Search

This study investigates the cost-effectiveness and decarbonization of four essential carbon reduction strategies to achieve Korea's recent 2030 NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) goal in the power sector. Examining overseas experiences and identifying potentials and challenges in implementing these strategies in Korea, this study explores the performance of future Korean power systems under fifty-four configurations combining these strategies. The evaluation results indicate that: 1) Thirty-one of the fifty-four tested configurations can achieve the emission target (149.9 MtCO 2 e) with carbon abatement costs (COA) ranging from -$89 to $105/tCO 2 e. The optimal configuration with the lowest COA is a combination of nuclear restoration and renewable expansion strategies. 2) Renewable expansion significantly reduces the COA and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). A pure renewable expansion strategy with photovoltaics of 68 GW and wind turbines of 35 GW attains the emission goal at a COA of -$54/tCO 2 e , in which the generation share of renewables reaches 42%. 3) A carbon tax of $104/tCO 2 e achieves the target if complemented by nuclear restoration. Otherwise, $120/tCO 2 e is needed. The COA and LCOE are increases by switching from cheap coal to expensive natural gas in both cases. 4) Twenty percent coal–ammonia co-firing combined with a carbon tax of $32/tCO 2 e and nuclear restoration can achieve the goal with relatively high costs compared with the optimal strategies. However, a co-firing strategy is limited because the generation shrinks at a minimum level when 40% ∼ mixing ratios are applied, or when the fuel price gap between ammonia and natural gas becomes large. [Display omitted] • Four essential carbon reduction strategies are examined for South Korea 2030. • Combinations of the strategies achieve the 2030 reduction target (149.9 MtCO 2 e). • The resulting carbon abatement costs (COA) are ranging from -$89 to $105/tCO 2 e. • The lowest COA is achieved by a mix of nuclear restoration and renewable expansion. • A pure renewable expansion strategy attains the goal at COA -$54/tCO 2 e. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Electricity-based mobility (EBM) includes electricity-derived hydrogen and synthetic fuels. • EBM allows for significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction compared to fossil fuels. • With sector coupling, battery electric vehicle feature the lowest GHG emissions. • Large PV expansion without sector coupling favors more flexible H 2 and SNG vehicles. • Only a systemic view of GHG emissions allows for a fair comparison of EBM options. Electricity-based mobility (EBM) refers to vehicles that use electricity as their primary energy source either directly such as Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) or indirectly such as hydrogen (H 2) driven Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV) or Synthetic Natural Gas Vehicles (SNG-V). If low-carbon electricity is used, EBM has the potential to be more sustainable than conventional fossil-fuel based vehicles. While BEV feature the highest tank-to-wheel efficiency, electricity can only be stored for short durations in the energy system (e.g. via pumped-hydro storage or batteries), whereas H 2 -FCEV and SNG-V have a lower tank-to-wheel efficiency due to additional conversion losses, H 2 and SNG can be stored longer in pressurized tanks or the natural gas grid. Thus, they feature more flexibility with regard to exploiting renewable electricity via seasonal storage. In this study, we examine whether and under what circumstances this additional flexibility of H 2 and SNG can be used to offset additional losses in the powertrain and conversion with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation of EBM from a life-cycle point of view in a Swiss scenario setting. To this end, a supply chain model for EBM fuels is established in the context of an evolving Swiss and European electricity system along with an approach to estimate the penetration of EBM in a legislation compliant future passenger cars fleet. We show that EBM results in significantly lower life-cycle GHG emissions than a corresponding fossil fuels driven fleet. BEV generally entail the lowest GHG emissions if flexibility options can be offered through sector coupling, short-term and seasonal energy storage or demand side management. Otherwise, in particular with a large expansion of photovoltaics (PV) and curtailment of excess electricity, H 2 -FCEV and SNG-V feature equal or – in case of high-carbon electricity imports – even lower GHG emissions than BEV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]