Long-Term Forecast of Energy Demand towards a Sustainable Future in Renewable Energies Focused on Geothermal Energy in Peru : A LEAP Model Application

The present study aims to describe the potential sources of energy in Peru with the purpose of implementing them to achieve a sustainable system, taking advantage of the natural resources in the Peruvian land. To achieve this, three alternative scenarios have been defined and analyzed using the LEAP (Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning) software [Software Version: 2020.1.112]. The scenarios are as follows: the first one, the Business-as-Usual scenario, is based on normal trends according to historical data and referencing projections made by Peruvian state entities; the second one is focused on Energy Efficiency, the highlighted characteristic is taking into consideration the efficient conditions in transmission and distribution of electric energy; and the third one, centered on Geothermal Energy, focused on the development of this type of energy source and prioritizing it. The primary purpose of this analysis is to identify the advantages and disadvantages inherent in each scenario in order to obtain the best out of each one. In this way, the intention is to propose solutions based on Peru’s national reality or possible uses of the country’s energy potential to supply its energy demand. Currently, Peru’s energy demand relies on fossil fuels, hydraulic, and thermal energy. However, there is the possibility of transforming this system into a sustainable one by strengthening existing and growing energy sources such as solar and wind energy and new technologies for hydraulic and thermal energy, in addition to considering geothermal energy as the main energy source in the third scenario. The new system mentioned satisfactorily indicates that the CO[sub.2] equivalent emissions decrease significantly in the third scenario, with a 15.8% reduction compared to the first scenario and a 9.7% reduction in comparison to the second. On the other hand, the second scenario shows a 5.6% decrease in CO[sub.2] emissions compared to the first, resulting from improvements in technology and energy efficiency without requiring significant modifications or considerable investments, as in the third scenario.