Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Comparison of 100% renewable energy system scenarios with a focus on

flexibility and cost
Wesley Deason
International Atomic Energy Agency, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, a particular class of energy system scenarios assuming 100% renewable energy (RE) are selected
Energy system flexibility and compared. The purpose is to compare the relative characteristics of the scenarios, focusing on the amount
Energy system modeling and types of flexibility used and the predicted electricity generation cost. The approach included the screening of
High-penetration renewable energy systems 45 studies (some of which contained multiple scenarios) to down-select to 8 studies, which used high-fidelity
short-term energy system models. The compared scenarios applied many strategies for providing flexibility,
which was found to be a crucial and significant component of a 100% RE system. Accordingly, only two of the
fifteen examined scenarios contained a variable generation fraction greater than 65% of total scenario capacity
(73% and 69%). Predicted electricity costs varied drastically in all regions. Some studies provided multiple
scenarios (including business-as-usual scenarios and costs) that could be compared. In 3 out of the 4 studies
including a business-as-usual cost, the 100% RE scenarios were found to be between 41% and 104% more
expensive. The fourth study showed electricity costs to be the same for a 100% RE system and business-as-usual
system, and the 100% RE system to be 62% cheaper when externalities are included.

1. Introduction
In high-penetration renewable energy (RE) systems, variable re-
newable sources of electricity generation (e.g. wind and solar power)
are used extensively. To achieve maximum use of these generation
sources, the system must compensate in some way the inherent varia-
bility of their power output. The energy system's ability to compensate
for this variability is commonly referred to as flexibility. Renewable
sources of flexibility can be added to the energy system through many
methods, such as energy generation (e.g. hydroelectric, biofuels, and
concentrating solar thermal power with storage - CSP), grid inter-
connections, energy storage (e.g. thermal storage, compressed air,
pumped storage, batteries, or synthetic fuels), and flexible demand. The
amount of flexibility required in a high-penetration RE system can be
higher than expected at first glance. Energy generation troughs from
variable sources may align with energy demand peaks for an extended
period of time, leading to a shortage of energy. Proper validation
through use of a short-term energy system model can capture this
phenomenon, ensuring the proper amount of flexibility is designed into
the system [1].
In this study, several 100% RE scenarios for various regions have
been selected and compared.1 Particular focus has been given in de-
termining the amount and types of flexibility used in the scenarios and
the predicted electricity generation cost. Though the ability for the
scenarios to provide time-dependent electric grid load balancing has
been ensured through the use of a short-term energy system model,
their ability to provide geographical load balancing and other ancillary
services has not. Provision of all ancillary services to the electric grid
(e.g. frequency control, voltage control, system restoration, and system
control) remains necessary for its safe and reliable operation [2].
1.1. Outline
Section 2 reviews the literature, focusing on four previous reviews
of high-penetration RE system studies. Section 3 presents this study's
methodology. Section 4 presents a wide selection of the high-penetra-
tion RE system studies that have been published and describes those
picked for in-depth analysis. Section 5 presents analysis results, with
subsections devoted to scenario demand, scenario capacity, and sce-
nario cost. Section 6 summarizes the study's conclusions.

E-mail address: a.vanheek@iaea.org.

1
This work was inspired by a presentation given by Ben Heard, a PhD student at the University of Adelaide, Australia at the World Nuclear Association Symposium 2015 in London,
UK. The presentation consisted of a review of several different decarbonization studies. Results of that presentation are not discussed in the present section because it is not available in
public literature.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.026
Received 23 February 2017; Received in revised form 4 August 2017; Accepted 26 October 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Deason, W., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.026
W. Deason
2. Literature review
The publications discussed below reviewed studies of high-pene-
tration RE scenarios. The studied scenarios ranged from general sce-
narios—which consider the capability for renewable resources to pro-
vide energy to different regions of the world over a long time
period—to specific scenarios—which examine the functioning of a
single region's electricity grid over a short and highly-discretized time
period.
Loftus et al. compared 17 global decarbonization scenarios with the
goal of understanding their feasibility [3]. To do so, the authors ex-
amined the scenarios’ change in energy intensity, change in carbon
intensity, and low-carbon technology growth rates relative to historical
data and future projections. Notable results were that all scenarios
featured a reduction in future per-GDP energy use between 2010 and
2050 compared to historically observed rates. 14 of the 17 scenarios
featured low-carbon technology growth rates similar to historical ex-
perience. The 3 outlier scenarios ( [4,5]/[6], and [7]) required much
higher deployment rates to meet their decarbonization targets due to
the a priori decision to exclude some low-carbon technologies (e.g.
nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and biomass). Economic costs
from the scenarios were reviewed, with all except one showing an in-
cremental investment in the range of 1% of global GDP (20–50% over
the baseline scenario's investments). It is also noted that the 17 ex-
amined scenarios featured little details on how transportation and in-
dustrial sectors could be decarbonized, and how key constraints (e.g.
technical, economic, infrastructural, and societal) could be overcome.
Reedman looked at 23 high-penetration RE studies in the context of
Australia and discussed their characteristics [8]. In particular, it
documented the studies’ proposed resource use and technologies,
methods, assumptions, and results – including the estimated generation,
generation capacity, and overall cost. The review examined studies
focusing on RE penetration into electricity grids of similar size to or
larger than the Australian National Electricity Market's grid. Reedman's
study was commissioned by the Australian Energy Market Operator to
aid in the development of their own 100% RE study [9]. Notable con-
clusions in the review were that the studied scenarios collectively
identified challenges due to resource availability; the integration of RE
into the grid; and social, environmental, and institutional constraints.
However, the studies found these challenges were ultimately sur-
mountable. Similar to Loftus et al., Reedman compared scenario costs to
a baseline scenario [3]. The results showed a 10–50% increase relative
to the baseline retail electricity price chosen by Reedman from a 2012
NREL study [10]. The review also summarized two studies ( [11] and
[12]) on the transformation of the Australian electricity system to 100%
RE, estimating total costs of 317 billion 2010AUD (~356 billion
2012USD) and 370 billion 2010AUD (~415 Billion 2012USD) respec-
tively. Reedman also identified shortcomings in the studied scenarios
related to the lack of the following: explicit modeling of the electric
grid, market conditions and demand behaviour (demand side partici-
pation or vehicle-to-grid); analysis on the effects of institutional and
government policies; and analysis on how the proposed systems affect
economic performance statistics regarding jobs and growth.
Cochran et al. reviewed 12 high penetration RE scenarios, com-
paring their methodologies, assumptions, and results [13]. Similar to
Reedman, the analysed scenarios consisted of a mix of global and re-
gional scenarios [8]. The authors compared costs calculated by the
scenarios, finding that some of the studies showed incremental cost
increases relative to a reference scenario, one [14] showed “competi-
tive” costs; and another [15] showed RE systems would be cheaper.2
The review ultimately concludes that RE technologies vary con-
siderably on a regional and global scale, and that more research is
2
A further description of these costs can be found Table 5 of Cochran et al.’s review
[13].
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
needed to produce scenarios verified with economically-based capacity
expansion and dispatch models.
Schmid et al. reviewed 10 climate change mitigation scenarios for
Germany [16]. The authors reviewed all aspects of the scenarios in
order to determine and compare their overarching strategies. It found
their main strategies were to increase domestic renewable electricity
production, to reduce electricity demand, and to rely on imports of
renewable electricity from neighbouring countries. Though the review
discussed cost numbers found in several of the scenarios, the lack of a
common methodology or goal prevented a useful comparison. Through
discussion of the underlying assumptions of the scenarios and by
comparing those assumptions with the scenario results, the authors
conclude that there are still barriers in place related to technology
development and implementation preventing the strategies suggested
in the scenarios from being carried out.
The present work adds to the work done in the publications dis-
cussed above by focusing specifically on studies verified using short-
term (or “dispatch”) models. Additionally, the present work adds value
by investigating the role of flexibility in proposed 100% RE systems.
3. Methodology
The first step taken in the present analysis was the selection of re-
levant energy system studies. To determine study relevancy, four main
criteria were used: inclusion of a 100% RE scenario; verification of the
100% RE scenario using a short-term model; a suitable geographical
scope enabling comparison with obtainable energy statistics; and the
reporting of information related to the assumed power capacities for all
energy generation, storage, grid interconnection, and demand flex-
ibility technologies. Only 100% RE scenarios were considered in order
to limit complexity of comparison results and to provide a better
baseline for comparing scenarios against. Since the purpose of the
present study is not to determine the feasibility of the studied scenarios,
validation by a short-term energy system model is assumed to be suf-
ficient enough to ensure feasibility.
Next, as much information as possible was gathered from the sce-
narios about assumed energy generation and demand, power capacities,
and costs. The information was then categorized and compared. The
categories, which are listed in Table 1, were designed to best encompass
the role each technology plays in the system.
The principal category, ‘Total Scenario Capacity’, groups together
all types of capacity capable of adding or flexibly removing energy from
the system. This categorization is counter-intuitive to the way energy
systems have been previously described and requires some explanation.
One main attribute all technologies within total scenario capacity share
is a real cost associated with their construction or utilization. The ca-
pacities also have the same unit, power. By adding or removing energy
from the system, they can ensure the distribution and transmission in-
frastructure is efficiently loaded (not over or underutilized). The tech-
nologies work in sync to ensure the efficient and reliable operation of
the 100% RE system. Lastly, by tracking the total scenario capacity, it is
desired that the individual capacities can be compared side by side and
with present day technology capacities. Rather than just replacing
current capacity with new generation capacity, flexible demand and
storage are being brought online as well and should accordingly be
included in comparisons.
The subordinate categories, ‘Variable Generation Capacity’ and
‘Capacity for Flexibility’ split the technologies according to their ability
to provide flexibility. Variable generation capacity is composed of solar
photovoltaic (solar PV), wind, and ocean technologies. These electricity
generation technologies produce usable energy at variable rates and
any energy collected by these technologies must be used immediately or
stored in an external storage facility. The variable generation capacity
category highlights the importance of variable generating technologies
and helps in understanding their penetration into the overall system.
The other category, ‘Capacity for Flexibility’, groups together
W. Deason Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Together these categories cover all flexible energy supply compo-
Categorization of technologies in a 100% RE system. nents used in the reviewed scenarios.
Total scenario Variable generation capacity Solar photovoltaic
capacity On shore wind 4. Studies selected for review
Off shore wind
Ocean (tidal and wave) A catalogue of high-penetration renewable energy studies is shown
Capacity for Flexible Concentrating solar in Table 2. The studies were examined using the criteria discussed in
Flexibility generation thermal power with
capacity storage
the previous section. They cover a wide range of regions and represent
Solar heating with storage many different strategies for use of large amounts of RE in electricity
Hydroelectric (run-of-the- and thermal energy generation. The selection of the studies was done
river and reservoir) based upon the four rightmost columns in Table 2.
Geothermal
Table 3 lists the final selection of studies along with characteristics
Biofuels
Transmission Grid interconnection of the energy system model they build on. To allow comparison of
capacity scenarios with those closest to them in scale, the scenarios have been
Storage capacity Non-CSP thermal storage arranged according to the 2013 electricity demand of the country they
Compressed air energy target [60]. This arrangement of the scenarios is used throughout the
storage (CAES)
Hydroelectric with
rest of the article. Some of the studies contain multiple scenarios, and
pumped storage cover a large geographical range. Most of the models used to evaluate
Hydrogen electricity the scenarios use a dispatch interval of 1 h and a simulation length of 1
generation capacity year (both historic and future years up until 2050 are being con-
Hydrogen heat generation
sidered). This configuration is useful for connecting to publically
capacity
Battery capacity available electricity demand statistics and variable renewable resource
Flexible demand Demand side participation availability statistics. If more discrete information is available, then the
Electric vehicles dispatch interval can be decreased accordingly. A distinctive study is
Hydrogen electrolysis that of Jacobson et al.’s with a dispatch interval of thirty seconds and a
Reducible Large industrial users with
demand pre-arrangements for
simulation length of six years, which uses a computer model to generate
energy reduction energy demand and RE resource availabilities [51]. Another distinctive
study by Krakowski et al. models the energy supply during re-
presentative periods of a common day, week, and year [32]. By redu-
technologies that produce or use energy at controllable rates. These cing the number of time steps needed to analyse a year, the authors
technologies can provide flexibility to a 100% RE system, enabling could allow the model to determine the evolution of the energy system
more economic utilization of energy. By grouping them together, it can over a period of 40 years. The study specifically addresses the possi-
be seen that some form of capacity for flexibility is necessary in the bility of a period with high energy demand and low wind and solar
reviewed 100% RE scenarios. Capacity for flexibility can be broken resource availability by evaluating a specific period in January-Feb-
down further based upon how each specific category of technology ruary with low wind and solar availability.
operated with respect to the system.
5. Scenario analysis results
• Flexible generation capacity is composed of CSP with storage, solar
heating with storage, hydroelectric (run-of-the-river and reservoir), 5.1. Scenario demand
geothermal, and biofuels. These generation technologies generally
feature some amount of internal or inherent storage (where energy Determination of energy demand is crucial to developing the system
does not have to be used immediately) or tap into a consistently capacity needed in a future energy scenario. It is highly dependent on
available energy or fuel reservoir (as in geothermal or run-of-the- assumptions made on the evolution of energy-dependent sectors
river). (transportation, industry, heating, etc.). Adoption of new technologies
• Transmission capacity is composed of electricity transmission ca- and lifestyle changes may drastically affect the amount and types of
pacity that allows a region to trade electricity with neighbors. energy needed. Table 4 shows the change in the demand in the various
• Storage capacity is composed of all storage technologies used in the scenarios compared to final electricity and energy consumption values
system not integrated directly or inherently within a single flexible from 2013. Jacobson et al. is distinctive from the other studies due to its
generation technology. The storage technologies considered in the scope, which assumes that RE produces all energy for energy-dependent
present work are: non-CSP thermal storage, compressed air energy sectors in the United States [51]. The other scenarios are not as ex-
storage (CAES), hydroelectric with pumped storage, hydrogen tensive. Despite energy saving and efficiency measures, some scenarios
electricity generation capacity, hydrogen heat generation capacity, forecast electricity demand to stay constant or increase over the long
and battery capacity. Energy for these storage technologies can term. Other scenarios simply use unaltered present day electricity de-
generally be stored from any variable or flexible generation tech- mand.
nology or from a combination of technologies (i.e. energy from an
electricity or heat market). 5.2. Scenario capacity
• Flexible demand is defined as energy demand which can be shifted
within a predefined period of time (usually less than 24 h) to use The amount of flexibility needed varies based on the geographical
energy as soon as it's available or to delay if it is not. An example of and regional constraints applied to each scenario. To aid in seeing the
flexible demand is electricity used to supply energy to electric ve- capacity for flexibility needed in all the scenarios, all categories except
hicles (EVs) or for hydrogen electrolysis. variable generation capacity have been grouped together in Fig. 1
• Reducible demand is demand not required to be met within any time under the label ‘Capacity for Flexibility’. Variable generation capacity is
period. An example of reducible demand is energy supplied to a shown alongside the capacity for flexibility, both of which when
manufacturing plant, which may be willing to reduce output in summed together create the total system capacity (as defined in the
exchange for payment according to a pre-arranged agreement. methodology section). In Fig. 1, only two of the fifteen scenarios feature
a variable generation fraction greater than 65% of the total system

3
W. Deason Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Catalogue of high-penetration RE studies. An “X” denotes a fulfilled study criterion. Studies selected for in-depth review are bolded.

Region Year Main article author or report institution 100% RE Uses short-term Country-Level Contains all capacity-specific
model scope dataa

Australia 2010 Beyond Zero Emissions [12] X X X

Australia 2012 Trainer [17] X X
Australia - NEM Gridb 2012 Elliston et al. [18] X X See notec X
Australia - NEM Gridb 2013 AEMO [9] X X See notec X
Australia - NEM Gridb 2016 Huva et al. [19] X X
Brazil 2014 Schmidt et al. [20] X X
Croatia - Mljet 2009 Krajačić et al. [21] X X X
Denmark 2008 Lund and Mathiesen [22] X X X
Denmark 2015 Mathiesen et al. [23] X X X
Denmark 2015 Østergaard et al. [24] X X X
Europe 2010 EREC [25] X X X
Europe 2010 Greenpeace and EREC [26] X X
Europe 2013 Trainer [27] X X
Europe 2016 Bertsch et al. [28] X X X
Europe - Northern Countries 2008 Sørenson [29] X X X
Europe - Southeast Countries 2016 Dominković et al. [30] X X X
Europe and North Africa 2011 energynautics GmbH [31] X X X
France 2016 Krakowski et al. [32] X X X X
France - Reunion Island 2015 Drouineau et al. [33] X X
Germany 2011 SRU [34] X X X X
Germany 2012 DLR [35] X X X
Great Britain 2013 Centre for Alternative Technology [36] X X
India - Kerala 2013 WWF-India and WISE [37]
Ireland 2011 Connolly et al. [38] X X X
Japan 2003 ISUSI [39] X X X
Japan 2012 Esteban et al. [40] X X X
Macedonia 2012 Ćosić et al. [41] X X X
New Zealand 2013 Mason et al. [42] X X X X
Portugal 2010 Krajačić et al. [43] X X X X
Portugal 2013 Fernandes and Ferreira [44] X X X X
South Africa 2011 Greenpeace [45] X X
Spain - Canary Islands 2015 Greenpeace [46] X X
Spain - Catalonia 2007 Fundació Terra, iSuSI, Ecoserveis [47] X X X
Sweden 2011 IVL [48] X X
United Kingdom 2015 Pfenninger and Keirstead [49] X X X
United States 2012 NREL [50] X X X
United States 2015 Jacobson et al. [51] X X X X
United States 2015 Jacobson et al. [52] X X X
United States 2008 Fthenakis et al. [53] X X
United States - PJM Grid 2012 Budischak et al. [54] X X
United States - WECC Grid 2011 Short and Diakov [55] X X X
World 2011 WWF [4] X X
World 2013 Trainer [56] X X
World 2015 Greenpeace, GWEC, SolarPowerEurope X X X
[57]
World 2016 Jacobson et al. [58] X X X

a
Though some of the scenarios met most or all of the selection criteria, some lack key information on the capacities of some system components. Without this information, it was not
possible to compile information needed for in-depth analysis.
b
The National Electricity Market (NEM) is the name for the wholesale electricity market covering the eastern and southern coasts of Australia. It supplies around 80% of Australia's
electricity consumption [59].
c
An exception was made for the two Australian NEM Grid studies because present day capacity information was available for comparison and because the NEM encompasses such a
large fraction of Australia's electricity consumption.

Table 3
Description of selected studies.

Region Main Author and Year Number of Scenario Years Models/Tools used Dispatch model time-step Simulated duration
Scenarios

United States Jacobson et al., 2015 [51] 1 2050–2055 LOADMATCH with GATOR-GCMOM 30 s 6 years
Germany SRU, 2011 [34] 4 2050 REMix 1h 1 year
France Krakowski et al., 2016 4 2010–2050 MARKAL-TIMES Representative periods 40 years
[32]
Australia Elliston et al., 2012 [18] 1 2010 Python program 1h 1 year
Australia AEMO, [9] 2 2030 Unnamed Monte Carlo model and dispatch 1h 1 year
model
Portugal Krajačić et al., 2010 [43] 1 2020 H2RES 1h 1 year
Portugal Fernandes et al., 1 2020 EnergyPlan 1h 1 year
2013 [44]
New Zealand Mason et al., 2013 [42] 1 2005–2010 Matlab script with Excel 30 min 6 years

4
 W. Deason

Table 4
Comparison of scenario demand assumptions.

Scenario Scenario Demand Scenario Years % of 2013 Electricity % of 2013 Total Energy Scenario demand assumptions
(TWh)a Demandb Demandc

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA) [51] 13782.5 2050–2055 366% 79% All transportation, industry, and heating (electric and hydrogen) with energy saving and
efficiency measures
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany) [34] 509 2050 98% 19% About half of auto fleet electrified and energy saving and efficiency measures
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany) [34] 700 2050 135% 27% Most of auto fleet electrified; large portion of heating and industry electrified with energy
saving and efficiency measures
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany) [34] 509.4 2050 98% 19% Same as Scenario 1.a
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany) [34] 700 2050 135% 27% Same as Scenario 1.b
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 425.4 2010–2050 97% 23% Demand is considered elastic, but based on reference values which consider some
(France) [32] electrification, energy saving, and efficiency measures in all sectors
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 425.4 2010–2050 97% 23% Same as Scenario 100RES 2050
2050_v1 (France) [32]
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 425.4 2010–2050 97% 23% Same as Scenario 100RES 2050

5
2050_v5 (France) [32]
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 425.4 2010–2050 97% 23% Same as Scenario 100RES 2050
2050_v7 (France) [32]
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia) [18] 204.4 2010 113% (NEM only)d 22% (All AUS) 2010 National Electricity Market (NEM) demand was used with no augmentation
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia) 238 2030 131% (NEM only) 25% (All AUS) Moderate economic growth; rapid uptake of energy efficiency, six million EVs by 2030; NEM
[9] electricity use only
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia) 270 2030 149% (NEM only) 29% (All AUS) High economic growth; moderate uptake of energy efficiency. 3.5 million EVs by 2030; NEM
[9] electricity use only
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal) 49.176 2020 109% 26% 2006 Portuguese electricity load was used with no augmentation
[43]
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal) 53.6 2020 118% 28% Forecasted demand based on principles of reduced energy dependence and sustainable
[44] electricity production
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand) [42] 41.1505 2005–2010 108% 27% 2005–2010 New Zealand electricity load was used with no augmentation

a
If the number of scenario years was greater than one, the average scenario demand/year was recorded.
b
Electricity consumption for 2013 was taken from [61], except for the Australian studies (NEM grid), for which 2013 electricity consumption was taken from [62].
c
Total energy consumption for countries in 2013 was taken from [60] and converted from Mtoe to TWh.
d
The NEM supplies around 80% of Australia's electricity consumption [59].
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
W. Deason
Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 (France)
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia)
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal)
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal)
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand)
0% 20%
Variable Generation Capacity
Fraction of Total Scenario Capacity
Capacity for Flexibility
capacity (SRU 2011 Scenarios 1.a and 1.b (Germany) feature 73% and
69% respectively) [34]. This can be attributed to the high capacity
factor for off-shore wind turbines, which generate a large amount of the
electricity in the SRU scenarios [34].
Fig. 1 also shows that for the examined scenarios, the fraction of
variable generation capacity increases with system size. This observa-
tion is in alignment with other literature. Studies have shown that the
spacing between wind farms has been shown to effectively increase
average capacity factors3 of wind generation [63,64] and aggregating
electric load over large distances can effectively smooth demand [65].
However, in this case the specific geographic factors and selected
technologies in the scenarios (discussed later in this section) may be an
overriding factor. This is seen in the larger influence of hydroelectric
generation in the Mason et al. and Portuguese scenarios [43,44], the
selection of concentrated solar thermal in the Australian scenarios
[9,18], and the use of electricity import in the Krakowski et al. [32] and
SRU 2011 [34] scenarios, which are all grouped as capacity for flex-
ibility in Fig. 1 (further discussion of these technology makeups will
come later in the article). If these scenarios had similar insolation and
wind speed characteristics and had chosen similar system capacity
makeups, these due to larger grids may have been discernible from the
data.
A comparison of key capacities and how they compare with each
other and with historical generating capacity is shown in Fig. 2. The
United States energy system as proposed by Jacobson et al. features a
large amount of Total Scenario Capacity relative to the present day
generation capacity (U.S. electricity generation system in 2013) due to
the large demand of energy that must be met directly through elec-
tricity or indirectly through hydrogen [51]. The other scenarios all
show an increase in generation capacity as well. While increase in
electricity demand can account for some of the capacity increase seen in
the scenarios, the majority of increase is due to decreased capacity
factors of the generation technology used compared with present day.
Fig. 3 shows the relative capacity factors different technologies used
in the scenarios. Only some of the scenarios are included in the figure
due to lack of available information. For variable generation technol-
ogies, this is due to differences in the availability of energy for the
studied region. However, some of the flexible generation technologies
show a wide variation in their capacity factors. This can be attributed to
the importance the specific technology played in a particular scenario.
For example, if it served as a direct complement for variable generation
(i.e. only operating when resources are not available for variable gen-
erators) then its capacity factor will be relatively low. However, if a
technology's capacity was not needed to complement variable
3
In this context, capacity factor is defined as average ratio of the actual output of a
generation technology to its potential output. This is the definition used throughout this
report.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Comparison of the variable genera-
tion capacity with the capacity for flexibility
in the system. The data used to create this
chart is exactly the same as the data used in
Fig. 2. Capacity for flexibility is defined as
any generation, storage, or demand capacity
that can temporally adjust to respond to
changes in output from variable generation
capacity or to changes in demand. Refer to
Table 4 for scenario reference numbers.
40% 60% 80% 100%
generation, it could be used in a baseload fashion. This is particularly
apparent through the 2.2.a and 2.2.b scenarios in SRU 2011's study
when compared to the 1.a and 1.b scenarios [34]. Through the in-
troduction of the ability to import electricity, the need to use biofuels as
a complement to variable generation could be reduced and biofuel
generation capacity could be used in a more economical, baseload
fashion. The same strategy can be seen by comparing the hydro capa-
city factor. The capacity factor of hydro in the AEMO 2013 scenarios is
reduced compared to the other scenarios due to its use in com-
plementing variable generation [9].
Figs. 4 and 5 show the different generation technologies used in the
scenarios, along with reducible demand and transmission, providing
further detail into the categories used in Fig. 2. Reducible demand is
shown alongside flexible generation and transmission capacities in
Fig. 5 due to its ability to be implemented in place of those technolo-
gies. Rather than call for an increase in output from a flexible genera-
tion source or neighbouring system, a grid operator could call for a
large energy user to temporarily reduce output.
Fig. 6 shows the different storage technologies, along with flexible
demand, used in the scenarios. Flexible demand has been shown next to
storage technologies because flexible demand can be seen as storing the
demand for later. In both cases, the total energy use essentially remains
the same (ignoring inefficiencies due to energy storage or variable en-
ergy usage rates), but the time at which it is used changes.
The large amount of hydrogen electrolysis capacity in the Jacobson
et al. scenario shown in Fig. 6 behaves in a similar way as the other
flexible demand strategies [51]. When available, electricity is used to
generate hydrogen; however, the capacity for electrolysis has to be
large enough to make up for times when it is not. The inclusion of
flexible and reducible demand within total system capacity is a unique
addition in the present work. The inclusion of flexible and reducible
demand is crucial in several scenarios for providing the flexibility re-
quired to meet demand at all times.
No single technology is fully dominant for any scenario; rather, all
require a diverse portfolio of technologies working in sync to meet
demand. This is particularly apparent in the choice of flexible tech-
nologies chosen by scenarios. By examining the technologies shown in
Figs. 4–6 as a whole, several regional patters can be seen:
1. All the scenarios include wind technology. One German scenario,
one French scenario, and the New Zealand scenario stand out by
exclusively using wind technology, with no PV capacity installed.
2. All the scenarios include hydroelectric and/or pumped storage
technologies. The Portuguese and New Zealand scenarios stand out
in using it as a significant portion of their flexible capacity.
3. All the scenarios except for the American scenario include biomass
technology. The German, French, and Australian scenarios stand out
as using it as a significant portion of their flexible capacity.
6
W. Deason Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 (France)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 (France)
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia)
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal)
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal)
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand)
0%
Fig. 2. Makeup of the total scenario capa-
city for each scenario. The circle on each
scenario bar represents the electric genera-
tion capacity for the target country in the
present day. Capacity information for the
Australian studies (NEM grid) comes from
[66] and [67] and is for the year 2016. All
other capacity information comes from [61]
and is for the year 2013, except for Ger-
many, for which information on coal, oil,
natural gas, biofuels, and waste incineration
components of present day capacity is for
the year 2000, and for France, for which
biofuel and waste incineration capacity is
not available, but assumed to be 1 GW
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% combined. Refer to Table 4 for scenario re-
Fraction of Total Scenario Capacity ference numbers.

Variable Generation Capacity Flexible Generation Capacity

Transmission Capacity Storage Capacity
Flexible Demand Reducible Demand
Present Day Generation Capacity

100% Fig. 3. Technology-specific capacity factors

for some of the scenarios. Refer to Table 4
Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA)
for scenario reference numbers.
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany)
75%
Capacity Factor (%)

SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany)

SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany)
50% SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia)
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia)
25% Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand)

0%

% of Total Fig. 4. Technology specific makeup of the

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA) 57.31% variable generation capacity for each sce-
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany) 73.05% nario, including percentage of total scenario
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany) capacity. Refer to Table 4 for scenario re-
69.32%
ference numbers.
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany) 43.80%
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany) 57.29%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France) 52.45%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 (France) 60.28%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 (France) 50.62%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 (France) 17.54%
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia) 43.86%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia) 42.55%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia) 54.46%
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal) 39.88%
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal) 45.60%
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand) 22.97%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fraction of Total Variable Generation Capacity

Solar PV Off Shore Wind On Shore Wind

Undefined Wind Ocean

4. The European scenarios on Germany, France, and Portugal all take production were only used in American scenarios
advantage of their regional location to import or export electricity b. Compressed air energy storage (CAES) was only used in the
through transmission lines. German scenarios.
5. There was no single storage technology used an every scenario, c. Hydrogen electricity generation and battery capacity were only
though, pumped hydro was used the most. used in the Portuguese scenarios.
6. Several flexible generation and storage technologies were not shared
between studies:
a. Solar heating, non-CSP solar storage, and hydrogen heat

7
W. Deason Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

% of Total Fig. 5. Technology specific makeup of the

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA) 9.86% flexible generation and transmission capa-
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany) 14.41% city and reducible demand for each sce-
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany) 18.80% nario, including percentage of total scenario
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany) capacity. Refer to Table 4 for scenario re-
47.60%
ference numbers.
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany) 36.52%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France) 34.80%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 (France) 24.36%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 (France) 37.10%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 (France) 62.69%
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia) 53.59%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia) 46.71%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia) 40.54%
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal) 27.04%
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal) 36.18%
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand) 62.75%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fraction of Total Flexible Generation and Transmission Capacity and Reducible Demand
CSP Solar Heating Hydro
Geothermal Biofuels Transmission
Reducible Demand

% of Total Fig. 6. Technology specific makeup of the

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA) 32.82% storage and flexible demand for each sce-
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany) 12.54% nario, including percentage of total scenario
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany) 11.88% capacity. Refer to Table 4 for scenario re-
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany) ference numbers.
8.60%
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany) 6.19%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France) 12.75%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 (France) 15.36%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 (France) 12.28%
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 (France) 19.77%
Elliston et al. 2012 (Australia) 2.55%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia) 10.74%
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia) 5.00%
Krajačić et al. 2010 - Scenario 3 (Portugal) 33.08%
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal) 18.21%
Mason et al. 2013 (New Zealand) 14.27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fraction of Total Storage Capacity and Flexible Demand

Non-CSP Thermal Storage Hydrogen Heat Production Capacity
Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Pumped Storage
Hydrogen Electricity Generation Capacity Battery Capacity
Undefined Storage Flexible Demand: Demand Side Participation
Flexible Demand: EV Flexible Demand: Hydrogen Electrolysis

5.3. Scenario cost
Table 5 shows the projected scenario electricity costs provided by
some of the studies. For the studies by Jacobson et al. [51], Krakowski
et al. [32], and AEMO [9], costs for transmission (distribution and
delivery) were included in the number provided. These values can be
compared to the generation makeup shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 to gain
perspective of the contribution of cost to each scenario. Additionally, 4
out of the 5 studies also provided baseline or business-as-usual (BAU)
electrical generation costs to compare their scenario costs against.
These numbers are shown in Table 5 alongside their respective scenario
electricity costs. The 2012 electricity price for industry has been pro-
vided for comparison as well.
Details within the studies enable some comparison of the costs
within the scenarios of individual studies. The primary reason for in-
creased costs for two of the four SRU scenarios appears to be the use of
large amounts of solar PV and offshore wind for providing electricity
generation [34]. According to the study, these technologies are more
expensive to construct than importing electricity, as was done in the
cheaper scenarios. The reason for increased costs between the
Krakowski et al. scenarios appears to be due to the cost of providing
backup electricity from either electricity import or through construc-
tion of biomass plants, which saw reduced load hours [32]. Relative to
the baselined Krakowski et al. scenario, v1 removed the restriction of a
low wind output period in January; v5 lessened the restriction on the
potential for biomass availability, while v7 set upper limits on the
amount of variable generation allowed. The costs reflect the need for
more or less amounts of complementary flexible generation capaci-
ty—thus, a higher or lower cost—relative to the reference scenario.
By comparing the scenarios with their respective BAU electricity
costs, it can be seen that 3 out of 4 studies predict between 41% and
104% higher electricity costs in the 100% RE scenarios. The Jacobson
et al. study differs from the others in predicting that costs are the same
in both the BAU and 100% RE scenarios, and 62% cheaper when ex-
ternalities are included [51]. No pattern could be seen between the cost
values give in the study and the reported 2012 electricity prices for the
consumer, including the BAU cost values. This mismatch hints that
there may be other variables not being taken into account by the studies
in their cost calculations.

8
 W. Deason

Table 5
Projected generation costs for some of the scenarios.

Scenario Scenario Electricity Costsa Scenario Electricity Costsa BAU Electricity Costs % Increase relative to BAU Electricity Current Day Electricity Price for Industry in Scenario
Costs Countryb
2012USD /Year 2012USD /MWh 2012USD /MWh 2012USD/MWh

Jacobson et al. 2015 (USA) [51] 1.54 Trillion 104c 104 (271)d 0% (−62%) 66.8 (Incl. tax)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.a (Germany) [34[ 62.6 Billion 123 N/A N/A 148.7 (Ex-tax)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 1.b (Germany) [34] 110 Billion 157 N/A N/A 148.7 (Ex-tax)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.a (Germany) [34] 45.2 Billion 89 N/A N/A 148.7 (Ex-tax)
SRU 2011 - Scenario 2.2.b (Germany) [34] 69.0 Billion 98 N/A N/A 148.7 (Ex-tax)
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050 (France) 80.4 Billion 189 110 72% 121.7 (Ex-tax)
[32]
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v1 65.9 Billion 155 110 41% 121.7 (Ex-tax)
(France) [32]

9
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v5 68.5 Billion 161 110 46% 121.7 (Ex-tax)
(France) [32]
Krakowski et al. 2016 - Scenario 100RES 2050_v7 81.7 Billion 192 110 75% 121.7 (Ex-tax)
(France) [32]
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 1 in 2030 (Australia) (NEM Only) 27.4 Billion 115 57e 102% 172.3 (Ex-tax) (All Australia)
[9]
AEMO 2013 - Scenario 2 in 2030 (Australia) (NEM Only) 31.4 Billion 116 57 104% 172.3 (Ex-tax) (All Australia)
[9]
Fernandes et al. 2013 - Scenario 4 (Portugal) [44] 4.84 Billion 90.3 45 101% 147.3 (Ex-tax)

a
Costs have been converted to 2012USD from their local currency and study year [69,70].
b
The 2012 electricity price for industry was taken from [68] and was chosen for comparison due to its assumed proximity to wholesale electricity price. If available, the ex-tax price was chosen for the same reason.
c
Values in bold were available in their current form (cost/MWh or cost/year) in the original publication, while unbolded cost values were derived from the other form (cost/MWh or cost/year) using the total energy generation in the scenario
year.
d
The value in parentheses denotes a BAU cost including externalities (health and climate costs).
e
Provided in AEMO as an estimate for the 2012 wholesale electricity cost [9].
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
W. Deason
6. Conclusions
The compared scenarios showed that many different strategies and
technologies can be used to provide flexibility in a 100% RE system. To
complement the variability of electricity generation from variable
generation sources, energy must be generated from a flexible genera-
tion source, stored in some fashion, or if possible, demand must be
adjusted. To facilitate comparison of scenarios, the primary energy
production from renewables was grouped in the category ‘Variable
Generation Capacity’, while all other mechanisms supporting flexibility
(generation, storage, flexible demand, etc.) were grouped in the cate-
gory ‘Capacity for Flexibility’. Together, these two categories compose
the principle category, ‘Total Scenario Capacity’. By including capa-
cities for storage and flexible demand in the total scenario capacity
category, the 100% renewable energy system scenarios can be better
compared with each other and with present day generation capacity.
Flexibility was found to be a crucial and significant component of a
100% RE system. None of the scenarios reviewed in the present work
were able to provide all of their energy using only variable generation
capacity, with only two of the scenarios capable of reaching over 65%
variable generation penetration of total scenario capacity (SRU 2011
Scenarios 1.a and 1.b (Germany) [34] feature 73% and 69% respec-
tively).
Predicted electricity costs from the scenarios varied drastically in all
regions, and from these results, it was not possible to conclusively say
that a 100% RE system from one region is less economic than another.
Each calculated cost is highly dependent upon the specific environment
of each scenario and the cost calculation method used. Lack of in-
formation on the specific cost components and methodologies used (e.g.
unit costs for capacity, unit lifetimes, generation statistics, and cost
calculation methods) prevented direct comparison. However, some
studies provided multiple scenarios (including business-as-usual sce-
narios) that could be compared. In 3 out of the 4 studies including a
business-as-usual cost, the 100% RE scenarios were found to be be-
tween 41% and 104% more expensive. The fourth study (Jacobson et al.
[51]) showed electricity costs to be the same for a 100% RE system and
business-as-usual system, and the 100% RE system to be 62% cheaper
when externalities are included.
The scenarios discussed in the present work and the strategies used
in those scenarios are not exhaustive of all scenarios possible in a
decarbonized future. Though not examined in this study, further in-
tegration of different energy carriers, usage or markets (e.g. heat and
electricity produced from renewable, nuclear or concentrating solar
thermal sources, transportation, water desalination plants, etc.) will be
needed to achieve full decarbonization. Some renewable technologies
and scenarios discussed in this study may not come to fruition because
of economic barriers or environmental changes, notably due to climatic
changes.
Future work could investigate the role and economic viability of
other low-carbon technologies (nuclear power or fossil with carbon
capture and storage) to operate in a high-penetration RE system as a
flexible generation source. Focus could also be given on the increased
flexibility brought to the energy system through the capability for these
technologies to function as cogeneration systems (providing both useful
heat and electricity on-demand).
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the United States Department of State
for supporting my Junior Professional Officer position at the
International Atomic Energy Agency. I would also like to acknowledge
my colleagues, Bertrand Magné, Manuel Welsch, Aliki van Heek, and
David Shropshire of the Planning and Economic Studies Section in their
guidance in the development of this project and helpful assistance with
reviewing and improving it.
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
References
[1] Welsch M. Enhancing the treatment of systems integration in long-term energy
models (PhD thesis). Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 2013.
[2] German Energy Agency. dena ancillary services study. Berlin, Germany: dena; 2014.
[3] Loftus PJ, Cohen AM, Long JCS, Jenkins JD. A critical review of global dec-
arbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? WIREs Clim Change
2015;6(1):93–112.
[4] WWF International, Ecofys, Office for Metropolitan Architecture. The energy report.
Gland, Switzerland: WWF International; 2011.
[5] Jacobson M, Delucchi M. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar
power, part I; technologies energy resources, quantities and area of infrastructure,
and materials. Energy Policy 2011;39:1154–69.
[6] Delucchi M, Jacobson M. Evaluating the feasibility of meeting all global energy
needs with wind, water, and solar power, part II: reliability, system and transmis-
sion costs, and policies. Energy Policy 2011;39:1170–90.
[7] Sawin JL, Moomaw WR. Renewable revolution: low-carbon energy by 2030.
Washington, D.C., USA: Worldwatch Institute; 2009.
[8] Reedman LJ. High penetration renewables studies: a review of the literature, Report
No. EP 127113. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation; 2012.
[9] AEMO. 100 per cent renewables study - modelling outcomes. Australia: Australian
Energy Market Operator (AEMO); 2013.
[10] National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Renewable energy futures study, NREL/TP-
6A20-52409. Golden, Colorado: NREL; 2012.
[11] Seligman P. Australian sustainable energy - by the numbers. Melbourne, Australia:
Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne; 2012.
[12] Wright M, Hearps P. Australian sustainable energy - zero carbon Australia sta-
tionary energy plan. Melbourne, Australia: Beyond Zero Emissions; 2010.
[13] Cochran J, Mai T, Bazilian M. Meta-analysis of high penetration renewable energy
scenarios. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:246–53.
[14] Lund H, Mathiesen B. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems:
the case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy 2009;34:524–31.
[15] Greenpeace International. European renewable energy council, global wind energy
council, 4th Edition 2012 World Energy Scenario. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Greenpeace International; 2012.
[16] Schmid E, Pahle M, Knopf B. Renewable electricity generation in Germany: a meta-
analysis of mitigation scenarios. Energy Policy 2013;61:1151–63.
[17] Trainer T. Can Australia run on renewable energy? The negative case. Energy Policy
2012;no. 50:306–14.
[18] Elliston B, Diesendorf M, MacGill I. Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable
electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy
2012;45:606–13.
[19] Huva R, Dargaville R, Rayner P. Optimising the deployment of renewable resources
for the Australian NEM (National Electricity Market) and the effect of atmospheric
length scales. Energy 2016;no. 96:468–73.
[20] Schmidt J, Cancella R, Junior A Olimpio Pereira. An optimal mix of solar PV, wind
and hydro power for a low-carbon electricity supply in Brazil. Austria: Universtaet
fuer Bodenkultur Wien, Vienna; 2015.
[21] Krajačić G, Duić N, da Graҫa Carvalho M. H2RES, energy planning tool for island
energy systems - The case for the island of Mljet. Int J Hydrog Energy
2009;34:7015–26.
[22] Lund H, Mathiesen B. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy
systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy 2009;34:524–31.
[23] Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D, Wenzel H, Østergaard PA, Möller B, et al. Smart
Energy systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions. Appl
Energy 2015;145:139–54.
[24] Østergaard PA, Andersen FM, Kwon PS. Energy systems scenario modelling and
long term Forecasting of hourly electricity demand. Int J Sustain Energy Plan
Manag 2015;7:99–116.
[25] EREC. Re-thinking 2050 - a 100% renewable energy vision for the European Union.
Brussels, Beligum: European Renewable Energy Council; 2010.
[26] Greenpeace. Energy [r]evolution - towards a fully renewable energy supply in the
EU 27. Amsterdam,: Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy
Council; 2010.
[27] Trainer T. Can Europe run on renewable energy? A negative case. Energy Policy
2013;no. 63:845–50.
[28] Bertsch J, Growitsch C, Lorenczik S, Nagl S. Flexibility in Europe's power sector - An
additional requirement or an automatic complement? Energy Econ
2016;53:118–31.
[29] Sørenson B. A renewable energy and hydrogen scenario for northern Europe. Int J
Energy Res 2007;32(5):471–500.
[30] Dominković DF, Bačeković I, Ćosić B, Krajačić G, Pukšec T, Duić N, et al. Zero
carbon energy system of South East Europe in 2050. Appl Energy
2016;184:1517–28.
[31] Tröster E, Kuwahata R, Ackermann. European grid study 2030/2050. Langen,
Germany: Nergynautics GmbH; 2011.
[32] Krakowski V, Assoumou E, Mazauric V, Maizi N. Feasible path toward 40–100%
renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: a prospective ana-
lysis. Appl Energy 2016;171:501–22.
[33] Drouineau M, Assoumou E, Mazauric V, Maïzi N. Increasing shares of intermittent
sources in Reunion Island: impacts on the future reliability of power supply. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;46:120–8.
[34] SRU. Pathways towards a 100% renewable energy system. Berlin: German Advisory
Council on the Environment (SRU); 2011.
W. Deason
[35] DLR. Long-term scenarios and strategies for the deployment of renewable energies
in Germany in view of European and global developments - Summary of the final
report. Stuttgart, Germany: German Aerospace Center; 2012.
[36] Allen P. Zero carbon Britain: rethinking the future. Machynlleth, Wales, United
Kingdom: Centre for Alternative Technology; 2013.
[37] WWF-India and WISE. The energy report - Kerala - 100% renewable energy by
2050. New Delhi, India: World Wildlife Foundation - India and World Institute for
Sustainable Energy; 2013.
[38] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. The first step towards a 100% re-
newable energy-system for Ireland. Appl Energy 2011;88:502–7.
[39] Lehmann H. Energy rich Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Institute for Sustainable Solutions
and Innovations (ISUSI); 2003.
[40] Esteban M, Zhang Q, Utama A. Estimation of the energy storage requirement of a
future 100% renewable energy system in Japan. Energy Policy 2012;47:22–31.
[41] Ćosić B, Krajačić G, Duić N. A 100% renewable energy system in the year 2050: the
case of Macedonia. Energy 2012;48:80–7.
[42] Mason IG, Page SC, Williamson AG. Security of supply, energy spillage control and
peaking options within a 100% renewable electricity system for New Zealand.
Energy Policy 2013;60:324–33.
[43] Krajačić G, Duić N, da Graҫa Carvalho M. How to achieve a 100% RES electricity
supply for Portugal? Appl Energy 2011;88:508–17.
[44] Fernandes L, Ferreira P. Renewable energy scenarios in the portuguese electricity
system. Guimaraes: University of Minho; 2013.
[45] Teske S. The advanced energy [r]evolution - a sustainable energy outlook for South
Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy
Council; 2011.
[46] de Otto S, Bevacqua M. Energy [R]evolution for the Canary Islands - Energy design
for sustainable islands. Madrid, Spain: Greenpeace; 2015.
[47] Peter S, Doleschek A, Lehmann H, Mirales J, Puig J, Corominas J, et al. Solar cat-
alonia - a pathway to a 100% renewable energy system for Catalonia. Fundació
Terra, iSuSI, and Ecoserveis; 2007.
[48] Gustavsson M, Särnholm E, Stigson P, Zetterberg L. The IVL scenario: energy sce-
nario for Sweden 2050 - based on renewable energy technologies and sources.
Göteborg, Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd.; 2011.
[49] Pfenninger S, Keirstead J. Renewables, nuclear, or fossil fuels? Scenarios for Great
Britain's power system considering costs, emissions and energy security. Appl
Energy 2015;152:83–93.
[50] Mai T, Wiser R, Sandor D, Brinkman G, Heath G, Denholm P, et al. "Volume 1:
exploration of high-penetration renewable electricity futures. Golden, Colorado:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2012.
[51] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA. Low-cost solution to the grid
reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for
all purposes. PNAS 2015;112(49):15060–5.
[52] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Bazouin G, Bauer ZAF, Heavey CC, Fisher E, et al. 100%
clean and renewable wind, water, and sulight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps
for the 50 United States. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:2093–117.
[53] Fthenakis V, Mason JE, Zweibel K. The technical, geographical, and economic
feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US. Energy Policy
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2009;37:387–99.
[54] Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron D, Kempton W. Cost-minimized
combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering
the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power Sources 2013;225:60–74.
[55] Short W, Diakov V. Matching Western US electricity consumption with wind and
solar resources. Wind Energy 2013;16:491–500.
[56] Trainer T. Can the world run on renewable energy? A revised negative case.
Humanomics 2013;29(2):88–104.
[57] Teske S, Sawyer S, Schäfer O. Energy [r]evolution - a sustainable world energy
outlook 2015. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Global Wind Energy Council,
SolarPowerEurope; 2015.
[58] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Bauer ZAF, Goodman SC, Chapman WE, Cameron MA,
et al. 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy
roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Stanford, California, United States:
Stanford University; 2016.
[59] Australian Energy Market Commission. AEMC - National Electricity Market
[Online]. Available: 〈http://www.aemc.gov.au/Australias-Energy-Market/
Markets-Overview/National-electricity-market〉.
[60] IEA. Energy balances of OECD countries: 2015 edition. Paris: International Energy
Agency; 2015.
[61] IEA. Electricity information 2015. Paris, France: International Energy Agency;
2015.
[62] AEMO. National electricity forecasting report for the national electricity market.
Australian Energy Market Operator; 2014.
[63] Alexander M, James P, Richardson N. Energy storage against interconnection as a
balancing mechanism for a 100% renewable UK electricity grid. IET Renew Power
Gener 2014;9(2):131–41.
[64] Santos-Alamillos FJ, Pozo-Vazquez D, Ruiz-Arias JA, Lara-Fanego V, Tovar-
Pescador J. Analysis of spatiotemporal balancing between wind and solar energy
resources in the southern Iberian Peninsula. J Appl Meteorol Climatol
2012;51:2005–24.
[65] Corcoran BA, Jenkins N, Jacobson MZ. Effects of aggregating electric load in the
United States. Energy Policy 2012;46:399–416.
[66] Australian Energy Regulator, Generation capacity and output by fuel source
[Online]. Available: 〈https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-
statistics/generation-capacity-and-output-by-fuel-source〉. [Accessed 01 December
2016].
[67] Australian Energy Regulator, Generation capacity and peak demand [Online].
Available: 〈https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/
generation-capacity-and-peak-demand〉. [Accessed 01 December 2016].
[68] International Energy Agency. Energy prices and taxes: quarterly statistics - first
quarter 2013. Paris, France: IEA; 2013.
[69] The World Bank. Inflation, consumer prices (annual %), World Development
Indicators, World DataBank, 〈https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.
TOTL.ZG〉.
[70] US Treasury Department. Treasury reporting rates of exchange as of December 31,
2012; 29 April 2015. [Online]. Available: 〈https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/
fsreports/rpt/treasRptRateExch/1212.pdf〉.