVA and employment for some sectors compared to other sectors. Particularly, sectors providing fuels (here mostly bio-energy) have significantly higher GVA and employment in the CCS scenario. This study thus reveals interesting upstream economic effects, which can be linked to the technology choice. However, the exact quantitative results depend strongly on model assumptions. Results therefore need to be further explored in other models.@en

For reaching the 2 °C climate target, the robust growth of electricity generation from variable renewable energy sources (VRE) in the power sector is expected to continue. Accommodation of the power system to the variable, uncertain and locational-dependent outputs of VRE causes integration costs. Integrating VRE into a well-functioning electricity market can minimize integration costs and drive investments in VRE and complementary flexible resources. However, the electricity market in the European Union (EU), as currently designed, seems incapable to deliver this end. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive literature review of barriers to the large-scale market integration of VRE in the EU electricity market design. Based on the set-up of the EU electricity market, a framework was developed to incorporate the most pertinent market integration barriers and resulting market inefficiencies. This paper concludes that an overhaul is needed for the current EU electricity market to address all barriers identified. Firstly, a discrete auction intraday market, a marginal pricing balancing market, a two-price imbalance settlement and a nodal pricing locational marginal pricing mechanism seem more promising in limiting integration costs. Secondly, to support business cases of VRE and complementary flexible resources in the electricity market, a level playing field should be established and the price cap should be lifted up to the value of lost load (VOLL). Meanwhile, to fit VRE's market participation, a higher time resolution of trading products and later gate closure time in different submarkets would be required. Lastly, feed-in support schemes currently widely used for VRE investments might be inconsistent with market integration, as they increase integration costs and lock VRE investments in a subsidy-dependent pathway. To avoid such lock-in, further investigation of alternative capacity-based support schemes is recommended.@en