Description | Scenario | 2011 | 2036 | 2060 | Remark |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Electricity generated, billion MWh |
Base; 1 LCD option; 1 | 0.3925 | 0.5427 | 1.053 | Electricity generated at base scenario was higher than the LCD option by about 1% |
0.5392 | 0.5315 | 1.043 | |||
Base; 2 LCD option; 2 | 0.3925 | 1.831 | 3.408 | Electricity generated at LCD option scenario was higher than the base option by about 12.61% | |
0.5392 | 2.158 | 3.838 | |||
CO2 emission, million tCO2 |
Base; 1 LCD option; 1 | 66.58 | 92.07 | 178.7 | Emission from the base scenario shows a difference of about 2.5% to that of LCD option |
90.16 | 88.8 | 174.3 | |||
Base; 2 LCD option; 2 | 66.58 | 310.6 | 578.3 | Emission from the LCD option was higher by about 11% to that of base scenario | |
90.16 | 360.6 | 641.2 | |||
Assumptions | |||||
Per capita electricity consumption, MWh/cap |
Base; 1 Base; 2 | 0.146 | Reference year; 2011 | ||
0.546 | |||||
LCD option; 1 LCD option; 2 | 0.146 | ||||
0.546 | |||||
Representative technology | All scenarios | CCGT | |||
Capacity factor, ratio | Base; 1 & 2 | 0.48 | Reference year; 2011 | ||
LCD option; 1 & 2 | 0.70 | ||||
Emission factor, tCO2/MWh | 0.2020 (held constant for all scenarios) | ||||
Expectation formation, years | Base | 7.5 | |||
LCD option | 7.0 | ||||
Time to adjust capacity, years | Base | 21 | |||
LCD option | 20 |