group-saudi-arabia-and-egypt-report

lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Group Saudi Arabia and Egypt Report
The Necessity of Storage Technology (Technische Universiteit Delft)
Scannen om te openen op Studeersnel
Studeersnel wordt niet gesponsord of ondersteund door een hogeschool of universiteit

Gedownload door Umika Bhagole ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Delft University of Technology
The Necessity of Storage Technology

SET3080
GROUP 10 SAUDI ARABIA AND EGYPT
Authors:
Ahmed Al Ghadra (5617618)
Anton Tenzler (5085993)
Muskan Shamal (6065171)
Nils Lurie (5845351)
Stella Theodoraki (5973627)
Sekar Kumala Desi (5966485)
Zayed Hossain (5999510)
January 19, 2024

lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Preface
This report was authored by a group of seven students enrolled in the course ’SET3080: The Necessity of Storage
Technology’ at Delft University of Technology. The paper provides an account of the endeavors undertaken by
our student team for the quarter to simulate the 100% renewable energy infrastructure of Saudi Arabia and
Egypt in the year 2050. The complex nature of the research provided us with insights into the intricate factors
that must be taken into account in the next years to effectively shift towards a society with zero carbon emissions.
The assumption is made that the reader of this report has a pre-existing understanding of various forms of
renewable energy, and fundamental economic principles, and is acquainted with the vocabulary often used in
the energy sector. From the perspective of all the writers, we express our wish
This paper stimulates the curiosity and analytical thinking of the reader about the sophisticated task of modeling
a nation’s energy infrastructure.
We express our gratitude to F. Mulder, the teacher of the course, for providing lectures and advice throughout
this quarter in relation to the course topic and project.
January 19, 2024
Ahmed Al Ghadra
Anton Tenzler
Muskan Shamal
Nils Lurie
Stella Theodoraki
Sekar Kumala Desi
Zayed Hossain
i
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Summary
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are actively participating in the global shift towards sustainable energy, particularly
in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. While Saudi Arabia, historically known for its abundant
oil resources, is aggressively diversifying its energy portfolio through ambitious renewable initiatives, Egypt
is concentrating on solar energy projects, exemplified by the construction of the Benban Solar Park, one of
the world’s largest. Both nations share a commitment to a sustainable energy future and have agreed to
interconnect their energy grids for improved security. However, intermittent challenges stemming from seasonal
and technological limitations pose significant hurdles for renewable energy. Addressing these challenges is crucial
for achieving the goal of 100% renewable energy, necessitating advancements in storage technology.
This research proposes a storage technology approach to assist Saudi Arabia and Egypt in achieving their am-
bitious target of 100% renewable energy by 2050. The methodology involves evaluating energy usage, potential
renewable sources, and storage technology selection. The process incorporates a comprehensive literature review
using secondary data from reputable sources and modeling in MATLAB.
To project energy demand in 2050, this research considers four major sectors: industry, transportation, resi-
dential, and others. The "others" category represents a small portion of miscellaneous consumption. As energy
demand correlates with population growth, all sectors are expected to expand proportionately. Forecasts are
based on data from authoritative sources, estimating a total primary energy demand of 2575 TWh in 2050 for
both countries.
Solar and wind are identified as the primary renewable sources, with the selection of solar areas based on
existing and potential projects, sun irradiation, population density, and country size. Wind installation areas
are determined by mean power densities, with reference models from Jinko Solar for solar and Vestas for wind.
A demand shift factor of 5% and 24-hour intervals is assumed to accommodate consumer behavior adjustments.
The total supply generation from wind is 314 TWh while solar is 2261 TWh. The selected PV and Wind farm
locations are based on an optimization of energy production and minimization of transportation losses to both
the country’s population and industrial center. Losses from transmission and distribution are expected around
10% of the total generation.
Selecting the appropriate storage technology involves evaluating charge and discharge profiles, capacity, scal-
ability, cost, and cycling frequency. Li-ion batteries, pumped hydro storage, and liquid hydrogen are chosen
for short-, medium-, and long-term storage, respectively. The model calculates that 2.6 TWh of energy can be
stored for the short term, 2.8 TWh for the medium term, and 1099 TWh for long-term storage.
Project expenses are determined using the levelized cost technique. Solar, wind, and storage technologies are
estimated to contribute about 73%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, of the whole project. This concept implies re-
liance only on current transmission. Furthermore, the levelized cost of solar, wind onshore, and offshore is 0.0098
EUR/kWh, 0.0187 EUR/kWh, and 0.047 kWh, accordingly. Meanwhile, lithium-ion batteries, pumped-hydro,
and liquid hydrogen storage cost 0.00307 EUR/kWh, 0.00141 EUR/kWh, and 0.0020 EUR/kWh, respectively.
The levelized cost numbers serve as benchmarks for policymakers and decision-makers, emphasizing the changing
dynamics of renewable costs and competitiveness.
In conclusion, this project’s feasibility hinges on implementing storage and energy generation near existing
transmission lines. This strategic approach enhances the viability and practicality of achieving the ambitious
goal of 100% renewable energy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
ii
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Energy Demand in 2050 2

2.1 Population growth factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Energy Demand Industrial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.1 Iron and Steel Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2.2 Cement Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.3 Ammonia Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.4 Methanol Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.5 Other industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Energy Demand in Residential Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Energy Demand in Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.1 Energy Demand in Roadways Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.2 Energy Demand in Railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.3 Energy Demand in Marine Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.4 Energy Demand in Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.5 Overview of Transport Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Demand Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Energy Supply 7
3.1 Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 Solar Farm Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Solar Energy Estimations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2 Wind Farm Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3 Area Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4 Nominal Power Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.5 Modelled Generation in 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Mismatch and Demand Response 11

4.1 Demand Mismatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Demand Response Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Applied Demand Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 Energy Losses and Transmission 13

5.1 Saudi Arabia’s and Egypt’s Population and Industrial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1 Population Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2 Industrial Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Energy Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6 Projected Storage Technology 14

6.1 Short-term Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2 Medium-term Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3 Long-term Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4 TenneT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7 Cost Calculation 17
7.1 Energy production systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.1 Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.2 Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2 Energy Transport systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3 Energy Storage systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
iii
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
8 Conclusion and Recommendation 19

8.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A Appendix A: Energy Demand 24

A.1 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.1.1 Cement Industry Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.1.2 Other industries calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2 Residential Sector Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2.1 The scaling factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3 Transportation Sector Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.3.1 2050 Forecast Final Transport Consumption - Business As Usual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.3.2 2050 Forecast Final Transport Consumption - 100% Renewable Scenario . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4 Demand Curve Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B Appendix B: Energy Generation 30

B.1 Solar Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.2 Wind Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2.1 Wind Farm Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2.2 Derivation of Wind Farm Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2.3 Derivation of Turbine Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.2.4 Wind Energy Potential according to [35] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.3 Transmission Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C Appendix C: Cost Analysis 33

C.1 Cost Estimation for Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
C.2 Levelized Cost of Electricity and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D Appendix D: Energy Storage 34
E Appendix E: Additional Plots 35
iv
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
List of Tables
1 Summary of Energy Consumption in the Industries of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050 in TWh . 4
2 Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Transport Final Energy Consumption (Data extrapolation with excel from [68] and [69]) . . . . . 25
5 LDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 2W/3W Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7 Bus Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9 MDV Final Energy Consumption FCEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10 HDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11 HDV Final Energy Consumption FCEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12 Railway Final Energy Consumption Electricity Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . 26
13 Marine Final Energy Consumption Hydrogen Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . 26
14 Aviation Final Energy Consumption Hydrogen Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . 26
8 MDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15 2050 Transport Energy Demand 100% Renewable - Road Transport 100% BEV . . . . . . . . . . 27
16 2050 Transport Energy Demand 100% Renewable - Road Transport BEV and FCEV . . . . . . . 27
17 Regions chosen for further wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
18 The Length of New Transmission Line (km) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
v
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
List of Figures
1 The total demand curve of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Two graphs showing solar power generation in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050 . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Model of Wind Power Generation in 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Example data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 Example data: Demand response principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Demand Response according to the model on the 21st of March, April, May, June and July . . . 12
7 Egypt - Saudi Transmission Line, Residence Area, and Industrial Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 The figure shows the placement of battery units based on residential electricity consumption
needs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (marked in blue) and the pumped hydro storage plant (marked
in red). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9 Transport Final Consumption Modeling Formula ([23]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10 TTW Efficiency for Road Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11 TTW Efficiency for Railway, Marine, Aviation Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12 Two graphs showing demand curves of USA and Egypt-Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13 Solar farm locations in both countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14 Regions chosen for further wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15 Gulf of Aqaba Area Simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16 Turbine Triangle in Hexagonal Lattice Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17 Average monthly wind energy potential for Hurguda (upper Figure) and Dekhala (lower Figure)
Stations in Egypt (2004) [35] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18 Egypt - Saudi Transmission Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19 Repartition of the total costs of energy generation technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20 Additional information for the context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
21 Final Plots of the Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
vi
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
1 Introduction
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neighboring countries with a long history of regional mutualism, have recently em-
barked on a project to build an electrical interconnection between them, facilitating the exchange of 3,000 MW
of power [1]. With the populations and economic activities of both nations on the rise, there is a corresponding
increase in energy demand. However, a significant challenge in the current energy generation landscape is the
heavy dependence on fossil fuels, contributing to pollution. Both countries share the common objective of
enhancing the proportion of renewable sources in their future energy portfolios. Saudi Arabia has set a goal
to increase the share of renewable energy sources in power output to approximately 50% by 2030, while Egypt
aims to achieve 42% by 2035 [2], [3].
Saudi Arabia ranked as the third-largest producer of crude oil and condensate globally in 2022. It also held the
position of the leading exporter of crude oil worldwide and the top producer of crude oil among OPEC countries.
The energy consumption profile of this entity closely resembles that of Egypt. In 2021, the main sources of
energy consumption are petroleum liquid-based products, accounting for 53%, and natural gas, accounting for
47%. Additionally, the energy production of the system relies on a combination of liquid-based products (40%)
and natural gas (60%) [4].
In May 2023, Saudi Arabia and several OPEC members implemented further reductions in crude oil output
and decided to continue these cuts until 2024. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 aims to promote the widespread use
of renewable energy and the development of non-associated natural gas throughout the nation. The goal is to
reduce the reliance on oil- and associated natural gas-fired power generation and instead prioritize the use of
renewable sources for electricity production.
One of the major challenges in renewable energy sources is intermittency, caused by seasonal and technical
limitations. Therefore, storage technology is considered to play a critical role in achieving 100% renewables,
aligning with the Paris Agreement’s goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. This report aims to assess suit-
able storage technologies for application in Saudi Arabia and Egypt by 2050. The approach involves conducting
a literature review to evaluate the current condition of energy systems in both nations and the feasibility of
adopting different renewable energy sources. The data is input into a Matlab model, depicting a carbon-free
energy system capable of fulfilling the energy demand by 2050.
The report will be presented using the following structure. The chapter 1 is the introduction and background
overview of this report. Furthermore, the analysis of 2050 energy demand and supply are covered comprehen-
sively in Chapters 2 and 3. The topic of mismatch and demand response is addressed in Chapter 4. Meanwhile,
Chapter 5 discusses the energy distribution and losses. In Chapter 6 the storage selection and model ap-
proaches are presented. In Chapter 7, an evaluation of the energy system’s costs is performed. Finally, Chapter
8 encompasses the final section of the document, which includes the conclusion and recommendation.
1
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
2 Energy Demand in 2050

The model is based on a 100% renewable energy implementation in 2050 where fossil fuels are phased out
completely. This chapter mainly presents the primary energy demand which takes into account the final con-
sumption from each sector and the losses associated with it. It then uses the population growth factor along
with other assumptions to predict the energy demand in each sector by 2050. Three main sectors: industry
(46.5 %), residential (15.5%) and transport (26,4 %) were considered, while the rest was approximated as the
others (11.7 %) sector.
2.1 Population growth factor

The population of Egypt in 2020 was 100.6 million and it is predicted to reach 116.7 million people in 2028 [5].
That means that the predicted average growth factor is 1.9% per year:
1/8
116.7
= 1.019 (1)
100.6
Using the same approach the population growth factor of Saudi Arabia can be estimated as 1.7 % per year.
2.2 Energy Demand Industrial Sector

In 2022, the industry contributed to 25% of the total CO2 emissions making it one of the highest-emitting sectors
[6]. Hence, it is of utmost importance to decarbonize the sector to reach a 100% renewable future. This section
describes the three greatest contributors to the emissions in the industry sector - iron and steel production,
cement production, and ammonia production. In 2022 iron and steel production, cement production, and
chemical and petrochemical production constituted around 70% of the total industry CO2 emissions [6]. Of the
chemical and petrochemical production, ammonia is the greatest contributor to the emissions. Additionally,
analysis of the methanol production sector is performed to determine the necessary CO2 that has to be captured,
since carbon is used as a feedstock in the production of methanol. Therefore, the analysis of these sectors is a
good representation of the changes that are needed to be implemented. To increase the accuracy of the model
additional sectors can be analyzed, for example, paper and pulp production. Finally, it is important to note
that these sectors contribute to around half of the total industry energy demand, and to adopt carbon-neutral
methods, the energy consumption portfolio of these would change significantly.
Since the aforementioned sectors contribute the majority of the CO2 emissions it is assumed that the remainder
of the sectors would experience less significant changes in the production process and the energy demand would
grow proportionally to the population growth. These sectors are modeled at the end of the section as "Other"
sectors.
2.2.1 Iron and Steel Production

Currently, the main method of steel production involves the use of coke to melt and reduce the iron ore [7]. Both
the heat generation and iron reduction by using coal produce CO2 which then enters the atmosphere unless it
is captured using carbon capture technologies. Unfortunately capturing carbon emissions in steel production
plants involves large costs and reconstruction [7].
An easier approach involves the use of hydrogen (H-DR). It can be used to both generate heat by burning it and
to reduce the iron ore. To produce a ton of steel, 3.57 M W h of electricity is needed which is used to produce
hydrogen via electrolysis [7]. Although the transition to this method would lead to an increase in the price of
steel by at least a third, it would gradually reduce and would reach back to the current price levels by 2030 due
to the improvements in the technology and carbon taxes [7] [8].
Using the data on the necessary energy for steel production it is possible to calculate how much energy is needed
for steel production in 2050 in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. First, the energy consumption of the steel industry in
Egypt in 2050 is calculated. In 2020, 7.3 million tons of raw steel was produced in Egypt [9]. Assuming that
the steel industry would grow proportionally to the population (starting from 2020), leads to 12.8 million tons
of steel being produced in 2050:
mSteel2050 = 7.3 · 1.01930 = 12.8M ton (2)
2
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
As was mentioned previously, 3.6 MWh of electricity is needed to produce a ton of steel, and therefore the total
required electricity required to produce steel in Egypt in 2050 is:
Esteel2050 = 3.6 · 106 · 12.8 · 106 = 46 · 1012 W h = 46.0 T W h (3)
Similar calculations can be done for Saudi Arabia. The total steel production reached 7.8 million tons in 2050
[10]. Using the population growth factor of 1.7% the steel production in 2050 would reach 12.9 million tons
and therefore the required electricity would be 46.4 TWh. Therefore, the total energy in the form of hydrogen
needed by the steel industry is the sum of the required energy of both countries or 92.4 TWh. Given that 1 kg
of hydrogen is equivalent to approximately 47.6 kWh, the steel industry would require roughly 1.9 million tons
of hydrogen in 2050 [7].
2.2.2 Cement Production

There are two sources of CO2 emissions in the production of cement. The first one is the CO2 that is emitted
during the production of lime from limestone, while the second one is the CO2 emitted due to the burning
of fossil fuels to heat the furnaces [7], [11]. Since the former source cannot be influenced the CO2 has to be
captured. The latter source of CO2 can be eliminated by switching to carbon-neutral fuels such as hydrogen
[11]. It is assumed that 300 kWh of energy is needed to produce a ton of cement, of which 225 kWh of primary
energy (75 % of the primary energy) is provided by fossil fuels [12]. Therefore, this energy would be replaced
by hydrogen in the 100 % renewable energy scenario in 2050.
The calculation process of the final energy demand for the cement industry is very similar to the iron and steel
industry. The full calculation can be found in Appendix A.1.1. To summarize, it is expected that 136 million
tons of cement will be produced in Egypt in 2050 while 74.9 million tons will be produced in Saudi Arabia. This
leads to the energy consumption of 30.6 TWh and 22.5 TWh respectively. The cement industry would require
2.6 million tons of hydrogen in total across both countries.
2.2.3 Ammonia Production

Nowadays, the most common method for ammonia production is the Haber-Bosch process, which leads to great
CO2 emissions. However, a renewable alternative to this process was used already 70 years ago but was forced
out of the market due to the costs [7]. Egypt has been one of the leaders in green ammonia production through-
out the last century, therefore, the full transition towards green ammonia production should be easier than for
some other countries [13]. Similarly, as with the steel and cement industries, green ammonia requires the use
of hydrogen. Hydrogen is produced via electrolyser plants that can be powered by solar power, wind power, or
hydropower. Ammonia production plants are rather flexible in terms of continuously required energy supply.
Only 5% of the energy consumption used by the synthesis loop has to be supplied without interruption. This
means that the ammonia plants are well suited for demand response [7].
It is estimated that approximately 11 MWh of energy is needed to produce a ton of green ammonia [14]. Using
this information, the energy consumption for both countries can be calculated; 4.2 million tons of ammonia
were produced in Egypt in 2019. Using the growth factor, it can be estimated that the ammonia production
in 2050 would be 7.5 million tons. This would require 82.8 TWh of energy. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia
produced 4.3 million tons of ammonia in 2020 [15]. This would mean that there were 7.1 million tons of ammonia
produced in 2050, taking into account the growth factor. Therefore, 78.3 TWh of energy would be required. If
both of the energy consumptions are added up, it leads to 161.2 TWh of energy required for the production of
green ammonia.
2.2.4 Methanol Production

Finally, the future methanol production chain is covered. Methanol is used as feedstock in the production of
different materials and chemicals, such as different kinds of plastics [7]. Up to now, methanol has been produced
either from natural gas or gasified coal, since carbon is a necessary component to manufacture methanol. The
fact that carbon is necessary makes it harder to make it renewable than it has been for the other industrial
sectors covered so far.
3
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
As was mentioned previously, the CO2 , emitted by the production of cement, has to be captured so that no
further emissions are made. However, the captured CO2 can be used to manufacture methanol, thus closing
the cycle. In addition to the captured CO2 , hydrogen is also needed. [7] Similarly as with the other industrial
sectors, hydrogen can be produced by using electrolyzers that are powered by renewable electricity sources such
as wind or solar power.
It can be estimated that 672 kg of CO2 can be captured from the production of 1 ton of cement [16]. The
hydrogen to CO2 ratio required in the methanol production is 1 to 4 [17]. Approximately 430 kg of methanol
can be produced by the CO2 captured from the manufacturing of 1 ton of cement. Hence, to produce one ton
of methanol, 1.57 tons of CO2 and 390 kg of hydrogen are required [16], [17].
It was estimated that around 1 million tons of methanol were produced in Egypt in 2018 [18] and around 5
million tons were produced by Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia being the largest methanol exporter in the world).
By using the previously calculated growth coefficients, it can be estimated that 1.83 million tons of methanol
would be produced in Egypt in 2050, and 8.3 million tons would be produced in Saudi Arabia. This results in
roughly 10 million tons of methanol in total. It would therefore require 15.7 million tons of CO2 and 3.9 million
tons of hydrogen. The required amount of CO2 could be captured by manufacturing 15 million tons of cement,
which is well within the bounds of cement production in both countries.
Finally, it can be estimated that 1 ton of methanol requires approximately 75 kWh of electricity [16]. Hence
the entire methanol industry in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia would require 0.75 TWh of electricity, which is a
small fraction of the total energy consumption.
2.2.5 Other industries

In 2022 the total energy consumption in Egypt was 1105 TWh [19]. It can be estimated that roughly 30% of
the energy is consumed by the industry in total, hence the industry consumed around 332 TWh of energy in
2022 [20]. It is assumed that the previously analysed industry sectors - iron, cement, ammonia and methanol
constitute roughly half of the total energy consumption of the industry. Therefore, in 2022 approximately 166
TWh were consumed by these sectors and the remaining 166TWh were consumed by other sectors, such as
agriculture, paper or transport equipment.
Taking the previously calculated population growth factors it can be calculated that the other sectors would
consume 281 TWh and 723TWh in Egypt and Saudi Arabia respectively. The full calculation can be found in
the Appendix A.1.2.
2.2.6 Summary
The summary of the energy consumption by the industry sectors in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is shown in Table
1. The total energy consumption in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is 450 TWh and 870 TWh resulting in a total
consumption of 1320 TWh in the industry sector.
Table 1: Summary of Energy Consumption in the Industries of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050 in TWh
Egypt Saudi Arabia
Iron 46 46.4
Cement 40.8 22.5
Ammonia 82.8 78.3
Other Industries 281 723
Total 450 870
2.3 Energy Demand in Residential Sector

As explained previously, the model is a numerical approximation of the data from the US model, and therefore,
to adapt it to the case of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, a scaling factor must be used.
Many variables such as the share of renewables, the lifestyle of citizens and population growth can contribute
to a rise in electricity consumption. However, to simplify the model, electricity consumption per capita is
considered, while determining the time scale of the data. The timescale with a stagnant slope is chosen for
calculating the scaling factor. The stagnation can be due to population growth or stability in lifestyle changes.
4
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Regardless, this provides a reliable means of forecasting consumption in 2050, as two of the variables responsible
are approximated to 0.
The energy demand of the residential sector is estimated using the current energy demand and the previously
presented growth factor. Since most of the energy demand is in the form of electricity, in particular in cooling
houses, lighting and powering electrical appliances, it is used as the basis for the demand of 2050. It is assumed
that this electricity demand will be covered by renewable electricity sources, namely solar and wind energy.
The total electricity consumption of Egypt in 2022 was 207 TWh, of which roughly 37.6 % was consumed by the
households, resulting in 78 TWh [21], [22]. By using the growth factor, it can be determined that around 132
TWh of electricity would be required in the residential sector. This is significantly less than what is consumed
by the industry sector. However, it has to be taken into account that nowadays most of the electricity in Egypt
and Saudi Arabia is produced from fossil fuels, which have a low conversion efficiency [22]. Therefore, less energy
will be needed in the future if the electricity is consumed by renewable energy sources. Similar calculations for
Saudi Arabia lead to an electricity/energy demand of 232 TWh. An alternative method would be to use scaling
factors to adapt the code based on the USA, for Saudi Arabia and Egypt (see appendix A.2).
2.4 Energy Demand in Transportation Sector

In the 2050 scenario, the transport sector, comprising road, railway, marine, and aviation, is assumed to achieve
nearly net-zero dependence on fossil fuels. An extrapolation/smoothing exponential method, using historical
data, estimates that 5.42 × 1018 Joules will be needed for the 2050 final transport consumption in the current
(business-as-usual) scenario. In a 100% renewable scenario for 2050, the final consumption is projected to be
lower, ranging from 1.81 − 1.97 × 1018 Joules (see Appendix A). The model predicts a switch trend, indicating
that Egypt is likely to surpass Saudi Arabia’s transport final consumption in 2035 based on existing fossil fuel
data. This report is largely inspired by a paper by Khalili et al.[23]. Advancing technology is also expected to
reduce relative losses in energy, as projected by the same research from 74% in 2015 to an estimated 61% by
2050[23].
2.4.1 Energy Demand in Roadways Sector

Road transport is categorized into passenger segments or light-duty and freight segments or heavier-duty. The
light duty includes light-duty vehicles (LHV), buses (BUS), and two or three-wheelers (2W/3W). While, the
heavier duty includes light heavy-duty trucks (LHDT), medium heavy-duty trucks (MHDT), and heavy heavy-
duty trucks (HHDT or HDV). However, the LHDT and MHDT are combined into medium-duty vehicles (MDV)
since both Egypt and Saudi Arabia don’t have that much variation in LHDT and MHDT. It is assumed that
direct electrification or BEV (battery electric vehicle) is applied to all road modes. The calculation estimates
that a total of 632,51 TWh for its primary energy demand under BEV scenario. Additionally, a total of 757,25
TWh for its primary energy demand under BEV and FCEV scenario.
2.4.2 Energy Demand in Railways

Electric trains are chosen since the model calculation by [23] presents a higher final energy efficiency than other
technologies, including the conventional ICE (internal combustion engine) train. The calculation estimates that
a total of 3,72 TWh is needed as the final energy consumption for the railway and 4,09 TWh for its primary
energy demand.
2.4.3 Energy Demand in Marine Sector

Currently, the maritime sector heavily relies on liquid fuels to power both passenger and freight transport,
with only tiny portions of methane-based LNG and electric ships being used. Marine transport plays a crucial
role in the worldwide movement of goods. Hydrogen is anticipated to have a significant impact on the future
of shipping, whereas LNG and electricity are likely to have comparatively less influence. Electric ships are
expected to gain popularity as a viable option for sea transportation, particularly for shorter distances, due to
their potential to reduce energy use [23]. The calculation estimates that a total of 184,56 TWh is needed as the
final energy consumption in marine and 307,61 TWh for its primary energy demand
5
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
2.4.4 Energy Demand in Aviation

Airplanes are now powered entirely by liquid fuels, but this solitary propulsion technology is planned to be
supplemented by electricity and hydrogen in the next decades to reach the emissions reduction objective [23].
Hydrogen, in compressed or liquid form, might be a solution to the aviation industry’s emissions reduction
aim. Because of the increased gravimetric energy density of LH2 , liquid hydrogen (LH2 )-fueled planes weigh
less than conventional kerosene-fueled flights, resulting in greater energy efficiency [23]. According to one
research, battery-electric planes have a total energy efficiency of 73%, which is significantly higher than the
44% of hydrogen-based fuel-cell planes and the 39% of traditional kerosene-fueled planes [23]. This exceptional
efficiency attribute would compensate for the propulsion system, the additional airplane mass owing to batteries,
and, to a lesser extent, aerodynamic aspects. However, because of the low energy density of lithium batteries,
electric airplanes have a restricted range. As a result, hydrogen-powered aircraft are chosen. The calculation
estimates that a total of 32,64 TWh is needed as the final energy consumption in aviation and 59,35 TWh for
its primary energy demand.
2.4.5 Overview of Transport Sector

The final energy demand is calculated according to the formula in Figure 9 and is presented in more detail
in the Appendix. The primary energy demand for Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s transportation sector is 687.3
TWh or 2.47 × 1018 J for main scenario (100% BEV), while alternative scenario (BEV and FCEV for road
transport) requires 749.67 TWh or 2.7 × 1018 J. Table 15 and Table 16 present the summary calculation for the
main scenario and alternative scenario, respectively in the appendix. Since BEV provides a lower number, we
consider the main scenario as the baseline.
2.5 Demand Curve

Combining the total demands of the three analyzed sectors - industry sector, residential sector, and transporta-
tion sector - it can be determined that the total demand for 2050 is estimated at 2239 TWh. Since, some sectors,
such as agriculture and services, were not analyzed, yet they constitute roughly 15% of the total energy demand
in 2022 [22], the demand is multiplied by 1.15 to compensate for that, assuming that the sectors would continue
to grow proportionally to the total demand. This results in the total demand of 2575 TWh or 9.3 × 1018 J. The
resulting demand curve can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The total demand curve of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
It can be seen that the demand is significantly larger during summer than it is in winter. This is because
during summer the use of air conditioners increases rapidly due to very high outside air temperatures. Since
the climate is very warm throughout the year in both countries, heating is not used much during the winter,
which decreases the energy consumption in winter in comparison to countries that are located northern. More
details on the derivation of the curve can be found in the Appendix A.3.
6
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
3 Energy Supply
The potential renewable energy sources in Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be discussed in this chapter to reach the
target of 100% renewable energy supply by 2050. Firstly, in Section 3.1, solar power is discussed, while wind
energy is detailed in Section 3.2.
3.1 Solar Energy
Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt have taken significant steps towards enhancing their solar power capacity in
recent years. Saudi Arabia, with its vast desert landscapes and abundant sunlight, has strategically invested
in solar infrastructure, aiming to diversify its energy mix and reduce reliance on conventional fossil fuels [24].
Meanwhile, Egypt, known for its sunny climate, has also embraced solar energy initiatives to meet its growing
energy demands sustainably. The installed solar power capacity in both countries reflects a shared commitment
to cleaner and more renewable energy sources.
From Section 2.5, it is clear that the energy needed to be generated by the year 2050 is approximately 2575
(T W h). Due to the short availability of wind and the abundance of solar irradiation, 2261 (T W h) of the total
demand is determined to be covered by solar power plants.
In this section, the potential for solar power in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is examined and various factors that
played a role in determining the ultimate decision, regarding where to install solar panels and what capacity
they should have, are researched.
3.1.1 Solar Farm Locations

The solar power plants of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are selected in the model based on the locations of existing
solar farms in both countries, and the regions allocated by the government to build solar power plants in the
future. The two governments decided to build PV solar power plants in these specific locations due to various
factors. The most vital one is the annual average sun irradiation, besides the population density and the
country’s area.
Compared to the rest of the world, Saudi Arabia and Egypt possess a valuable amount of solar irradiance as
a sustainable energy resource ranging from 2000-3500 (KW h/m2 /year) [25]. On the other hand, vast major
areas that suit any number of solar farms are available because the two countries are entirely covered by deserts,
especially Saudi Arabia.
To meet the future demand, larger areas for extra solar projects should be allocated of which Egypt is already
applying such arrangements. From the Solar Atlas of Egypt report [26], it is visible that vast areas in the middle
of the desert located in the east and west of the Nile are allocated to build solar farms.
The current installed capacities for the top five existing solar farms in both countries are indicated in Tables
2 and 3, besides the additional installed capacity of each location that should be added to meet the energy
consumption of the year 2050. The method of determining future installed capacity is done through some
assumptions and calculations which are detailed in the next subsection 3.1.2. For instance, installed capacity
in the Aswan province in Egypt is calculated by multiplying the number of modules (342974669) that can fit in
the desired area (1265.7 km2 ) by the module nominal power (530 - 550 W ) which is taken from the Jinko Solar
company that is contracted to provide the project’s solar panels [27].
Table 2: Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Saudi Arabia

Name Existed Installed Capacity (M W ) Added Installed Capacity (M W ) Location
Sudair Power Plant 1500 27628 25°49’37"N 45°34’44"E
Sakaka PV Solar Plant 300 137791 29°44’29"N 40°06’16"E
Ar Rass Solar PV Park 700 71700 25°41’42"N 43°39’41"E
Jeddah Solar Project 300 0 21°07’30"N 39°19’00"E
Al-Qurayyat Solar Project 0 34875 22°47’30"N 39°00’06"E
7
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Table 3: Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Egypt

Name Existed Installed Capacity (M W ) Added Installed Capacity (M W ) Location
Benban Solar Park 1800 154339 24°25’18"N 32°43’07"E
Fares Solar Park 500 0 24°37’19"N 32°47’54"E
Kom Umbu Solar Park 200 0 24°37’27"N 32°48’37"E
Kuraymat Solar Plant 150 35076 29°16’50"N 31°14’55"E
Siwa PV Solar Plant 10 615763 29°10’43"N 25°30’53"E
3.1.2 Solar Energy Estimations

To assess the energy output of the solar farms, the formulas for solar energy production from PV panels were
used, as given by Professor Arno Smets [28], in the context of the course "Renewable Energy". More specifically,
using the values of the mean annual solar irradiation of a place and the area that the solar farm would occupy,
we calculated the total irradiation of that place in (T W h/year). Then, in order to calculate the electrical energy
that will be produced from these solar farms, we considered a conversion efficiency of the solar panels at around
20%, PV system-to-user losses of 15% and a land coverage efficiency by the solar panels of 70% [28]. To calculate
the installed capacity of solar panels in these solar farms, we used the PV model of the Jinko Solar company
[27] (as mentioned earlier) and its characteristics (such as the area of a module and its nominal power). Using
the value of total installed capacity of solar panels along with the values of the measured capacity factors for
solar farms in these countries (derived from [29]), the fluctuation of the total final electricity production from
solar panels was designed (see Figure 2).
(a) Solar Power Generation for Egypt and Saudi Arabia in (b) Solar Power Generation on the 21st day of each month
2050 for a year for Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050
Figure 2: Two graphs showing solar power generation in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050
In Figure 2b, it is visible that the highest amount of power generated occurred, not during the summer
months, which is usually the case for most countries in the northern hemisphere, but during winter and spring
months. That is probably due to the fact that in the summer months, the solar irradiation might be higher,
but so is the air temperature, which decreases slightly the efficiency of the solar panels.
It should be noted that the data of the capacity factors refer to real measured data from the year 2019 for both
countries and therefore are taking into account the meteorological conditions of the entire year. An average
capacity factor was found to be around 0.262 for Egypt and 0.248 for Saudi Arabia. In addition, different
locations with their respective CFs were tested and it was found that the mean electricity generated by them
did not vary a lot (around 0.3% of the mean value). Therefore, for the graph of the electricity generated in a
year by the solar panels, one location was used, that represented all the areas.
3.1.3 Limitations
Regarding the solar panels, the calculation of the electricity produced by them could be further improved,
considering each solar farm location separately and using the location-specific efficiency and solar irradiation
values. Given that the temperature will fluctuate slightly differently in each location, the efficiency of the solar
panels is bound to be a bit different from area to area. What is more, in this project, an average transport-losses
8
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
efficiency was used for all the solar panels, which could be done in more detail in the future, taking into account
the exact distance from generation to consumption and calculating the respective losses.
3.2 Wind Energy

Egypt and Saudi Arabia both introduced wind power to their energy infrastructure only in recent years. As a
consequence of this, wind power only plays a minimal role in covering both countries’ demands. Egypt had a
total combined capacity of 1.6 GW in 2022, while Saudi Arabia covered less than 1 GW of capacity [30] [31].
However, both countries are planning to expand their wind industries significantly.
This section will first reflect on the capacity aims of wind power in this model. Next, the existing wind farms
and their locations will be evaluated, and geographical wind data will be discussed. Finally, new wind farm
areas will be identified and capacity calculations will be made.
3.2.1 Aim
As stated before, the overall capacity demand was estimated to be around 2575 TWh. The model will assume
that wind power is going to cover 314 TWh. This value is a lot lower than the value of solar capacity because
solar plants have a higher potential in both countries, as they need less space to generate the same power and
are a cheaper solution as will be shown in chapter 7. The existing solar market is also better established in both
countries. A potential downside of this approach will be that there will be more mismatches during the night.
The storage solutions of this model will need to consider this.
3.2.2 Wind Farm Locations

Generally, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have good conditions for wind power. According to the global wind
atlas, the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba have the highest mean power densities in the region [32]. Egypt
also has a few high-potential areas further inland, as well as on the coast of the Red Sea. On the other hand,
mainland Saudi Arabia shows relatively low mean power densities and seems less suitable for wind farms than
Egypt or the coastal regions. All currently existing wind parks in Egypt are on the coast next to the Gulf of
Suez, or further south next to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia has also developed plans for new wind parks in the
Gulf of Aqaba [31].
To reach the goal of fully sustainable energy generation in Egypt and Saudi Arabia by 2050, the current total
capacity of around 2 GW has to be scaled up massively. To do so, the areas with the highest mean wind
power densities and the lowest transmission costs have been chosen, and are shown by figure 14 and table 17 in
appendix B.2.1.
3.2.3 Area Calculations

The areas given in table 17 were calculated using several simplifying assumptions for the gulf of Suez and the
gulf of Aqaba. Both follow similar assumptions, so only the gulf of Aqaba will be discussed here. First, the
offshore area is calculated. The gulf has a length of 314 km but varies in width. To simplify, the total area of
the gulf is assumed to follow the shape of a trapezium, as this shape accounts for varying widths. Finally, both
gulfs hold important trade routes with large port cities. To maintain these trade routes, a 5 km channel cuts
through the trapezium and will not be considered as a potential area for wind farms. This setup is depicted in
Figure 15 and the total gulf area is derived in appendix B.2.2.
For the onshore areas of both gulfs, it was assumed that the coastline could be used for wind farms, with the
farms reaching 5 km inwards. As there are roads, smaller towns and other smaller infrastructure in these areas,
another coefficient was introduced to account for areas that cannot be used. This coefficient was chosen to be
0.8. The whole area is assumed to be a rectangle to simplify calculation, so the onshore area of the gulfs is
calculated as:
AGulf,Onshore = 0.8 ∗ L ∗ winward (4)

with winward denoting the width of the rectangle, showing how far the wind park reaches inward.
Finally, the banks of the Nile area and the western desert area values were taken from other research papers
[33] [34].
9
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
3.2.4 Nominal Power Calculations

The nominal power available for each of these regions in table 17 was calculated under the assumption that
Vestas V164 - 7 MW turbines will be used for offshore farms. For onshore, Vestas V90 – 2 MW turbines were
assumed. The turbines will be set up in a hexagonal lattice shape. The distance between turbines will be
dturb = 7 ∗ drotor .
From the hexagonal lattice shape it follows that the area of one triangle in the lattice structure belongs to half
a wind turbine. The derivation of this can be found in Appendix B.2.3. The area of a turbine then corresponds
A
to Aturb = 2 ∗ Atriangle . The number of turbines in a region can then be calculated by nturb = Aregion
turb
, where
Aregion is the area of a chosen region. The value of nturb can be multiplied with the nominal power of the
turbine model to get the total nominal power, which can be found in table 17 of the appendix.
3.2.5 Modelled Generation in 2050

With the now available data of the regions on coordinates, nominal power and turbine models, the generation
can be estimated using renewables.ninja [29]. This resource offers hourly data of power generated, which can be
interpolated to 15-minute intervals. It bases its data on wind and weather patterns from 2019, but it is assumed
here that the seasonal fluctuations and overall magnitude will be similar every year, and therefore also in 2050.
The following results, shown in Figure 3, were obtained:
(a) Wind Power generation throughout the year (b) Wind Power Generation on the 21st of each month
Figure 3: Model of Wind Power Generation in 2050
Figure 3 (b) suggests that there will be more power generated from wind during the summer months. While
this differs from European wind beahviour, K. Essa and F. Mubarak confirm this wind behaviour in Egypt, as
shown in figure 17 [35] in appendix B.2.4.
3.2.6 Limitations
While this approach gives a viable foundation for the wind generation model, a lot of assumptions were made
which could impact the accuracy of the results. Firstly, the area simplifications in the gulfs are quite large.
Furthermore, large areas of land and ocean will be covered continuously with wind turbines. In reality, these
turbines need to be grouped and formed into parks to realize proper transmission.
Secondly, while trade routes were taken into consideration, possible natural reserves or military zones were
ignored. It is possible that not all the areas that were designated for wind farms by the model can actually be
used in reality.
Finally, a current wind turbine model has been used. By 2050, technology will have improved to a point were
the achievable nominal power is going to be higher than it is now. The life cycles and wear and tear of the
turbines have also been ignored, as it is assumed that they all will be active and running flawlessly in 2050.
10
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
4 Mismatch and Demand Response

To be able to identify the necessary storage technologies for the region of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in 2050, the
mismatch between supply and demand has to be modelled. Furthermore, a demand response can be implemented
to reduce the amount of necessary storage capacities. Section 4.1 covers the mismatch calculations, section 4.2
describes the general demand response theory, and section 4.3 discusses the realistic application of the concept.
4.1 Demand Mismatch

The total demand and supply have been evaluated in 15-minute intervals throughout the entire year in the
previous sections. The mismatch is then given by the difference between the supply and the demand at every
single interval. Figure 4a shows an example of generation and demand data. This is just an example to highlight
the process and does not represent the actual modeled data. Figure 4b shows the resulting mismatch. The
orange dotted line describes the average mismatch, which will be relevant for the demand response in the
following section.
(a) Annual generation and demand curves (b) Resulting mismatch including average annual mismatch
Figure 4: Example data
4.2 Demand Response Theory

Following the calculation of the mismatch, an appropriate demand response can be modelled. The core concept
of the demand response model can be seen in Figure 6. Positive peaks mean a positive mismatch and therefore
imply more generation than demand occurred during these time intervals. This is shown by the blue area.
Hence, generated energy is technically available, but not used effectively. If the time interval with a negative
mismatch and therefore more demand than generation, exemplified by the yellow area, can be shifted to these
periods of overproduction, the mismatch value can be minimized.
Figure 5: Example data: Demand response principle
11
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
The general aim of this model is to keep the mismatch of a chosen interval as close to the annual average
mismatch as possible. Supposedly, it would be optimal to have a mismatch of zero, but it was decided to use
the average mismatch of 24 hour intervals as the reference value because otherwise effective and continuous
demand response will not be possible for all intervals. In the given example, the average is positive, meaning
that more mismatch is positive than negative. If all demand was to be shifted, it could be covered and most of
the mismatch after demand response would be zero, but a few final intervals at the end of the year will still have
a noticeably larger positive mismatch. This is because the positive area is larger than the negative area under
the curve. Using the average value of each 24 hour interval as a reference, instead of zero, should prevent this
problem by providing a more evenly distributed demand response. However, for the modelled data, the average
mismatch turned out to be quiet close to zero, so the actual influence of this approach on the final demand
response outcome may be limited, compared to the approach where zero is used as a reference.
4.3 Applied Demand Response

Egypt and Saudi-Arabia can both benefit from implementing demand response, as less storage capacity will be
necessary and therefore the overall storage costs will decrease. Furthermore, the volatility of the system will also
decrease, because the magnitudes of over- and underproduction are decreased by the demand response. However,
incentives for companies to shift their demand will be required. For example, the transmission system operator
could artificially increase electricity prices for times with peak negative mismatch, and reduce electricity prices
during times of high production.
To implement a realistic demand response however, a few more limitations and factors have to be considered.
Firstly, not all forms of demand can be shifted at any time. The residential sector currently has no limitations
on its demand, and for the model it will be assumed that this will not change until 2050. Furthermore, while
some industrial processes can be delayed, a lot of industries rely on constant supplies of energy. To account for
this inflexibility, a demand shift factor of 5% was estimated. This means that the maximum demand that can
be shifted in each interval is equal to 5%.
Furthermore, it is unrealistic to adapt to fluctuations in the mismatch within 15-minute intervals. For the
model it was assumed that the demand response would be implemented for intervals of 24 hours only, giving
demand-side users enough time to adapt their behaviour as needed. The model will try to reduce the mismatch
for every day individually.
The following figure shows the actual mismatch and the applied demand response using the previous assump-
tions.
Figure 6: Demand Response according to the model on the 21st of March, April, May, June and July
12
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
5 Energy Losses and Transmission

Energy can be transmitted or distributed by using cable and fuel. In the 100% Renewable case for Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, most of the energy is transferred by electricity pipelines. Over long distances, High Voltage Direct
Current (HVDC) losses are lower than High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) losses: for an 800 kV line
voltage, HVDC losses are roughly 3% every 1,000 km, whereas HVAC losses are about 7% per 1,000 km. Losses
are similar for HVDC sea cables but may reach 60% per 100 km for a 750 kV HVAC sea cable. The distribution
systems account for the majority of overall transmission and distribution losses. However, energy losses have
been steadily decreasing over time because of technological advancements. With a significant rise in renewable
share, transmission and distribution losses are bound to be greater. According to NREL, losses will range from
8.4% to 9.5% under a 2050 scenario with 80% renewable energy [36].
5.1 Saudi Arabia’s and Egypt’s Population and Industrial Distribution

5.1.1 Population Distribution
The majority of Egyptians reside along the Nile River’s banks, and more than two-fifths of the population lives
in cities [37]. On the other side, Saudi Arabia’s major areas of population are in the central Hejaz, in Asir,
in central Najd, and near the Persian Gulf. The three most densely populated cities are Riyadh, Mecca, and
Medina [38].
5.1.2 Industrial Distribution

Both Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s Industrial areas are located at a centralized point. In Egypt, these industrial
hubs are strategically located around Greater Cairo, Alexandria, the Suez Canal zone, the central Delta region,
Beni Suef, and Minya. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s industrial zone is located around Medina, Mecca, Riyadh,
and along the Persian Gulf route. The illustration for residential and industrial distribution is presented in
Figure 7. The green highlight shows the main residential area, while the red highlight shows the main industrial
area in both countries [39], [40].
Figure 7: Egypt - Saudi Transmission Line, Residence Area, and Industrial Zone
5.2 Energy Losses

In 2050, the transmission of power is assumed to be carried out using HVDC since it is more efficient than
HVAC across long distances. Since the model is based on 100% renewable energy, the loss percentage from the
transmission line is expected to be 10%. The assumption is based on the IEA prediction of 8% - 9.5% for an
80% renewable scenario [36]. Finally, the power loss throughout the transmission and distribution will be 240
TWh in 2050.
13
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
6 Projected Storage Technology

The storage technology was developed simultaneously for both locations. In this section, we considered the
demand mismatch, incorporating the demand response, to estimate the required storage capacity. The calculated
amount was then segmented into short-term (2 days), medium-term (21 days), and long-term categories (>1
year).
To dynamically allocate storage facilities over these time scales, we utilized the MATLAB script that employed
the efficiencies of short-term (Lithium Ion batteries), medium-term (Pumped Hydro Storage), and long-term
(Liquid Hydrogen) storage. The script first eliminated the surplus energy to account for shortages, import and
export; followed by iteratively adjusting the mismatch data, and redistributing excess energy into the appropri-
ate storage facilities based on the time-dependent requirements. This approach not only optimally addressed
short-term imbalances but also considered medium and long-term storage needs, ensuring a comprehensive and
adaptive storage strategy. Evaluating energy storage solutions requires a thorough consideration of factors such
as charge and discharge profiles, storage capacity, and scalability. In addition to the initial storage cost, it
is imperative to factor in the anticipated lifespan measured by cycling frequency before degradation occurs,
ensuring a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis [41].
Of various storage technology options (see Appendix D), decisions were made based on their respective capacities
and charging cycles. Notably, Li-ion batteries and flow batteries stand out as practical choices for storing energy
over periods ranging from a single day to precisely 2-3 days. Shorter durations were not considered, under the
assumption that the grid system could effectively balance demand through mechanisms like demand response,
import/export, or other means. As a result, pumped hydro storage and compressed air storage emerge as
potential options for medium-term storage, while Power-to-X and molten salts present themselves as choices
for long-term storage. Subsequent subsections will delve into the rationales for selecting these technologies and
discuss their design considerations.
6.1 Short-term Storage

Short-term storage involves utilizing storage units with a time cycle of 2 days. Li-ion batteries have been
predominantly employed for short-term storage due to several key advantages. Firstly, they are economically
efficient and characterized by a low deployment cost. They contribute to cost-effectiveness, aligning with zero-
or low-carbon storage solutions, thus competing favourably with peak generation from fossil fuels. Second,
batteries offer swift and stable services during shortages, acting as a counterbalance to the grid. Lastly, Li-
ion batteries prove effective in short durations, due to high power density that facilitates rapid charging and
discharging in contrast to flow batteries. Their modularity and compatibility with electric vehicles further
enhance their appeal [42]. A drawback in this context is the shorter lifespan and unsustainable use of lithium,
in contrast to flow batteries that offer a lengthier operational period. Despite this, lithium-ion batteries were
selected for their high power density and the ability to effectively compete with fossil fuel counterparts. During
the initial stages, the technology must compete with fossil fuel alternatives before contemplating the integration
of flow batteries, which promise an extended commitment to operational longevity [43].
The determining factor for the total battery capacity needed was the demand mismatch, requiring a maximum
storage of 2.8 TWh for 2 days. The selected battery unit, with a capacity of 215 kWh/unit based on current
standards, was chosen due to its durability in operating temperatures ranging from -20 to 55 ◦ C and its 88%
efficiency [44]. The calculation for the number of required battery units (n) was derived from Equation 5.
Energy needed f or Short term storage

n= (5)
Capcity of 1 battery unit
Subsequently, a total of 120,70,000 battery units were required to fulfil the energy storage needs of both coun-
tries. The distribution of these units was implemented using a scaling method where the residential electricity
consumption was considered relative to one another, with Egypt having an approximate consumption of ≈ 14%
and KSA 86% concerning the projected demand in Chapter 2. The primary focus for short-term storage priori-
tization centred on the residential sector for two key reasons: first, in the face of catastrophic events such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, the storage should be capable of supplying electricity to homes; and second, the storage
demand in this sector is comparatively lower than that of other sectors, making it less useful elsewhere. As a
result, 16,89,800 units were allocated to Egypt, with the remaining 103,80,200 units designated for distribution
in Saudi Arabia.
14
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
The distribution of the 16,89,800 units in Egypt was mostly concentrated near Cairo, and the banks of the
Nile river based on the residential population (see figure 8b). Similarly, for Saudi Arabia, precise locations for
the batteries were determined due to scattered population, as seen in figure 8a. Therefore, for effective cost
management, strategic placement of the units was a crucial consideration in the distribution process.
The relative electricity consumption in the region is divided into four zones: Western, Eastern, Central, and
South zones (see Appendix D) with percentages 17%,16%, 59%, and 5% respectively. This breakdown was
utilized in the initial analysis to distribute the battery units. Subsequently, upon fine-tuning the analysis, a
total of 17,64,634 and 16,60,802 units were assigned to the Western region and Eastern regions respectively,
while 61,24,318 units were allocated to Central, and the remaining 5,19,010 units to the South.
(a) Saudi-Arabia [45] (b) Egypt
Figure 8: The figure shows the placement of battery units based on residential electricity consumption needs in
Egypt and Saudi Arabia (marked in blue) and the pumped hydro storage plant (marked in red).
The placement of the units was guided by strategic considerations, taking into account the interconnection
between states and their strategic locations. For example, in the allocation of units, Madina received battery
units less than its actual requirement, based on the assumption that Mecca would offer support in times of
crisis. Cities with high population density, like Jazan and Riyadh, were given priority strategically, recognizing
their heightened vulnerability to shortages during grid imbalances. Conversely, regions with abundant solar and
wind generation were assigned lower priority in the allocation process.
6.2 Medium-term Storage
Having explored the options of compressed air storage and Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH), the latter was
chosen for various reasons. The total capacity required for medium storage was determined to be 2.9 TWh
for 21 days. The capacity of a compressed storage compartment was found to be 31.95 kWh/m³ [46] while
that of pumped hydro storage, used in this model, is 543.9 kWh/m³. Additionally, PSH capacity is expected to
increase by almost one-fifth (26 GW) in the next five years, primarily in response to the growing need for system
flexibility [47]. While technical characteristics were considered in the decision-making, it was also predominantly
influenced by current investments in PSH.
Considering the project will be shared between two countries, the options for the dam location were the Gulf of
Suez and Gulf of Aqaba, as depicted in Figure 8b. Constructing a dam in the Gulf of Suez could significantly
impact transportation trade, whereas the Gulf of Aqaba, being dialogic in the taper, was considered more
suitable.
The volume of the Gulf of Aqaba is approximately 239 km³, and the highest point of elevation in that region is
15
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Jabal al Burj, approximately 200 m high. Using this as height difference, the size of the reservoir was determined
using Equation 6.
Epsh [kW h] = ρw [kg/m3 ] × fV × Vw [m3 ] × g × h[m]/(3.6 × 106 ) (6)

where h is the height difference between the low and high reservoir, V is the volume of water in the lake, and
fV is the fraction of that volume required to construct the dam.
Regarding the location selection, two key factors were taken into consideration. Firstly, proximity to the
generation source, particularly in this case, near offshore wind farms. Secondly, ensuring that the chosen
location does not disrupt trade routes, and was monitored using a volume fraction of 0.023. This implies that
a volume of 5.497 km3 is required for the reservoirs if placed with a height difference of 200 m.
6.3 Long-term Storage

For the total long-term storage of 1200 TWh yearly (>1 year) was decided to be stored as liquid hydrogen.
There are two main reasons for this decision. First, it is assumed that the aviation sector will rely on green
hydrogen fuel; second, the transportation sector will have completely replaced fossils with electricity as discussed
in section 2.4. The mass of hydrogen produced was calculated using Equation 7.
Energy Stored LongT erm
mH2 [tonne] = (7)
Ef f iciency H2 to Electricity ∗ 33000
where 33 MWh is the energy needed to produce 1 tonne of hydrogen gas [48]. Based on these calculations, a 50
million tonnes of H2 can be stored. Based on the demand for hydrogen projected in section 2.4, 2 million tons
is required by aviation, 1 million by maritime and the remaining by industries, the remaining can be stored as
well as exported. The storage locations were decided based on the locations of airports and those industries
that currently use fossil fuel resources for their operation (see Appendix D). However, the location is not critical
as transmission losses won’t affect the storage significantly. Nevertheless, the electrolyzers are positioned near
the generation sites to minimize transmission losses.
6.4 TenneT
TenneT, in its role as a grid operator, gives top priority to ensuring energy security and balancing the main grid
to prevent blackouts. Currently, it approves infrastructure capable of delivering power connections surpassing
approximately 100 MW, with capacities below this threshold falling under the jurisdiction of the regional
grid[49]. The primary sources for this capacity presently include gas turbines and renewable energy. However,
our analysis for 2050 envisions a shift wherein 50% of the capacity will be integrated into the renewables grid,
prompting an exploration of the implications of this transition. In this scenario, the total post-balancing energy
shortages would amount to 1100 TWh per year. Adopting methods similar to those used in the storage sector,
we find that approximately 2.6 TWh of energy can be stored for the short term, 2.8 TWh for the medium
term, and 1099 TWh for long-term storage. Consequently, this scenario would require 1 million fewer battery
units and witness 0.1 million tons less hydrogen than usual. There’s a negligible difference observed in pumped
hydro storage; it remains of negligible order. Compared to the previous scenario, by connecting the grid to 50%
renewables, the mismatch is reduced by 8%.
16
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
7 Cost Calculation
7.1 Energy production systems
The costs of these technologies are projections, largely based on the values for the 2022 technology costs from
[50], but also considering a price reduction over 27 years (until 2050), because of the larger scale of deployment
of the technologies.
7.1.1 Solar Energy

According to [50], the CAPEX for the installation of solar panels in 2022 was 653 USD/kW in Saudi Arabia
and 876 USD/kW in Egypt. The total capacity of solar panels installed in these countries in 2022, was 440 MW
in Saudi Arabia and 1724 MW in Egypt, according to [51], and in 2050 these values will be 280 GW and 606
GW, respectively.
The average weighted installation cost of solar PV projects in 2050 is expected to be in the range of 165 -
481 USD/kW, according to [52]. Using the cost formula (see eq. 24 in the Appendix), the mean value of this
range (323 USD/kW), the future capacity installed, and the current capacity, the CAPEX for solar energy was
calculated to be 25,600 million USD, so 23,552 million EUR (considering that in the moment of writing this
report, 1 USD equals to 0.92 EUR).
Regarding the operational expenses (OPEX), these were taken from the values shown in [53]. Even though
there is no specific set of data for Egypt or Saudi Arabia, it is obvious that in 2050, the OPEX value for both
solar, onshore wind and offshore wind is similar in all cases shown. Therefore, a value of 10 EUR/MWh of
OPEX in 2050 was assumed for all three technologies. Based on the aforementioned, the OPEX for solar energy
in both countries was calculated to be around 0.04 billion EUR/year, and hence slightly over 1 billion EUR for
the whole lifetime of the project.
Between 2010 and 2022, the LCOE of new utility-scale solar PV projects dropped significantly by 89%, going
from USD 0.445/kWh to USD 0.049/kWh, primarily due to decreases in module costs [50]. Using the formula
in the Appendix (25), the calculated LCOE for solar energy in 2050 is 0.0107 USD/kWh or 0.0098 EUR/kWh.
This figure slightly deviates from the 2050 range predicted by [52] (0.014-0.05 USD/kWh), possibly because our
scaling factor didn’t consider materials costs, leading to a potentially unrealistic future cost estimate.
7.1.2 Wind Energy

Onshore wind energy
Specifically, the average total cost for installing onshore wind turbines was approximately 1680 USD/kW in
Saudi Arabia and 1500 USD/kW in Egypt in 2022 [50]. Similar to solar energy cost calculations, a scaling
factor was applied. However, due to the small current installed capacity (3 MW in Saudi Arabia and 1643
MW in Egypt [51]) compared to the ambitious 2050 targets (9 GW in Saudi Arabia and 56 GW in Egypt), the
resulting CAPEX value was unreasonably low, yielding an implausible LCOE of 0.005 USD/kWh. Considering
global projections from [54], the 2050 installation cost for onshore wind turbines is expected to be in the range
of 650 - 1000 USD/kW. Using the mean value (825 USD/kW) and the future capacity needed, the total CAPEX
for onshore wind was calculated at 50,000 million USD or 46,000 million EUR. OPEX for onshore wind, akin to
solar energy, assumed a value of 10 EUR/MWh, resulting in an OPEX of 40,000 million EUR over the project’s
lifetime.
The worldwide LCOE for newly commissioned onshore wind projects decreased by 5% from 0.035 USD/kWh in
2021 to 0.033 USD/kWh in 2022. In 2050, the LCOE was found to be 0.0204 USD/kWh, or 0.0187 EUR/kWh,
which falls within the range of the expected LCOE values in 2050 (0.02-0.03 USD/kWh according to [54]).
Offshore wind energy

The offshore wind technology had a global average installation cost of about 3461 USD/kW in 2022 [50].
Currently, neither of the two countries have any offshore wind capacity installed [51]. Therefore, for the cost
projection of 2050, the values from [54] will be used, where it is predicted that the weighted average offshore
wind turbine cost will be between 1400 and 2800 USD/kW. Therefore, using the mean value of this range (2100
USD/kW), it was calculated that for the installation of total offshore wind capacity, around 0.13 billion USD,
or 0.119 billion EUR, will be needed.
17
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
As previously stated in Section 7.1.1, for the calculation of the OPEX, a value of 10 EUR/MWh was considered
for offshore wind energy in 2050 in both countries. Therefore, the OPEX for offshore wind was calculated to be
around 39,700 million EUR, for the whole project’s lifetime.
Regarding the LCOE values, in 2022 the cost of energy for new offshore wind projects had a 2% rise compared
to 2021. Specifically, it rose from USD 0.079/kWh to USD 0.081/kWh. Using the formula 25, the LCOE
for offshore wind energy was calculated for the year 2050 and was found to be 0.0516 USD/kWh, or 0.047
EUR/kWh, which falls within the range of the expected LCOE values in 2050 (0.03-0.07 USD/kWh according
to [54]). The repartition of the total costs of the energy generation technologies can be seen in Figure 19 in the
Appendix Section C.
7.2 Energy Transport systems

The calculation for this report is based on baseline or capital cost and levelized cost for solar transmission.
Storage transmission is ignored since the limited available data online, as stated also in another report [55]. The
predicted length of the new transmission line is 1810.4 km with a safety factor of 25%, as indicated in Table
18 in the Appendix. The typical HVDC transmission line for Egypt and Saudi Arabia is 500kV. Therefore, the
baseline transmission cost for a 500 kV HDVC line is $3.898 million per mile. Multiplying the required length
by the baseline cost gives us 4.4 billion EUR. Among the four locations as stated in the Appendix, the Siwa
Solar Project near Alexandria City generates the highest power. If we omit the other new facilities and only
consider the Siwa Project, the baseline cost would be 0.6 billion EUR.
The Levelized Cost of Transmission or LCOT concept calculation is based on [55] which considers the annualized
capital cost of the transmission project divided by the amount of annual renewable energy generation to flow
across the system. The formula and calculation approach can be seen in Eq 26 in the Appendix. The total
nominal capacity generation for the Siwa Solar project is only around 20 MW, which is quite small. The LCOT
for the Siwa Project is 0.81 EUR/kWh, a number far higher than the typical value of around 0.0045 EUR/kWh
[55]. This implies a non-feasible project for this capacity unless the capacity is increased to around 2000 MW.
Finally, we assume to implement most of the project near the existing transmission line so that the final cost
will exclude the transmission lines.
7.3 Energy Storage systems

The cost assessment methodologies employed for solar energy are readily adaptable to estimating the costs
of diverse energy storage systems, each characterized by distinct parameters. Consistency is maintained by
converting all original USD-denominated costs to EUR using the prevailing exchange rate of 1 USD to 0.92
EUR.
In the realm of short-term storage, the Li-ion Battery, with a 215 kWh capacity priced at USD 42,000 [56]
and utilizing a 0.6 scaling law, incurs an investment cost of 716 million euros to address a 2.8 TWh short-term
shortage. Operational Expenses (OPEX) are considered to be 2% of the Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), and
the system has a lifetime of 15 years [57], resulting in a Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) of 0.0307 EUR/kWh.
Transitioning to medium-term storage, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity boasts a CAPEX of USD 1,450/kW
[58]. OPEX set at 1.5 times the CAPEX [59], and a lifetime of 60 years [60] contribute to an investment cost
of 635 million euros to address a 2.9 TWh medium-term shortage. The LCOS for this system is calculated to
be 0.0141 EUR/kWh.
For long-term storage, Hydrogen Energy presents a CAPEX of USD 19/kWh [61]. OPEX, equating to 2.0
times the CAPEX [62], and a 15-year lifetime [63] result in an investment cost of 18.7 billion euros to address a
1200 TWh long-term shortage. The calculated LCOS for this system is 0.0020 EUR/kWh. Comprehensive cost
assumptions are detailed by [64].
Li-ion Batteries excel in short-term solutions, while pumped-storage (PSH) hydroelectricity offers favorable
costs for medium-term storage . Hydrogen Energy proves cost-effective for long-term storage, emphasizing the
need to align choices with specific duration and scale requirements for efficient energy planning. Comparatively,
the typical LCOS for li-on battery today is 0.23 - 0.37 EUR/kWh, PSH is 0.05-0.09 EUR/kWh, and hydrogen
storage is 0.11 - 0.19 EUR/kWh [65]. Hence, the model is below the typical price today. Even though the
storage system price might be declined in the future due to the technology advancement, it is still favorable.
18
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
8 Conclusion and Recommendation

8.1 Conclusion
This report outlines a storage technology system to support Saudi Arabia and Egypt’s plans for achieving 100%
renewable energy implementation by 2050. With an estimated energy requirement of 2575 TWh by 2050, the
suggested model allocates 2261 TWh from solar and 314 TWh from wind, emphasizing the critical significance of
renewables in addressing the growing energy demands of these countries. This study aims to assist policymakers
and industry leaders in transitioning to a more sustainable and resilient energy future.
The examination of renewable energy potential in Saudi Arabia and Egypt suggests a promising future, par-
ticularly in solar power. Both nations, blessed with plentiful sunshine and vast desert landscapes, see solar
energy as a fitting solution. The findings indicate that solar power surpasses wind energy in meeting the rising
demand. Surprisingly, solar energy’s peak output occurs in the fall and winter, contrary to popular belief, due
to the negative impact of high summer temperatures on panel efficiency.
In the context of renewable energy distribution, wind is expected to play a smaller role than solar. The strategic
selection of vast areas, such as the Gulf of Suez, Aqaba, and the banks of the Nile, underscores the commitment
to harnessing solar potential. Additionally, understanding the seasonal variation in wind power production,
especially during summer, aligns with the prevalent climatic conditions in the region.
The integration of Demand Response into the energy system after mismatch calculations demonstrates a proac-
tive strategy to handling supply and demand changes. This, in turn, is a critical step towards finding appropriate
storage options for the changing energy scenario.
This model proposes three types of storage in order to meet the demands of both nations: short-term, medium-
term, and long-term. The short-term uses a lithium-ion battery, the medium uses pumped hydro, and the long-
term uses liquid hydrogen storage. Storage selection entails assessing charge and discharge patterns, capacity,
scalability, cost, and cycle frequency. Meanwhile, its location is determined by demand, namely population and
industrial centers.
Moreover, there is an expectation of lower costs as we move forward, and scale-up deployment is a positive
sign. Solar emerges as the most cost-effective technology, with an estimated Levelized Cost of Electricity
(LCOE) of about0.0098 EUR/kWh in 2050, followed by onshore wind at 0.0187 EUR/kWh and offshore wind at
0.047 EUR/kWh. Additionally, The Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) of Li-on battery is 0.00307 EUR/kWh.
Meanwhile, pumped-hydro and liquid hydrogen are 0.00141 and 0.0020 EUR/kWh.
In conclusion, the utilization of LCOE facilitates standardized comparisons, assisting decision-makers in evalu-
ating the economic viability of diverse energy projects. While the LCOE value suggests an acceptable outlook
for wind and storage models. However, the slight levelized cost deviation from the typical price for solar can be
attributed, in part, to oversimplified assumptions. Additionally, the practicality of constructing a solar project
below 2000 MW with a transmission length of 200 - 300 km is deemed unfeasible. Consequently, this model
relies exclusively on existing transmission facilities for its implementation.
8.2 Recommendations
Despite a detailed review of a renewable energy scenario in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, a few points can be improved
for future studies. First, the detailed calculation for energy loss during transmission and distribution needs
adjustment for a 100-renewable scenario. Theoretically, the loss will be even higher with a higher percentage
of renewable energy. It requires a strong collaboration with various stakeholders to do a detailed feasibility
study. Second, the more detailed calculation for all of the levelized costs by collaborating with other related
stakeholders when it comes to estimating the reasonable approaches. Third, the demand variation can be made
accurate by considering demand shifts during Ramadan, or other major events such as Expo. Additionally, It is
worth noting that the ongoing Noem City project in Saudi Arabia aimed at constructing a city powered entirely
by renewable, represents a significant stride in leveraging renewable energy and advanced storage technologies.
This project’s impact on our report’s findings is substantial and should be duly considered in our analysis.
19
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
References
[1] “Saudi arabia and egypt sign $ 1.8bn contracts for electrical connection,” Arab News. (), [Online]. Available:
https://arab.news/nhsgp (visited on 10/06/2022).
[2] F. Belaid and A. A. Sarihi, Energy transition in saudi arabia: Key initiatives and challenges - saeefa, Sep.
2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.saudi- aee.sa/wp- content/uploads/2022/01/1- Energy-
Transition-in-Saudi-Arabia.pdf.
[3] 75, Egypt -electricity and renewable energy, Aug. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.trade.gov/
country- commercial- guides/egypt- electricity- and- renewable- energy#:~:text=Egypt%20is%
20working%20on%20increasing%20the%20supply%20of,and%20conventional%20energy%20sources%
2057.33%20percent%20by%202035..
[4] IEA, Country analysis executive summary: Saudi arabia - u.s. energy ... 2023. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/Saudi_Arabia/saudi_arabia.
pdf.
[5] “World economic outlook database,” International Monetary Fund. (), [Online]. Available: https://www.
imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October.
[6] “Industry,” IEA. (), [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/industry.
[7] C. Philibert, Renewable energy for industry, 2017.
[8] E. Parliament, The potential of hydrogen for decarbonising steel production, 2020.
[9] N. M. I. Center. “International minerals statistics and information,” U.S Geological Survey. (), [On-
line]. Available: https : / / www . usgs . gov / centers / national - minerals - information - center /
international-minerals-statistics-and-information.
[10] W. S. Association, 2022 world steel in figures, 2022.
[11] J. A. Jibran and C. Mahat, “Application of green hydrogen for decarbonization of cement manufacturing
process: A technical review,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2023.
[12] N.A.Madlool, R.Saidur, M.S.Hossain, and N.A.Rahim, “A critical review on energy use and saving in the
cement industries,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 2042–2060, 4 2011.
[13] A. E. Association. “Project ra: 1.6 million tonnes per year renewable ammonia near port said.” (), [Online].
Available: https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/project-ra-1-6-million-tonnes-per-year-
renewable-ammonia-near-port-said/.
[14] A. E. Association. “Round-trip efficiency of ammonia as a renewable energy transportation media.” (),
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . ammoniaenergy . org / articles / round - trip - efficiency - of -
ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media/.
[15] U. G. Survey. “Nitrogen (fixed) - ammonia.” (), [Online]. Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/
mcs2022/mcs2022-nitrogen.pdf.
[16] M. Rumayor, J. Fernandex-Gonzalez, A. Dominguez-Ramos, and A. Irabien, “Deep decarbonization of the
cement sector: A prospective environmental assessment of co2 recycling to methanol,” ACS Sustainable
Chemistry and Engineering, 2022.
[17] T. Cordero-Lanzac, A. Ramirez, A. Navajas, et al., “A techno-economic and life cycle assessment for the
production of green methanol from co2: Catalyst and process bottlenecks,” Journal of Energy Chemistry,
2022.
[18] U. N. I. D. Organization, “Assessment of low carbon hydrogen production, demand, business models and
value chain in egypt,” United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Tech. Rep., 2022.
[19] Tech. Rep., Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2023) – with major processing by
Our World in Data. “Other renewables (including geothermal and biomass)” [dataset]. Energy Institute,
“Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data].
[20] “Egypt energy information,” Tech. Rep., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.enerdata.net/estore/
energy-market/egypt/.
[21] Ember. “Electricity demand.” (), [Online]. Available: https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/
data-explorer/.
[22] Statista. “Distribution of electricity consumption in egypt as of april 2022, by sector.” (), [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1334194/share-of-electricity- consumption-in-
egypt-by-sector/.
20
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
[23] S. Khalili, E. Rantanen, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “Global transportation demand development with
impacts on the energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions in a climate-constrained world,” Energies,
vol. 12, no. 20, p. 3870, 2019. doi: 10.3390/en12203870.
[24] A. Ali, “Transforming saudi arabia’s energy landscape towards a sustainable future: Progress of solar
photovoltaic energy deployment,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 8420, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15108420.
[25] “Solargis.” (), [Online]. Available: https://solargis.com/maps-and-gis-data/overview.
[26] H. E.-A. Panagiotis Kosmopoulos Stelios Kazadzis. “The solar atlas of egypt.” (), [Online]. Available:
http://www.nrea.gov.eg/Content/files/SOLAR%20ATLAS%202018%20digital1.pdf.
[27] “Jinko solar.” (2020), [Online]. Available: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/
https://www.jinkosolar.com/uploads/5ff587a0/JKM530-550M-72HL4-(V)-F1-EN.pdf.
[28] A. Smets, K. Jäger, O. Isabella, R. Van Swaaij, and M. Zeman, Solar Energy: The physics and engineering
of photovoltaic conversion, technologies and systems. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
[29] S. Pfenninger and I. Staffell. “Renewables.ninja.” (), [Online]. Available: https : / / www . renewables .
ninja/.
[30] T. W. Power. “Egypt wind farms.” (), [Online]. Available: https://www.thewindpower.net/country_
windfarms_en_22_egypt.php.
[31] T. W. Power. “Saudi-arabia wind farms.” (), [Online]. Available: https : / / www . thewindpower . net /
country_windfarms_en_110_saudi-arabia.php.
[32] G. W. Atlas. “Global wind atlas - egypt.” (), [Online]. Available: https://globalwindatlas.info/en/
area/Egypt.
[33] M. A. Abdelrahman, R. H. Abdel-Hamid, M. A. Abo Adma, and M. Daowd, “Techno-economic analysis to
develop the first wind farm in the Egyptian western desert at Elkharga Oasis,” Clean Energy, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 211–225, Feb. 2022. doi: 10.1093/ce/zkac006. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/ce/article-
pdf/6/1/211/53683658/zkac006.pdf. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkac006.
[34] I. R. E. Agency, Egypt wind atlas, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://rcreee.org/wp-content/uploads/
2013/11/irena_case_egypt.pdf.
[35] K. Essa and F. Mubarak, “Survey and assessment of wind-speed and windpower in egypt, including air
density variation,” Wind Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 95–106, Mar. 2006. doi: 10.1260/030952406778055081.
[36] V. Kathleen, Electricity transmission and distribution - iea-etsap, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://iea-
etsap.org/E-TechDS/PDF/E12_el-t&d_KV_Apr2014_GSOK.pdf.
[37] P. M. Holt, C. G. Smith, and D. P. Little, Egypt under the caliphate, 2024. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/Egypt-under-the-caliphate.
[38] Britannica, Economy of saudi arabia, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.britannica.com/place/
Saudi-Arabia/Economy.
[39] A. Egypt, Qualifying industrial zones, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://www.amcham-egypt.org/trade-
resources/egypt-us-business-data/qualifying-industrial-zones.
[40] 2024. [Online]. Available: http://www.amcham- egypt.org/trade- resources/egypt- us- business-
data/qualifying-industrial-zones.
[41] J. S. Jones, The different types of energy storage and their opportunities, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.smart- energy.com/industry- sectors/storage/the- different- types- of- energy-
storage-and-their-opportunities/.
[42] C. Goodall, Some rules of thumb of the hydrogen economy, Jun. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.
carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-of-thumb-of-the-hydrogen-economy.
[43] Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/making-clean-
electricity-possible/.
[44] Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.beny.com/product-item/215-kwh-air-cooling-energy-
storage - system / ?utm _ campaignid = 20852934166 & utm _ adgroupid = 154410538697 & utm _ creative =
684021241183 & utm _ network = g & utm _ matchtype = p & utm _ device = c & utm _ devicemodel = &utm _ term =
battery+storage+commercial&utm_adposition=&utm_placement=&utm_feeditemid=&utm_targetid=
kwd - 1465353813094 & gad _ source = 1 & gclid = CjwKCAiA44OtBhAOEiwAj4gpOX7zl25dOo2lodYtNMeSJ -
daxTINkszIDaBLNaDaw4Jt5KvVC9OpoxoCrK0QAvD_BwE.
21
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
[45] Y. Srass, “Empirical analysis of the regional house price convergence in the kingdom of saudi arabia,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Oct. 2021. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27355.49443.
[46] M. E. Demir and I. Dincer, “Performance assessment of compressed air energy storage systems with and
without phase change materials,” International Journal of Thermofluids, vol. 20, p. 100 489, 2023. doi:
10.1016/j.ijft.2023.100489.
[47] Iea, Will pumped storage hydropower expand more quickly than stationary battery storage? – analysis.
[Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/articles/will- pumped- storage- hydropower- expand-
more-quickly-than-stationary-battery-storage.
[48] G. Staff, Defining the hydrogen economy from a to z: T is for 1tpd, 2022. [Online]. Available: https :
//genh2hydrogen.com/blog/hydrogen-from-a-to-z-t-for-1tpd/#.
[49] T. T, Which connection, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.tennet.eu/which-connection.
[50] IRENA, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Aug/Renewable-
power-generation-costs-in-2022.
[51] IRENA, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/Publications.
[52] E. Asmelash and G. Prakash, “Future of solar photovoltaic: Deployment, investment, technology, grid
integration and socio-economic aspects,” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2019.
[53] S. Bouckaert, A. F. Pales, C. McGlade, et al., “Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector,”
2021.
[54] IRENA, “Future of wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects
(a global energy transformation paper),” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2019.
[55] W. Gorman, A. Mills, and R. Wiser, Improving estimates of transmission capital costs for ... - escholarship,
2019. [Online]. Available: https://escholarship.org/content/qt1nd0s121/qt1nd0s121_noSplash_
e260b7e450ad33cf132794d9f5e16efd.pdf?t=pzttdj.
[56] “215kwh lithium ion energy storage system cabinet for industrial commercial use.” (), [Online]. Available:
https : / / www . alibaba . com / product - detail / 215kWh - Lithium - Ion - Energy - Storage - System _
1601001233029.html.
[57] P. Börjesson and P. Larsson, Cost models for battery energy storage systems, 2018.
[58] M. H. Ahmed, M. Arif, T. K. Abdel-Galil, L. M. Alhems, and W. Kotiuga, “Quantifying the value of
pumped storage hydro (psh) in the saudi electric grid,” in 2016 Saudi Arabia Smart Grid (SASG), 2016,
pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/SASG.2016.7849660.
[59] K. Salevid, Market requirements for pumped storage profitability : Expected costs and modelled price arbi-
trage revenues, including a case study of juktan, 2013.
[60] P. C. Nikolaos, F. Marios, and K. Dimitris, “A review of pumped hydro storage systems,” Energies, vol. 16,
no. 11, 2023, issn: 1996-1073. doi: 10.3390/en16114516. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/
1996-1073/16/11/4516.
[61] D. Steward, G. Saur, M. Penev, and T. Ramsden, “Lifecycle cost analysis of hydrogen versus other
technologies for electrical energy storage,” 2009. doi: 10 . 2172 / 1218397. [Online]. Available: https :
//www.osti.gov/biblio/1218397.
[62] T. A. Gunawan, A. Singlitico, P. Blount, J. Burchill, J. G. Carton, and R. F. D. Monaghan, “At what
cost can renewable hydrogen offset fossil fuel use in ireland’s gas network?” Energies, vol. 13, no. 7,
2020, issn: 1996-1073. doi: 10.3390/en13071798. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-
1073/13/7/1798.
[63] M. Yue, H. Lambert, E. Pahon, R. Roche, S. Jemei, and D. Hissel, “Hydrogen energy systems: A critical
review of technologies, applications, trends and challenges,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 146, p. 111 180, 2021, issn: 1364-0321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111180.
[Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121004688.
[64] C. Moran, E. Moylan, J. Reardon, et al., “A flexible techno-economic analysis tool for regional hydrogen
hubs – a case study for ireland,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 48, no. 74, pp. 28 649–
28 667, 2023, issn: 0360-3199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.04.100. [Online].
Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319923018359.
[65] V. Jülch, “Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of storage (lcos) method,” Applied
Energy, vol. 183, pp. 1594–1606, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.165.
22
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
[66] F. B. Juangsa, A. S. Cezeliano, P. S. Darmanto, and M. Aziz, “Therdodynamic analysis of hydrogen

utilization as alternative fuel in cement production,” South African Journal of Chemical Engineering,
vol. 42, pp. 23–31, Oct. 2022.
[67] A. A. Ghamdi, “Saudi arabia energy report,” King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center,
Tech. Rep., 2020.
[68] N. Sönnichsen, Saudi arabia: Primary energy consumption 2022, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.statista.com/statistics/265579/primary- energy- consumption- in- saudi- arabia/#:~:
text=Saudi%20Arabia%27s%20primary%20energy%20consumption%20amounted%20to%20around,and%
202022%2C%20figures%20increased%20by%20roughly%206.9%20exajoules..
[69] N. Bayomi and J. E. Fernandez, “Trends of energy demand in the middle east: A sectoral level analysis,”
International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 731–753, 2017. doi: 10.1002/er.3861.
[70] W. Spark. “Climate and average weather year round in egypt.” (), [Online]. Available: https://weatherspark.
com/countries/EG.
[71] W. Spark. “Climate and average weather year round in riyadh.” (), [Online]. Available: https : / /
weatherspark.com/y/104018/Average-Weather-in-Riyadh-Saudi-Arabia-Year-Round.
[72] N. C. for Environmental Information. “National time series.” (), [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
%20renewables.ninja/.
23
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
A Appendix A: Energy Demand

A.1 Industry
A.1.1 Cement Industry Calculations
In 2019, 76 million tons of cement were produced in Egypt. Assuming the same growth rate as before the pro-
duction would increase to 136 million tons of cement which would translate to 30.6 TWh of necessary primary
energy in the form of hydrogen and 10.2 TWh of energy in the form of electricity, amounting to a total of 40.8
TWh of energy consumed. Similar calculations can be done for Saudi Arabia. In 2019, 44.4 million tons of
cement were produced in Saudi Arabia. Using the growth rate of 1.7 % as before, it can be calculated that
in 2050 there will be 74.9 million tons of cement produced. This production translates to 22.5 TWh of total
energy required, of which 16.8 TWh would be required in the form of hydrogen and 5.7 TWh would be required
in the form of electricity.
Knowing the energy consumption of the cement industry of both countries, the calculated consumptions can be
added up. The total energy consumption of the cement industry hence becomes:
Ecementt otal = EcementE gypt + EcementS audi = 40.8 + 22.5 = 63.3T W h

Ecementh ydrogen = 0.75 · 63.3 = 47.5T W h (8)
Ecemente lectricity = 0.25 · 63.3 = 15.8T W h
Assuming an efficiency of 50% in the hydrogen use cycle and knowing that hydrogen contains 130 MJ, the
required mass of hydrogen can be calculated [66]:
47.5 · 1012 · 3600

mH2 = = 2.6M ton (9)
0.5 · 130 · 106
A.1.2 Other industries calculations

Taking the previously calculated population growth factors it can be calculated that the other sectors would
consume:
EotherEgypt2050 = 166 ∗ 1.01928 = 281T W h (10)
Using a similar logic, the energy consumption for the other sectors for Saudi Arabia in 2050 can be calculated.
The total primary energy consumption of Saudi Arabia in 2022 was 3200 TWh [19]. Assuming that 47% of the
energy is consumed by the industry, results in a consumption of 1504 TWh [67]. Around 70% of the total energy
consumption by the industry, is consumed by the iron, cement and petrochemical industries. The petrochemical
industry consumes the most energy, out of the three mentioned. It is important to note that assuming a fossil-
free scenario in 2050, the petrochemical sector would shrink drastically since oil would not be used anymore.
The energy consumption of the other industry sectors can therefore be calculated by taking 30% of the total
energy consumption by the industry and multiplying it by the growth factor:
EotherSaudi2050 = 451 ∗ 1.01728 = 723T W h (11)
The final note to make is that in reality there would be an efficiency increase in the technology that would
decrease the necessary energy use, however, since it is hard to estimate it precisely, it has been left out. In that
way, this study serves as a worst-case scenario and it might actually turn out that less energy/storage is needed.
A.2 Residential Sector Calculation

A.2.1 The scaling factor
Although data from reliable sources were used, however given the location of model as USA, one can use a
scaling factor to adapt the code to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
2020
1 X { Electricity ConsumptiSaudi Arabia }
FS = (12)
6 t=2014 { Electricity Consumption US }
24
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Where FE is the annual scaling factor of Egypt concerning the US model. Similarly,
2020
1 X { Electricity Consumption Egypt }
FE = (13)
10 t=2010 { Electricity Consumption US }
Where FS is the annual scaling factor of Saudi Arabia concerning the US. The value of FE is determined using
Figures 4 and 5, while FS uses Figures 4 and 6 (FE= 0.13 & FS= 0.78).
To scale these values for the year 2050, the population growth factors is considered, which results in fE(2050) =
5.65 and fE(2050) = 26.82.
A.3 Transportation Sector Calculation

A.3.1 2050 Forecast Final Transport Consumption - Business As Usual
Table 4: Transport Final Energy Consumption (Data extrapolation with excel from [68] and [69])
No. Country Total Final Energy Consumption in Transport Sector (2050 Forecast in Joule)
1 Saudi Arabia 4.69 × 1018
2 Egypt 7.22 × 1017
Total 5.42 × 1018
A.3.2 2050 Forecast Final Transport Consumption - 100% Renewable Scenario

Model Calculation
The final energy demand is calculated according to the formula in Fig 9. The EF D represents inal energy
demand, year is considered year within the transition period. TA is the transport activity , F is the fuel-share
distribution, ED is the specific energy demand. The indices i is for the transport mode, s represents the
transport segment (passenger or freight), v is the vehicle type (BEV, FECV, etc.), and f is the fuel type. The
study provides a supplementary data which can be used as the basis of calculation. The summary results can
be found in table 15 and scenario 2 in table 16 in the Appendix.
Figure 9: Transport Final Consumption Modeling Formula ([23])
The primary energy consumption is estimated using the WTT (well-to-tank) and TTW (tank-to-wheel) ap-
proaches. The WTT in the model is based on renewable energy assumption where the primary sources are
mainly PV, wind, and hydropower. The WTT is the fuel production chain from energy production to end
energy fuels, whereas TTW is the fuel utilized in automobiles. Renewable electricity (mostly PV, wind, and
hydropower) has a WTT efficiency of 100%. While, the TTW efficiency varies according to the kind of vehicle
(see Appendix). The TTW efficiency represents how much final energy the power trains can convert to mechan-
ical energy, with the remainder assigned as a loss. As a result, the general estimate of the additional number to
make up for the loss is based on TTW efficiency. The final consumption added by the loss estimation is equal to
primary energy demand in transport sector. Finally, the primary energy demand for Egypt and Saudi Arabio
sector is 687.3 TWh or 2.47 × 1018 textitJ for scenario 1 (100% BEV). While scenario 2 (BEV and FCEV for
road transport) requires 749.67 TWh or 2.7 × 1018 J.
Table 5: LDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country LDV (BEV) Specific Energy Demand LDV Energy Demand
(10 × 106 p − km) kWh/p − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 1499536.09 0.055 82474.48
Saudi Arabia 721810.5 0.055 39699.58
Total 122174.06
25
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Table 6: 2W/3W Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country 2W/3W (BEV) Specific Energy Demand 2W/3W Energy Demand
(10 × 106 p − km) kWh/p − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 44751.33 0.044 1969.06
Saudi Arabia 21541.31 0.044 947.82
Total 2916.88
Table 7: Bus Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country Bus (BEV) Specific Energy Demand Bus Energy Demand
(10 × 106 p − km) kWh/p − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 462786.55 0.076 35171.78
Saudi Arabia 222765.02 0.076 16930.14
Total 52101.92
Table 9: MDV Final Energy Consumption FCEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country MDV (FCEV) Specific Energy Demand MDV FCEV Energy Demand
(10 × 106 t − km) kWh/t − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 85130.20 0.45 39308.59
Saudi Arabia 40977.92 0.45 18440.06
Total 92584.57
Table 10: HDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country HDV (BEV) Specific Energy Demand HDV BEV Energy Demand
(10 × 106 t − km) kWh/t − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 469923.96 0.108 50751.79
Saudi Arabia 226200.65 0.108 24429.67
Total 75181.46
Table 11: HDV Final Energy Consumption FCEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country HDV (FCEV) Specific Energy Demand HDV FCEV Energy Demand
(10 × 106 t − km) kWh/t − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 469923.96 0.133 62499.89
Saudi Arabia 226200.65 0.133 30084.69
Total 56748.65
Table 12: Railway Final Energy Consumption Electricity Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Railway (10 × 106 p − km or t − km) Specific Energy Demand Railway Final Consumption
Country Passenger Freight kWh/p − km kWh/t − km 10 × 106 kWh 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 23549.23 70190.01 0.05 0.019 1177.46 1333.61
Saudi Arabia 11335.56 33786.37 0.05 0.019 566.78 641.94
Total 1975.55
Table 13: Marine Final Energy Consumption Hydrogen Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Marine (10 × 106 p − km or t − km) Specific Energy Demand Railway Final Consumption
Egypt 0 6545109.33 0.05 0.019 0 124357.08
Saudi Arabia 6963.95 3150526.81 0.05 0.019 348.20 59860.01
Total 184217.09
Table 14: Aviation Final Energy Consumption Hydrogen Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Aviation (10 × 106 p − km or t − km) Specific Energy Demand Railway Final Consumption
Egypt 428070.04 33268.40 0.05 0.019 21403.5 632.10
Saudi Arabia 206054.03 16013.94 0.05 0.019 10302.70 304.26
Total 936.36
26
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Table 8: MDV Final Energy Consumption BEV Scenario (adapted data from [23])
Country MDV (BEV) Specific Energy Demand MDV BEV Energy Demand
(10 × 106 t − km) kWh/t − km 10 × 106 kWh
Egypt 85130.20 0.251 21367.68
Saudi Arabia 40977.92 0.251 10285.46
Total
Table 15: 2050 Transport Energy Demand 100% Renewable - Road Transport 100% BEV
Transport Mode ηTTW (%) Final Consumption (TWh) Primary Energy Demand (TWh) Primary Energy Demand (J)
Road Transport
LDV-BEV 91 122,17 134,26 4.83 × 1017
2W/3W - BEV 54 2,92 5,4 1.94 × 1016
Bus - BEV 90 52,1 57,89 2.08 × 1017
MDV - BEV 90 31,65 35,17 1.27 × 1017
HDV - BEV 90 75,18 83,53 3.01 × 1017
Railway Transport
Electric 91 3,72 4,09 1.47 × 1016
Marine Transport
Hydrogen 60 184,56 307,61 1.1 × 1018
Aviation
Hydrogen 55 32,64 59,35 2.14 × 1017
Total 687,3 2.47 × 1018
Adapted from [23]
Table 16: 2050 Transport Energy Demand 100% Renewable - Road Transport BEV and FCEV
Transport Mode ηTTW (%) Final Consumption (TWh) Primary Energy Demand (TWh) Primary Energy Demand (J)
Road Transport
LDV-BEV 91 122,17 134,26 4.83 × 1017
2W/3W - BEV 54 2,92 5,4 1.94 × 1016
Bus - BEV 90 52,1 57,89 2.08 × 1017
MDV - FCEV 59 56,75 53,65 4.59 × 1017
HDV - FCEV 59 92,58 127,43 1.36 × 1018
Railway Transport
Electric 91 3,72 4,09 1.47 × 1016
Marine Transport
Hydrogen 60 184,56 307,61 1.1 × 1018
Aviation
Hydrogen 55 32,64 59,35 2.14 × 1017
Total 749,67 2.7 × 1018
Adapted from [23]
Figure 10: TTW Efficiency for Road Transport
27
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
Figure 11: TTW Efficiency for Railway, Marine, Aviation Transport
28
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
A.4 Demand Curve Derivation

The total demand can be determined as the total primary energy demand plus the total electricity demand
minus the primary energy needed to produce the electricity:
Dtotal = Ptotal − Pelectricity + Etotal (14)
The total primary energy can be calculated using the following equation:
90 180
P2050/30

X X 1 1 2π(t − 172)
Ptotal (t) ≈ PSummer (θL , ϕ, t) + cos
365 2 2 365
θL =−90 ϕ=−180 (15)

1 1 2π(t − 172)
+PWinter (θL , ϕ, t) − cos A(t)
2 2 365
Total electricity demand can be calculated in an analogous way by replacing Ptotal , Psummer and Pwinter with
Etotal , Esummer and Ewinter respectively.
Psummer , Pwinter , Esummer and Ewinter can be calculated using the following equations:
PSummer (θL , ϕ, t) = (1/457564.55381) ∗ 10 + 5.5/ 1 + 0.35 ∗ t2 + 32 ∗ exp −(t − 8.97)4 /4.52

+ 26.9 ∗ exp −(t − 12.5)4 /2.92 + 29.7 ∗ exp −(t − 15.7)4 /3.02 + 13.7 ∗ exp −(t − 18.95)4 /3.42 + (16)

7.9 ∗ exp −(t − 22.3)4 /4.12

PWinter (θL , ϕ, t) = (1/852229.6113) ∗ 30 + 1.8/ 1 + 0.35t2 + 46.7 ∗ exp −(t − 8.8)4 /3.92 +

32.5∗ exp −(t − 12.26)4 /3.22 + 32.2 ∗ exp −(t − 15.5)4 /3.02 + 10.2∗ exp −(t − 18.95)4 /3.42 +

(17)
5.9 ∗ exp −(t − 22.3)4 /4.12

Esummer (t) = 0.03703 − 0.00328 ∗ t + 0.00165 ∗ t2 − 6.56562E − 4 ∗ t3 + 1.51959E − 4 ∗ t4

(18)
−1.86866E − 5 ∗ t5 + 1.28914E − 6 ∗ t6 − 5.05204E − 8 ∗ t7 + 1.05386E − 9 ∗ t8 − 9.11103E − 12 ∗ t9 ,
with 0 ≤ t < 24 h
Ewinter (t) = 0.03786 − 0.00119 ∗ t − 5.42344E − 4 ∗ t2 + 1.48952E − 4 ∗ t3 + 2.30544E − 5 ∗ t4 −

(19)
8.29175E − 6 ∗ t5 + 8.41687E − 7t6 − 4.0464E − 8 ∗ t7 + 9.50205E − 10 ∗ t8 − 8.7815E − 12 ∗ t9
with 0 ≤ t < 24 h
The resulting demand curve can be seen in Figure 12a. It is important to note that the demand curve
in Figure 12a is modeled after the demand patterns of the USA, therefore, it has to be adjusted so that it
represents the demand patterns of Saudi Arabia. It is assumed that the demand patterns of the industry and
transportation do not change significantly. The energy used in the production process is reasonably constant
throughout the year and the transportation patterns are similar as well. However, a difference between the two
locations can be expected in the residential and commercial housing sectors. This is because of the energy needed
in maintaining the inside temperature within comfortable ranges. Since the weather in the USA differs a lot
from the south and north there is both heating and cooling required in different times of year in different parts
of the USA. In contrast, no heating is used in the winters of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, since the temperatures are
moderately warm even in winters [70], [71], [72]. Since the residential sector consumes roughly 15% of the total
energy demand in 2050 a coefficient of 0.95 is added to Ewinter in the total electricity demand equation (which
is modeled analogously to (15) and a coefficient of 1.05 in front of Ewinter to compensate for the temperature
differences. Some differences would also be seen in the industry as the factories also have to be heated/cooled.
29
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
(a) The total demand curve of the USA. (b) The total demand curve of Egypt and Saudi Arabia
Figure 12: Two graphs showing demand curves of USA and Egypt-Saudi Arabia
B Appendix B: Energy Generation

B.1 Solar Power Generation
(a) Solar farm locations of Saudi Arabia (b) Solar farm locations of Egypt
Figure 13: Solar farm locations in both countries
30
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
B.2 Wind Power Generation

B.2.1 Wind Farm Areas
Region Area (km2 ) Nominal Power (GW ) On/Offshore

Gulf of Suez 6751 41.40 Offshore
Gulf of Suez 2512 14.62 Onshore
Gulf of Aqaba 3186 19.54 Offshore
Gulf of Aqaba 1416 8.24 Onshore
East and West bank of the Nile 6400 37.24 Onshore
Western Desert 19 0.11 Onshore
Table 17: Regions chosen for further wind farms
Figure 14: Regions chosen for further wind farms
B.2.2 Derivation of Wind Farm Areas
Figure 15: Gulf of Aqaba Area Simplification
31
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
AGulf,Of f shore = AT rapezium − Achannel (20)

1
AT rapezium = ∗ (wshort + wlong ) ∗ L (21)
2
Achannel = wchannel ∗ L (22)
Here, A is a certain area depending on the subscript, wshort is the shortest width of the gulf, wlong is the longest
width of the gulf and L is the length of the gulf.
B.2.3 Derivation of Turbine Triangle
The area of one of the turbine triangles shown in figure 16 can be found:
Figure 16: Turbine Triangle in Hexagonal Lattice Structure
r
1 dturb 2
Atriangle = ∗ dturb ∗ (d2turb − ( ) ) (23)
2 2
B.2.4 Wind Energy Potential according to [35]
Figure 17: Average monthly wind energy potential for Hurguda (upper Figure) and Dekhala (lower Figure)
Stations in Egypt (2004) [35]
32
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
B.3 Transmission Line
Table 18: The Length of New Transmission Line (km)

No New Transmission Project
1 266.35 to Siwa Oasis Solar
2 204.6 to the Battery BX-55
3 608.97 to the small solar area on the south
4 368.37 to battery and solar area near the Jordan
Total 1448.29 (with safety factor 25% = 1810.37)
Figure 18: Egypt - Saudi Transmission Line
Note: Red - Egypt Existing Line, Purple - Saudi Existing Line, Black - New Transmission Line.
C Appendix C: Cost Analysis
Figure 19: Repartition of the total costs of energy generation technologies
33
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
C.1 Cost Estimation for Technology

0.6
Sb
Cb = Ca (24)
Sa
where Ca is the technology cost level of equipment a, Cb is the technology cost level of equipment b, Sa is the
capacity of equipment a, Sb is the capacity of equipment b.
C.2 Levelized Cost of Electricity and Transmission

Pn
CAPEX + t=1 OP EX
(1+r)t
LCOE = Pn Generationt (25)
t=1 (1+r)t
C ∗r
LCOT = K ∗ CF ∗ 8760 (26)
1 − (1 + r)t
The variable C represents the capital cost of transmission, which is assumed to be 3.898 million USD per mile.
The variable r is the discount rate and is assumed to be 4.4%. The variable t represents the transmission asset
lifetime, which is assumed to be 60 years based on the citation provided. The variable CF is the capacity
factor for the average solar project, assumed to be 20%. Additionally, K is the generation capacity of renewable
sources [55].
D Appendix D: Energy Storage
(a) Different types of storage options that can be used based (b) Locations of Industries that currently use
on duration required. fossil fuels
Figure 20: Additional information for the context.
34
lOMoARcPSD|3886608
E Appendix E: Additional Plots
(b) Initial mismatch, mismatch after the demand response,

(a) Supply, Demand, and Mismatch curves. and mismatch after storage.
Figure 21: Final Plots of the Simulation
35

group-saudi-arabia-and-egypt-report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

group-saudi-arabia-and-egypt-report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

group-saudi-arabia-and-egypt-report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|3886608

Group Saudi Arabia and Egypt Report

The Necessity of Storage Technology (Technische Universiteit Delft)

Scannen om te openen op Studeersnel

Studeersnel wordt niet gesponsord of ondersteund door een hogeschool of universiteit

Delft University of Technology

The Necessity of Storage Technology

GROUP 10 SAUDI ARABIA AND EGYPT

January 19, 2024

Gedownload door Umika Bhagole ([email protected])

January 19, 2024

2 Energy Demand in 2050 2

4 Mismatch and Demand Response 11

5 Energy Losses and Transmission 13

6 Projected Storage Technology 14

8 Conclusion and Recommendation 19

A Appendix A: Energy Demand 24

B Appendix B: Energy Generation 30

C Appendix C: Cost Analysis 33

D Appendix D: Energy Storage 34

E Appendix E: Additional Plots 35

2 Energy Demand in 2050

2.1 Population growth factor

2.2 Energy Demand Industrial Sector

2.2.1 Iron and Steel Production

Esteel2050 = 3.6 · 106 · 12.8 · 106 = 46 · 1012 W h = 46.0 T W h (3)

2.2.2 Cement Production

2.2.3 Ammonia Production

2.2.4 Methanol Production

2.2.5 Other industries

2.3 Energy Demand in Residential Sector

2.4 Energy Demand in Transportation Sector

2.4.1 Energy Demand in Roadways Sector

2.4.2 Energy Demand in Railways

2.4.3 Energy Demand in Marine Sector

2.4.4 Energy Demand in Aviation

2.4.5 Overview of Transport Sector

2.5 Demand Curve

Figure 1: The total demand curve of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

3.1 Solar Energy

3.1.1 Solar Farm Locations

Table 2: Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Saudi Arabia

Table 3: Top 5 Solar Power Plants in Egypt

3.1.2 Solar Energy Estimations

3.2 Wind Energy

3.2.2 Wind Farm Locations

3.2.3 Area Calculations

AGulf,Onshore = 0.8 ∗ L ∗ winward (4)

3.2.4 Nominal Power Calculations

3.2.5 Modelled Generation in 2050

Figure 3: Model of Wind Power Generation in 2050

4 Mismatch and Demand Response

4.1 Demand Mismatch

Figure 4: Example data

4.2 Demand Response Theory

Figure 5: Example data: Demand response principle

4.3 Applied Demand Response

5 Energy Losses and Transmission

5.1 Saudi Arabia’s and Egypt’s Population and Industrial Distribution

5.1.2 Industrial Distribution