While developing the TYNDP 2022 scenarios, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E make use and benchmark against relevant external studies as captured in the technologies ranges of the Final Storyline report published in April 2021. The purpose of the exercise is to understand whether or not the input assumptions and methodologies that ENTSOG and ENTSO-E employ result in credible and plausible outcomes compared to other expert opinion and methods.

As part of their internal quality process for scenario building, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E have compared the TYNDP 2022 Scenarios to the European Commission’s Impact Assessment Scenarios “Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition” published in September 20201.

Such comparison is key to ensure that the selection of Project of Common Interest is built upon scenarios consistent with European Commission policy scenarios.

Furthermore, the TYNDP 2022 scenarios are compared with the previous TYNDP 2020. This chapter provides comparisons for a variety of topics and parameters. All comparisons consider EU-272 results by sector and energy vector for 2050.

TYNDP 2022 and EC Impact Assessment scenarios refer to EU27 and take into account the shipping sector and ambient heat. TYNDP 2020 scenarios have been scaled to a scope enabling a consistent comparison with the new scenarios.

1 Comparisons are made with REG and CPRICE, which are the scenarios with the lowest and highest energy demand respectively.
2 TYNDP 2020 covered the EU-28 perimeter. In order to make a proper comparison with TYNDP 2022 and Impact Assessment, UK was excluded from the TYNDP 2020 results

6.1 Final energy demand

2050 final energy demand (excluding non-energy use) from TYNDP 2022 COP21 scenarios is compared with the previous TYNDP 2020 scenarios and with the EC Impact Assessment CPRICE and REG scenarios.

For the benchmark with the EC Impact Assessment scenarios the COP21 TYNDP 2022 scenarios include international transport and ambient heat demand. Whereas Agriculture and Other demand is included in Residential & Tertiary category.

Global Ambition and Distributed Energy show a strong alignment in Final energy demand with EC Impact Assessment in 2050. Differences between Global Ambition and CPRICE and between Distributed Energy and REG scenarios are lower than 4 %.

Figure 47: Final energy demand benchmark for EU27

As final demand of TYNDP 2020 scenarios did not take into account shipping and ambient heat (from heat pumps) while covering transmission and distribution losses and United-Kingdom, it has been necessary to use a consistent scope for comparison with TYNDP 2022 scenarios.

Global Ambition scenarios show almost the same final energy demand, and TYNDP 2022 Distributed Energy shows 3.5 % less final energy demand than TYNDP 2020.

6.2 Final electricity demand

Final electricity demand from TYNDP 2022 COP21 scenarios is compared with the previous TYNDP 2020 scenarios and with the EC Impact Assessment CPRICE and REG scenarios.

TYNDP 2022 Global Ambition scenario is aligned with the Commission’s CPRICE scenario, showing both almost 40 % share. Shares are calculated as the electricity final demand over the overall final demand (including international transport and ambient heat). TYNDP 2022 Distributed Energy scenario is a bit more ambitious than the Commission’s REG scenario (45 % vs 42 % share).

Figure 48: Benchmark electricity demand in 2050 for EU27

Both TYNDP 2022 scenarios show higher electricity demand than those of TYNDP 2020. Distributed Energy scenario has a higher electricity consumption than the Commission’s scenarios (10 % higher than REG) and Global Ambition scenario remains aligned with the Commission’s CPRICE scenario (lower than 5 % difference).

6.3 Electricity generation

In 2050, COP21 scenarios consider a strong increase of both final electricity demand and electrolysis. By that time horizon, there will be no more fossil-based power generation. It means a redesign of the power generation mix with scenario dependent options being among wind and solar technologies or nuclear.

Figure 49: Benchmark of RES technologies in 2050 for EU27

Figure 50: Benchmark of the overall level of wind and Solar PV capacity in 2050 for EU27

Distributed Energy reaches the ambitious RES targets for onshore wind as set in the Final Storyline report based on public consultation. It also exceeds the wind and solar capacity of the most ambitious EC Impact Assessment scenario (CPRICE). Nevertheless, it does not use the extended solar trajectory as following the storyline public consultation. Such behaviour certainly derives from the priority given to onshore wind due to lower CAPEX and higher load factor.

Global Ambition shows a higher offshore wind development compared to EC Impact Assessment scenarios following its narrative focusing on centralized technology. Solar and onshore wind capacity is below EC Impact Assessment level as the scenario requires less power generation due to the import of part of hydrogen and synthetic fuel demand when they are all produced in n Europe in European Commission scenarios.

6.4 Gas supply

6.4.1 Methane supply

A more limited and more decarbonised methane supply

In 2050, the COP 21 scenarios consider an increasing hydrogen demand and as methane decarbonisation is not the main source of hydrogen production, both Distributed Energy and Global Ambition show a reduction in the overall methane supply in TYNDP 2022 compared to TYNDP 2020 and substantially lower quantities than the EC Impact Assessment (between -500 TWh and -1200 TWh).

In Distributed Energy natural gas is completely phased out by 2050 and Global Ambition considers about 350 TWh of natural gas supply, which is primarily imported. The quantities of renewable methane in TYNDP 2022 scenarios are quite comparable with the EC Impact Assessment scenarios. These levels are slightly higher than in the previous TYNDP 2020, especially in Global Ambition.

Figure 51: Methane supply benchmark for EU27

6.4.2 Hydrogen supply

Hydrogen supply transformation: from carbon emitting feedstock to fully decarbonised energy carrier

By 2050, both COP 21 scenarios consider exclusively renewable or decarbonised hydrogen supply. Methane conversion into low carbon hydrogen through SMR combined with CCS has a minor role in Global Ambition and has fully disappeared in Distributed Energy.   It leaves the possibility to use decarbonisation technologies with renewable methane to produce carbon negative hydrogen.

Global Ambition considers hydrogen supply levels comparable to the EC Impact Assessment and Distributed Energy rather lower levels as a consequence of higher electrification and reduced final energy demand due to higher energy efficiency assumptions.

However, both scenarios consider a need for imports to complement the EU production to satisfy the demand and the hydrogen supply mix differs from the EC scenarios. In Distributed Energy the hydrogen produced from electrolysis is quite comparable with the Impact Assessment but hydrogen for e-gas and e-liquids is lower in Distributed Energy. Global Ambition considers an access to a global clean hydrogen market and shows a higher contribution of imports to the hydrogen supply and a lower production from electrolysis.

Figure 52: Hydrogen supply benchmark for EU27

With regard to hydrogen supply, the range observed in the TYNDP 2022 is quite comparable to TYNDP 2020. However, TYNDP 2022 shows a higher hydrogen supply for direct us whereas TYNDP 2020 shows hydrogen feedstock for e-gas and e-liquids production, especially in Distributed Energy.

6.5 Biomass supply

As discussed in chapter 4.2.2, the TYNDP 2022 scenarios foresee the use of biomass for several applications, e.g. in power generation or in biomethane production. In order to ensure that the scenarios do not overestimate the biomass potential available to these applications, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E benchmark the biomass supply against other studies.

Figure 53 provides a comparison of the TYNDP 2022 biomass supply assumptions against the EC Impact Assessment, EC Long Term Strategy and the previous TYNDP 2020. The biomass supply levels are quite similar to the assumptions in the Final TYNDP 2020 scenarios.

However, the new Distributed Energy scenario foresees the highest biomass supply compared to Global Ambition, consistent with the energy autonomy storyline. The biomass supply level observed in Distributed Energy is comparable but slightly lower than the assumptions in the EC Impact Assessment scenarios.

ENTSOG and ENTSO-E acknowledge however that Impact Assessment scenarios do not necessary explore the lower end of the range for biomass. That is why Global Ambition explores a lower level, which is quite similar to the 1.5 LIFE-LB (low biomass) scenario in the EC Long Term Strategy.

Figure 53: Biomass supply benchmark for EU27

6.6 Energy imports

Figure 54 compares the TYNDP 2022 assumptions on energy imports in 2050 with the EC Impact Assessment and with the previous TYNDP 2020.

Figure 54: Energy imports benchmark (excluding nuclear fuels) for EU27

As Distributed Energy focuses on higher European energy autonomy, this scenario foresees the lowest levels of energy import. By 2050 the total energy imports are reduced to slightly less than 1100 TWh. This is well below the energy imports in the EC Impact Assessment scenarios. Total energy import in Global Ambition is with about 2600 TWh quite comparable with the EC Impact Assessment. However, the type of imported energy carrier differs.

Compared to the EC scenarios, Global Ambition foresees less import of oil and more import of (renewable) gas including hydrogen. The higher gas import however stems explicitly from the scenario storyline of this scenario.

Compared to the previous TYNDP edition, total imports in Distributed Energy are about 35 % lower and in Global Ambition about 8 % lower.

6.7 Carbon capture and storage

The EC Impact Assessment does not provide any figures for CCS. That is why the TYNDP 2022 scenario assumptions where benchmarked against some other studies. Table 2 provides an overview. The following studies were used:

Distributed Energy assumes up to 64 Mt of CCS in 2050. This means a reduction compared to the previous TYNDP edition, where for Distributed Energy up to 130 Mt was assumed. Furthermore, the CCS level in the Distributed Energy scenario for TYNDP 2022 is comparable to the lower scenarios in the LTS. Global Ambition assumes up to 761 Mt of carbon capture and storage, based on IEA. This is more than the assumption in TYNDP 2020 and also exceeds the figures in the Long-Term Strategy from a few years ago. It is however still well below the CCS levels reached in the Hydrogen for EU study that was released recently.

StudyScenarioCCS in 2050 (Mt/y)
TYNDP 2020Global Ambition463
Distributed Energy130
IEANet zero 2050662
Hydrogen for EUTechnology Diversification1505
Renewable Push1325
EC Long Term StrategyELEC65
TYNDP 2022Global Ambition662
Distributed Energy64

Table 2: Benchmark of carbon capture and storage assumptions