Jan Tomaschek

Greenhouse gas emissions and abatement costs of biofuel production in South Africa

Transport accounts for about one quarter of South Africas final energy consumption. Most of the energy used is based on fossil fuels causing significant environmental burdens. This threat becomes even more dominant as a significant growth in transport demand is forecasted, especially in South Africas economic hub, Gauteng province. The South African government has realized the potential of biofuel usage for reducing oil import dependency and greenhouse gas (GHG) and has hence developed a National Biofuels Industrial Strategy to enforce their use. However, there is limited experience in the country in commercial biofuel production and some of the proposed crops (i.e. rapeseed and sugar beet) have not been yet cultivated on a larger scale. Furthermore, there is only limited research available, looking at the feasibility of commercial scale biofuel production or abatement costs of GHG emissions. To assess the opportunities of biofuel production in South Africa, the production costs and consumer price levels of the fuels recommended by the national strategy are analysed in this article. Moreover, the lifecycle GHG emissions and mitigation costs are calculated compared to the calculated fossil fuel reference including coal to liquid (CTL) and gas to liquid (GTL) fuels. The results show that the cost for biofuel production in South Africa are currently significantly higher (between 30% and 80%) than for the reference fossil fuels. The lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels (especially for sugar cane) are considerably lower (up to 45%) than the reference fossil GHG emissions. The resulting GHG abatement costs are between 1000 and 2500 ZAR2007 per saved ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is high compared to the current European CO2 market prices of ca. 143 ZAR2007 t−1. The analysis has shown that biofuel production and utilization in South Africa offers a significant GHG‐mitigation potential but at relatively high cost.

Concentrated solar power generation: Firm and dispatchable capacity for Brazil’s solar future?

The Brazilian electricity mix is currently dominated by renewable energy forms, foremost hydropower. Large additional capacity demands are expected in the mid-term future but additional potential for hydro power is limited. In addition it is planned to construct more than 17 GW of wind power and additional capacity of photovoltaics (PV). Due to the fluctuating nature of such renewables, however, wind and PV are hardly able to provide firm capacity. Concentrated solar power (CSP) might be a feasible option to provide firm and dispatchable capacity at low carbon emissions. This study analyses the opportunities for integrating CSP into the Brazilian energy system. Making use of the TiPS-B model, a novel application of the optimization model generator TIMES, we compare different climate protection strategies with a reference scenario and analyze the contribution of CSP to the electricity mix. The analysis covers various types of CSP power plants with molten salt energy storage where we look at possible dispat...

The role of CSP in Brazil: A multi-model analysis

MESSAGE, TIMES and REMIX-CEM are potential tools for modelling a larger penetration of variable renewable energy (VRE) into the Brazilian power system. They also allow devising the opportunities that concentrated solar power (CSP) plants offer to the power system and to the wider energy system. There are different opportunities for CSP in Brazil in the short and medium term, consolidating this technology as a feasible alternative for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in Brazil. This work verified that CSP is a cost-effective option only under very stringent mitigation scenarios (4DS and 2DS) and when carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not available. Still, according to the findings of REMIX-CEM-B, CSP can provide firm energy and dispatchable capacity in the Northeast region of Brazil, optimally complementing wind and PV generation. Moreover, CSP can offer additional flexibility to the Northeast power system, especially during winter and after 2030.