Modelling Electricity Supply Options for Rwanda in the Face of Climate Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modelling electricity supply options for Rwanda in the face of climate change Dissertation submitted to attain the academic degree of “Doctor of Economics (Dr. rer. pol.)” at Europa-Universität Flensburg by Théoneste Uhorakeye (M. Eng.) Advisors: Prof. Dr. Bernd Möller Prof. Dr. Olav Hohmeyer Flensburg, December 2016 To my daughter Stella INEZA, my son Fabrice IRAGUHA and my wife Virginie YANKURIJE this work is dedicated Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to express my appreciations and thanks to my supervisors, Prof. Dr. Bernd Möller and Prof. Dr. Olav Hohmeyer, for their dedicated continuous advice and guidance throughout the course of my research which made it possible for me to complete this work. My heartfelt gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. August Schläpfer and Dipl.-Ing Wulf Boie. Without your support I would not have undertaken this important work. My sincere gratitude is expressed to the “Katholischer Akademischer Ausländerdienst (KAAD)” for partially financing this research. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Sabine Kamp, Ute Boesche-Seefeldt, Marion Gutzeit, Karsten Kuhls, and Marlies and Klaus Tomm for their support before and throughout this research. Particularly, many thanks are addressed to you, Klaus Tomm, for proofreading this work; your contribution has made it happening. I would like to extend thanks to Dereje Azemraw Senshaw and John Kuteesakwe for their contribution to my work through discussions, exchange of information and encour- agement. I am also thankful to Prof. Jeffrey Richey, Mergia Y. Sonessa, Nele Rumler, James L. Mugambi and Clemens Wingenbach for their contribution to this work. I am thankful to Donath Harerimana, Théoneste Nzayisenga, Stany Nzeyimana, Yussuf Uwamahoro, Félicien Ndabamenye, Marcel Habimana, Marcellin Habimana, Kagenza Godfrey, Alexis Rutagengwa and to all people who contributed to this work in one way or another and cannot be mentioned here. Finally, and most importantly, I take this opportunity to express the profound gratitude from my deep heart to my wife, Virginie Yankurije, my son, Fabrice Iraguha and my daughter, Stella Ineza. Without your love, understanding, encouragement and patience I could not have finished this work. i Abstract Expected impacts of climate change are likely to compromise the ability of electricity supply systems to meet power demands, especially in countries like Rwanda where the share of hydropower generation in the total electricity supply mix is high. For such power supply systems, an energy planning approach that takes into account potential impacts of climate change is necessary. This study assessed an alternative power supply scenario that would be resilient to the impacts of the expected climate change and ensure the security of Rwanda’s power supply with least emissions towards 2050. To develop such a scenario, the effects of the future climate of Rwanda on hydropower generation were assessed and integrated into the power supply plans. These effects were assessed for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs): RCP4.5 and RCP8.5; with climate data from two Global Climate Models (GCMs): HadGem2−ES and MIROC−ESM. The Water Evaluation and Planning system (WEAP) model was used to simulate the hydropower generation under different climate conditions. It was found that, compared to the designed energy, the changes in hydropower generation for the 2012−2019 period would range between +2% and +12%. Changes in generation for the 2020−2039 period would vary between −13% and +8% while the period 2040 to 2059 will be characterized only by losses in generation when the changes are projected to vary between −22% and −9%. To incorporate these changes into the country’s power supply plans, different electri- city demand and supply scenarios were developed and analysed. For the demand, three scenarios (very low, very likely and very high) were developed based on different electri- fication, population and economic growth rates. As for the supply, a group of Business As Usual (BAU) and another of alternative power supply scenarios were developed. Each of these two groups includes three sub−scenarios: a scenario with no climate change considerations and scenarios that considered respectively hydropower generation under climate scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The bottom−up approach was used to project the demand by the residential sector while the top−down method was applied for the non−residential sector. For both the demand and supply analysis, the Long−range En- ergy Alternatives Planning system (LEAP) model was used. The results revealed that, by 2050, the total electricity demand would reach 6,546 GWh for the very low scenario, 8,100 GWh for the very likely scenario and 10,240 GWh for the very high scenario compared to 379 GWh in 2012. Under the BAU supply scenario, the national energy resources will only be able to satisfy the demands under the very low and very likely scenarios. To meet the demand under the very high scenario, more than 20% of electricity requirements would come from imported fossil fuels. Under the suggested ii alternative scenario, however, no imported fossil fuels would be needed by 2050. The average CO2 emissions per kWh for the 2012−2050 period is 116.42 gCO2eq for the alternative scenario and 203.24 gCO2eq for the BAU scenario. Relative to the emissions in the base year (2012), the alternative scenario will generate 21.44% less emission per kWh than the value in 2012 while under the BAU scenario emissions will be 25.67% more than in 2012. The average generation cost per kWh between 2012 and 2050 var- ies between US$Cents 12.71 and US$Cents 15.76 for the BAU scenario while it ranges between US$Cents 13.20 and US$Cents 13.73/kWh for the alternative scenario. In brief, the suggested alternative power supply scenario is resilient to climate change effects as it meets the projected power demand when the impacts of climate change on hydropower generation are accounted for. The scenario also ensures the security of the country’s power supply because it only relies on the domestic energy resources. Furthermore, CO2 emissions per kWh are more than 40% lower than the emissions under the BAU scenario. To successfully implement this scenario, a number of policy and institutional framework adjustments were identified and suggested. One of the suggested policy adjustments is a Feed−In Tariff (FIT) scheme for solar and wind technologies until these technologies mature. As for institutional frameworks, short− and long−term trainings in solar and wind technologies were suggested as investors in these technologies would be interested in investing in areas where they can get manpower with enough skills to operate and maintain installed power plants. iii Contents Acknowledgements i Abstract ii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the study . 1 1.1.1 Country context . 2 1.1.2 Rwanda’s energy demand and supply . 4 1.1.3 Climate change impacts on hydropower . 5 1.2 Problem statement . 5 1.3 Objectives and research questions . 7 1.4 Research framework and design . 8 1.5 Structure of the dissertation . 14 2 Country overview and energy sector analysis 15 2.1 Country’s overview . 15 2.1.1 Geographic and topographic information . 15 2.1.2 Administrative entities . 16 2.1.3 Climate of Rwanda . 18 2.1.4 Soil and land cover . 20 2.2 Demographic and socioeconomic information . 22 2.2.1 Rwandan population . 22 2.2.2 Economy of Rwanda . 23 2.2.3 Short and long term economic development plans . 24 2.3 Water sector . 26 2.3.1 Water resources . 26 2.3.2 Water demand and supply . 27 2.4 Introduction to the energy sector . 27 iv 2.4.1 Organization, responsibilities and stakeholders . 28 2.4.2 National energy policy and strategy . 30 2.4.3 Energy supply and consumption . 33 2.5 Rwanda’s energy resources . 37 2.5.1 Biomass energy resources . 37 2.5.2 Hydropower resources . 39 2.5.3 Solar energy . 41 2.5.4 Geothermal energy . 43 2.5.5 Methane reserves . 45 2.5.6 Peat reserves . 46 2.5.7 Wind energy resources . 47 2.5.8 Municipal waste . 49 2.6 Electricity sub−sector . 49 2.6.1 Electricity demand . 50 2.6.2 Electricity supply . 53 2.6.3 Transmission and distribution of electricity . 55 2.6.4 Existing projections of electricity demand and supply . 56 3 Climate change and its impacts on energy systems 58 3.1 Energy and sustainable development . 58 3.1.1 Sustainable development and its dimensions . 59 3.1.2 Energy and social sustainability . 60 3.1.3 Energy and economic sustainability . 61 3.1.4 Energy and environmental sustainability . 62 3.2 Global energy supply vulnerabilities . 63 3.2.1 Volatility of fossil fuel prices . 63 3.2.2 Financial and credit crisis issues . 64 3.2.3 Climate change . 65 3.3 Observed and expected climate . 65 3.3.1 Global climate and climate change . 66 3.3.2 Recent changes in the climate system and their main drivers . 67 3.3.3 Expected global climate . 68 3.3.4 Downscaling climate models . 72 3.4 Main climate change impacts on energy systems . 74 3.4.1 Impacts on energy resources . 74 3.4.2 Impacts on energy system operations . 75 3.4.3 Impacts on energy transmission and distribution . 77 3.4.4 Impacts on energy demand . 77 3.5 Observed and future climate of Rwanda . 78 v 3.5.1 Past climate change and its economic costs . 78 3.5.2 Projected climate . 81 4 Approach to hydrological and climate change impact assessment 82 4.1 Hydrological model selection and description . 83 4.2 Hydrological model set−up . 86 4.2.1 Stream flow discharge data and calibration period .