@techreport{BucksteegWiedmannPoestgesetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Bucksteeg, Michael and Wiedmann, Michael and P{\"o}stges, Arne and Haller, Markus and B{\"o}ttger, Diana and Ruhnau, Oliver and Schmitz, Richard}, title = {The transformation of integrated electricity and heat systems—Assessing mid-term policies using a model comparison approach}, abstract = {The development of European power markets is highly influenced by integrated electricity and heat systems. Therefore, decarbonization policies for the electricity and heat sectors, as well as numerical models that are used to guide such policies, should consider cross-sectoral interdependencies. However, although many model-based policy assessments for the highly interconnected European electricity system exist, international studies that consider interactions with the heat sector are rare. In this contribution, we systematically study the potential benefits of integrated heat and power systems by conducting a model comparison experiment. Five large-scale market models covering electricity and heat supply were utilized to study the interactions between a rather simple coal replacement scenario and a more ambitious policy that supports decarbonization through power-to-heat. With a focus on flexibility provision, emissions reduction, and economic efficiency, although the models agree on the qualitative effects, there are considerable quantitative differences. For example, the estimated reductions in overall CO2 emissions range between 0.2 and 9.0 MtCO2/a for a coal replacement scenario and between 0.2 and 25.0 MtCO2/a for a power-to-heat scenario. Model differences can be attributed mainly to the level of detail of CHP modeling and the endogeneity of generation investments. Based on a detailed comparison of the modeling results, implications for modeling choices and political decisions are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{PoestgesBucksteegRuhnauetal., author = {P{\"o}stges, Arne and Bucksteeg, Michael and Ruhnau, Oliver and B{\"o}ttger, Diana and Haller, Markus and K{\"u}nle, Eglantine and Ritter, David and Schmitz, Richard and Wiedmann, Michael}, title = {Phasing out coal - An impact analysis comparing five large-scale electricity market models}, publisher = {Applied Energy Vol. 319}, doi = {https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/234102}, abstract = {Climate target achievement has a crucial influence on the modelling and the decision processes in the energy sector. It induced the development of several policy instruments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, including administrative and market-based mechanisms for phasing out coal-fired generation technologies. In order to analyse such instruments, electricity market and energy system models are widely used. However, results and corresponding recommendations largely depend on the formulation of the respective model. This motivates a systematic comparison of five large-scale electricity market models which are applied to European scenarios considering the period until 2030. An evolved diff-in-diff approach is proposed to analyse the effects of two coal phase-out strategies. This contribution expands on that of earlier studies and provides some more general takeaways for both modellers and decision-makers. For instance, the evolved diff-in-diff analysis shows the influence of the reference scenario when evaluating a policy instrument. Furthermore, the importance of technical aspects such as constraints for combined heat and power plants are discussed and implications regarding three dimensions (economic, environmental, and security of supply) are presented.}, language = {en} } @article{RuhnauBucksteegRitteretal., author = {Ruhnau, Oliver and Bucksteeg, Michael and Ritter, David and Schmitz, Richard and B{\"o}ttger, Diana and Koch, Matthias and P{\"o}stges, Arne and Wiedmann, Michael and Hirth, Lion}, title = {Why electricity market models yield different results: Carbon pricing in a model-comparison experiment}, doi = {10.1016/j.rser.2021.111701}, abstract = {The European electricity industry, the dominant sector of the world's largest cap-and-trade scheme, is one of the most-studied examples of carbon pricing. In particular, numerical models are often used to study the uncertain future development of carbon prices and emissions. While parameter uncertainty is often addressed through sensitivity analyses, the potential uncertainty of the models themselves remains unclear from existing single-model studies. Here, we investigate such model-related uncertainty by running a structured model comparison experiment, in which we exposed five numerical power sector models to aligned input parameters—finding stark model differences. At a carbon price of 27 EUR/t in 2030, the models estimate that European power sector emissions will decrease by 36-57\% when compared to 2016. Most of this variation can be explained by the extent to which models consider the market-driven decommissioning of coal- and lignite-fired power plants. Higher carbon prices of 57 and 87 EUR/t yield a stronger decrease in carbon emissions, by 45-75\% and 52-80\%, respectively. The lower end of these ranges can be attributed to the short-term fuel switch captured by dispatch-only models. The higher reductions correspond to models that additionally consider market-based investment in renewables. By further studying cross-model variation in the remaining emissions at high carbon prices, we identify the representation of combined heat and power as another crucial driver of differences across model results.}, language = {en} } @article{BucksteegWiedmannPoestgesetal., author = {Bucksteeg, Michael and Wiedmann, Michael and P{\"o}stges, Arne and Haller, Markus and B{\"o}ttger, Diana and Ruhnau, Oliver and Schmitz, Richard}, title = {The transformation of integrated electricity and heat systems—Assessing mid-term policies using a model comparison approach}, series = {Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews}, volume = {160}, journal = {Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews}, doi = {10.1016/j.rser.2022.112270}, abstract = {The development of European power markets is highly influenced by integrated electricity and heat systems. Therefore, decarbonization policies for the electricity and heat sectors, as well as numerical models that are used to guide such policies, should consider cross-sectoral interdependencies and need evaluation. Many model-based policy assessments evaluate potential benefits of combined heat and power. However, the extent of benefits, such as emissions reductions, found in existing studies is subject to considerable variations. While scenarios and model inputs may partly explain such variations, differences in results may also be related to the model formulation itself. Against this background, this study is the first to compare electricity market models in the context of potential benefits of integrated electricity and heat systems in decarbonization. Five large-scale market models covering electricity and heat supply were utilized to study the interactions between a rather simple coal replacement scenario and a more ambitious policy that supports decarbonization through power-to-heat. With a focus on flexibility provision, emissions reduction, and economic efficiency, although the models agree on the qualitative effects, there are considerable quantitative differences. For example, the estimated reductions in overall CO2 emissions range between 0.2 and 9.0 MtCO2/a for a coal replacement scenario and between 0.2 and 25.0 MtCO2/a for a power-to-heat scenario. Model differences can be attributed mainly to the level of detail of combined heat and power modeling and the endogeneity of generation investments. Based on a detailed comparison of the modeling results, implications for modeling choices and political decisions are discussed.}, language = {en} }