Grandeur et Servitude du Gaz Naturel

Transcription

Grandeur et Servitude
du Gaz Naturel
Georges Bouchard
IDées – 18 juin 2012
1
-1Le gaz, une énergie
de transition ?
de destination ?
de fondation ?
2
Imaginons – nous …
3
le 18 juin 2112
4
Des progrès techniques
considérables
Consommation d’énergie réduite et flexible
Energies renouvelables abondantes
Stockages et smart grids
ajustent production et consommation
Ce qui ne veut pas dire que l’énergie sera bon marché !
5
Avec comme conséquences (1)
Besoins en pétrole ~
Besoins en charbon ~
Besoins en gaz ~
Besoins en nucléaire ~
6
Communauté de destin
de toutes les énergies non renouvelables
(fossiles & nucléaire)
Contribuer à la transition
et disparaître d’ici un siècle
7
Pas de problème de ressource
Même si problèmes de disponibilité
si investissements nécessaires absents
8
En 2112 ?
Qui sait ?
mais
Bien après 2050
Bien avant 2200
9
-2Gaz = meilleure énergie
non renouvelable
La plus respectueuse de l’environnement
La meilleure partenaire des énergies renouvelables
pendant leur croissance
10
Avenir des énergies non
renouvelables
Consommation
Gaz
Autres
100
2012
Temps
Etude de l’EGAF
Objectif européen :
Réduction des émissions de CO2 de 80 % en 2050
de manière économique
« Roadmap 2050 » European Climate Foundation :
C’est techniquement possible
Etude EGAF :
Recherche scénarios optimisés d’atteindre l’objectif
12
EGAF ?
European Gas Advocacy Forum
Centrica, ENI, Eon-Ruhrgas, Gazprom
GDF-SUEZ, Qatar Petroleum, Shell, Statoil
Avec le support de McKinsey
13
3 scénarios optimisés
…
Pathway
60%-RES
Optimised
Description
▪
▪
ECF roadmap 2050 scenario with 60% RES
production share in 2050 (achieving 80%
abatement in 2050)
Savings compared to
60%-RES
Impact 2010-2030
Total cost1
Capex1
3,3002
1,200
Energy mix with lowest cost within CO2
constraints (achieving 80% abatement in 2050)
High gas price
scenario
– Gas price growth as assumed by IEA
Low gas price
scenario
– 2010 hub price remains applicable
Low gas price,
nuclear sensitivity
– Current hub price ($7.5 / mmbtu), and
($10.5 in 2010 to $14.8 / mmbtu by 2030)
($7.5 / mmbtu)
constraint on nuclear build-up
Business as usual
▪
1 Cumulative, Power sector only
2 At IEA gas prices
IEA WEO 2009 reference case which continues
to rely on conventional energy sources
450
500
550
500
500
500
600
400
14
Déterminants des scénarios
Pathway
60%-RES
Core beliefs
Modeling assumptions
Europe continues to promote RES
over alternatives
Top down assumption on 2030 and 2050 power generation
mixes; phase-out of fossil-fuel w/o CCS
Optimised
Europe takes the most costeffective measures to reach 80%
CO2 reduction in 2050
2010-2030: Grow RES as planned to 2020 but more
modest towards 2030; build lowest cost for remaining
capacity within CO2 constraint
2030-2050: Shift to balanced mix of nuclear, fossil with, and
(cheapest) RES
High gas price
scenario
Gas price increases to levels as
assumed by IEA WEO 2009
Low gas price
scenario
Loose supply situation keeps gas
prices at current hub level
2010-2030: Min coal generation 150 TWh
2030-2050: Balanced mix for new-built capacity
Low gas price,
nuclear
sensitivity
Loose supply situation keeps gas
prices at current hub level
Societal opposition limits new-built
nuclear capacity
2010-2030: As ”low gas price” though lower nuclear buildout (-20GW) offset by 50% RES and 50% gas; min coal
production 85 TWh2030-2050: Nuclear & coal on 2030
level; other new capacity ~65% gas+CCS, 35% RES
No further abatement after
20/20/20
Top down assumption on 2030 and 2050 power
²generation mixes; no CCS; low RES build-out
Business as usual
2010-2030 : Max nuclear capacity 200 GW
203062050 / Balanced mix for new-built capacity
15
Mix électriques associés
Production mix
TWh
Other RES Biomass
2010
2030
20% 2%
60%RES
28%
Low gas
price
30%
Low gas
price, nuclear
sensitivity
32%
BAU
28%
26%
24%
Gas
7%
7%
37%
26%
4%
7% 22% 2%
8% 18%
20%
Transmission
investment2
€ bn
26%
8% 21% 11% 19%
42%
High gas
price
Nuclear Coal
Additional backup
capacity1
GW
124
120
9% 19%
79
33%
68
91
71
94
36%
29%
60
73
25
1 Gas-fired; on top of 2010 capacity 2 Required investments 2010-2030
Source ECF ROADMAP 2050? Platts, IEA
16
Capacités à renouveler
Gas
2010
2010
2030
467
60%RES
High gas
price
Low gas
price
Low gas
price, nuclear
sensitivity
BA
U
2030
2050
Coal
660
206
76
Nuclear
108
69
566
51
111
619
29
95
127
60%RES
757
73
High gas
price
717
53
749
57
Low gas
price
Low gas
price, nuclear
sensitivity
BA
U
961
930
12
136
154
78
78
48
57
65
39
95
182
140
92
82
Biomass
18
19
92
579
723
Wind & solar
‘000
104
70
53
Total2
GW
808
1,251
48
968
48
930
48
944
53
967
63
1,700
82
1,183
82
84
1,202
88
84
1,216
63
1,111
44
1 Categories defined per inidividual period: 2030-2050 figures incremental to existing base in 2030
2
Assumed average plant size (GW): Gas: 0.44, Coal: 0.9, Nuclear: 1.3, Wind onshore & offshore: 0.004, Solar: 0.02, Biomass: 0.9
SOURCE: ECF roadmap 2050, Platts, IEA
17
Renouvelables : croissance optimisée
Learning rates of RES
Capex (‘000 EUR/kW

Supply chain constraints
# of replaced and additional installations
5.0
1990-2010
2010-2030
4.5
Gas
4.0
52
1
Coal
3.5
346
3.0
Nuclear
Solar CSP
Wind Offshore
Coal CCS
Biomass
Coal Conventional
Wind Onshore
Solar PV
Gas CCS
Gas conventional
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
56
2010 2020 2030 2040
1 1980 - 1990
2050
941
Nuclear
Wind
Onshore (‘000)
20
19
0
0
336 255 243 296 399
82
38 23
20
6
30
24
Wind
Offshore (‘000)
0
0
29
37 41
6
7
11
6
1
1
1
1
34
34
34
40
21
12
Solar (‘000)
Biomass
1
14
39
4
SOURCE: ECF Roadmap 2050
18
L’optimisation profite à tous
+
Lower costs to
households1
Profits in energy
intensive
industries1
Jobs in energy
intensive
industries
Consolidated
investments
€150-250 lower
annual cost of
power per
household
5-10% decrease in
profit margins will be
avoided driven by
energy price
increases in
alternative
renewables-heavy
scenarios
20-25 mln jobs will
not be affected by
higher energy costs
in energy intensive
industries
Up to € 450-550 bn
lower required
investments in 201030 compared with
renewables intensive
pathways, with further
savings potential in
2030-50
1 Includes direct and indirect effects of lower costs in power generation
2 Numbers are not additive
19
SOURCE: ECF roadmap 2050
Et après 2030 ?
ROUGH ESTIMATES
Power generation mix 2050
Total costs1
60% RES Scenario
10 10
60 20
1,300
RES-dominated power
generation mix
development

10
10
60 20
(50)-0
(150)–(50)
350
150
300
100
350
50
350-450
(50)–(100)
High gas
price
Options
Capex1
Optimized mix
of different
technologies
Low gas
price
43
19
8
29
Low gas
price,
nuclear
sens.
CCS-dominated power
generation mix
development2
1 Power sector
2 Mix assumes low gas price path way
14 7
40
38
45
34
19 2
32 27
23 18
3,600
SOURCE: Roadmap 2050, European Climate Foundations
20
Grandeur, servitude ?
Maria van den Hoeven
Directrice exécutive de l’AIE
Le gaz, meilleur compromis
Mais pas le plus propre, pas le plus abondant,
pas le moins cher
Le gaz, énergie du « What if ? »
What if déclin généralisé du nucléaire ?
What if renouvelables décevantes ?
What if CCS ne débouche pas ?
21
Merci !
22