lable at ScienceDirect

Energy xxx (2014) 1e9

Contents lists avai

Energy

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

Modelling the Hungarian energy system e The first step towardssustainable energy planning

Fanni Sáfián*

Department of Environmental and Landscape Geography, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, HU-1117 Budapest, Hungary

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 July 2013Received in revised form15 February 2014Accepted 18 February 2014Available online xxx

Keywords:Energy system modellingEnergyPLANHungary

* Tel.: þ36 30 328 2400.E-mail address: safian.fanni@gmail.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.0670360-5442/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, M(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.20

a b s t r a c t

In Hungary, there is a need for detailed alternatives to its fossil-based, highly import-dependent energysystem. In this paper, an energy model of the Hungarian energy system of 2009 is worked out, as areference model for a 100% renewable-based scenario. The model is created in the EnergyPLAN softwareand is able to simulate all sectors of the national energy system on an hourly basis. The EnergyPLANsoftware and the main issues of its first Hungarian application are presented. The model is validated bycomparing its results to Hungarian and international statistics for 2009. Two alternative models e

‘Natural gas þ biomass’ and ‘Biomass’ e were created in EnergyPLAN for an analysis to see how theenergy system of 2009 could have been operated in an optimised way from environmental point of view,within the existing infrastructure. In ‘Biomass’ alternative model, the utilisation of primary renewableenergy sources almost doubles, causing a decrease of 10% in carbon-dioxide emission. By changing thedistribution of fuels by a different power plant utilisation, more favourable fuel consumption charac-teristics could have been achieved from the environmental point of view in 2009.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The World’s energy management has reached an importantturning point e the age of cheap, seemingly endless fossil fuelsources is approaching its end [1e3], while global energy demandis rising. In Hungary, where fossil fuels play a dominant role inenergy consumption, and where they are on average 80% imported,these trends are of critical importance to the country’s economy.

However, the shortage of fossil fuels and its economical andsocietal consequences is not the only reasons for the urgent need toswitch to renewable energy sources. The mining and burning offossil fuels have enormous effects on the global ecological systemlike decreasing biodiversity, disappearing habitats and damagednatural services. In the case of the energy sector effects on theglobal carbon cycle can be highlighted, causing change in globalclimate [4], to which the whole biosphere has adapted. In the caseof the Carpathian basin, including Hungary, heat waves, droughts,extreme floods, early and late frosts and degradation of biodiversitycan be highlighted as the expected (and already experienced)hazardous consequences [5]. To ensure mitigation and adaptationin Hungary as well, fossil fuels should be phased out of the energy

odelling the Hungarian energ14.02.067

system while the share of renewable-based local energy sourceshas to be increased. Furthermore, energy sufficiency and higherenergy efficiencies are key factors in creating a sustainable energysystem.

1.1. Towards sustainable energy systems

The first step on the way to technological change is research andplanning. In the last decade, numerous 100 or nearly 100%renewable-basede or from another perspective, low or zero carbone energy strategies were designed by several research groups andcentres. The increasing trend towards sustainable energy planningis indicated by the fact that at least 68 computer tools, designed forrenewable integration modelling, were available in 2009 [6]. InEurope, several 100% renewable energy visions or strategies wereoutlined, both for Western- and Eastern-European countries [7], aswell as for the entire European Union [8].

Two countries should be highlighted as they have lead researchon this field. The United Kingdom, where one of the first alternativeenergy strategies was outlined [9] and since then further developed[10], covering a wide range of connected aspects, such as embodiedenergy minimalisation or land usage optimisation [11]. The othercountry is Denmark, where sustainable energy planning has aremarkable tradition. Numerous Danish alternative energy strate-gies have been conducted since the first oil crisis, in the last decade

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e92

especially focussing on large-scale renewable energy integration[12e15]. Nowadays Denmark is one of the world leaders inrenewable technologies and has a 100% renewable energy-basedenergy strategy (to be achieved by 2050), accepted on govern-mental level [16], with the renewable electricity production sharealready reaching 40% in 2011 [17].

1.2. Alternative energy planning in Hungary

In Hungary, the current situation in energy management wouldrequire rapid changes concerning import-dependency, fuel mix,and the infrastructure of the energy system. Despite the favourablerenewable potentials [18e20] and the urgent need for sustainablesolutions for domestic energy production, recent and current en-ergy strategies do not plan to break with present practice.Furthermore, there is a lack of alternative energy strategies,therefore no other possible choices can be seen by society.

The first alternative document called Hungarian SustainableEnergy Strategy was outlined by the Hungarian non-governmentalorganisation Energy Club [21]. This work was drafted in onemonth only, mainly containing a review of the recent Hungarianenergy situation and renewable energy potentials, without detailedcalculations. Another energy strategy was worked out and a fewyears later further developed by Greenpeace International, Green-peace Hungary and EREC (European Renewable Energy Council)[22,23]. In the latter, two energy scenarios e an ‘alternative’ and amore ambitious ‘progressive’ one ewere developed, indicating thepossibility of a 75% renewable-based energy system in Hungary by2050. In spite of the more properly grounded calculations andstudies connected, there was no substantive discussion on theoutlined alternative scenarios afterwards, neither in the scientificcommunity nor in the wider public. On the contrary, the govern-ment is expanding the lifetime of the currently operating nuclearpower plant, and is to build a new nuclear power plant by a Russiancompany [24].

The first 100% renewable energy system vision in Hungary wascreated by a team of professors and students at Eötvös LorándUniversity, Faculty of Science, Department of Environmental andLandscape Geography, in cooperation with experts from otherHungarian universities and INFORSE (International Network forSustainable Energy)-Europe [25,26]. The research team (includingthe author of this paper) worked out an alternative energy scenariocalled Vision 2040 Hungarywith the energy planning tool INFORSE.In this best-case scenario, they state, that from the year 2005, itcould have been possible to reach a 100% renewable energy systemin Hungary by 2040, and a more ecologically sustainable energysystem by 2050 [25]. However, while this Vision was outlined bybalancing all the supplies and demands in Hungary over every fiveyears up to 2050, the hour-by-hour advanced energy analysis,taking into account fluctuations in theweathere therefore detailedrenewable production e could not be carried out. In this case theissue of integration of renewable energy sources was not analysed,although it is one of the main challenges of the present inflexibleenergy system of Hungary.

2. Scope of the article

There is a need for a 100% renewable energy scenario inHungary, which could lead to a sustainable energy system and ifproperly detailed and analysed could be a real alternative to theofficial energy strategy. As a first step, the aim of this paper is tocreate and analyse an operational reference model of the presentHungarian energy system, in an hour-by-hour based, advancedenergy modelling tool. This model will be the basis of a future 100%renewable-based scenario. Since this model will be a simulation of

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

the current energy system in Hungary, the present energy system’smain characteristics will be introduced, highlighting the main is-sues of energymanagement and policy, will have to be solved in thelong term. The paper presents the creation of a reference model ofthe Hungarian energy system covering a review of the main datasources, introducing the EnergyPLAN energy modelling tool andthe main conclusions of its first Hungarian application and thevalidation of the model. After the review of the methodology, twoalternative models are compared with the reference model. Theaim of this analysis is to provide insights into how the Hungarianenergy system of 2009 could have been optimised from environ-mental aspects, to have a higher renewable energy penetration andless CO2-emissions in the same infrastructural conditions.

3. Main characteristics of the Hungarian energy system

The total primary energy consumption of Hungary has beenfluctuating around 1100 PJ since the 1990’s. This valuewas 1055.6 PJin 2009, reached 1085.0 PJ in 2010, but due to the economic crisis,decreased to 999.3 PJ in 2012 [27]. Final energy consumptionreached 698.73 PJ in 2010 (the latest data available) [28], whichaccounts for only 1.5% of the European Union’s final consumption[29]. However, the structure of sources changed in an unfavourableway: the use of domestic sources decreased, while the import ofenergy sources increased to more than 63% (where nuclear energyproduction is counted as domestic energy production by the officialstatistics, although the fuel rods are imported) [29]. The diversifi-cation of import sources has been very slow since the politicalchanges of 1989e90, therefore two-thirds of the energy sourceimports are obtained from only one country, namely Russia. Therehas been no governmental effort to change this situation, as theHungarian Energy Strategy 2030 [30] states: “The major part ofHungary’s energy supply is imported, and it will remain so for along time”. The situation is most untenable regarding natural gas,where more than 70% of the total domestic demand is suppliedfrom Russia through Fraternity pipeline via Ukraine and the HAG(HungarianeAustrian Gas) pipeline via Austria [31]. At this point,there is no intention to change this from the government side ac-cording to the Energy Strategy: “Russia will remain the mostimportant source of import on the long term (.)” [30].

More than 90% of Hungary’s total primary energy supply isbased on non-renewable fuels [32], despite the fact that thecountry is poor in fossil sources. The majority of coal stocks havealready depleted or their exploitation is highly uneconomic. Animportant exception is the low calorific lignite, from which 8e9million tons per year (65 PJ per year) are extracted [33] and stocksare estimated at 4.45 billion tons, making it the most significantstrategic fossil fuel reserve of Hungary [30]. Crude oil and naturalgas stocks are almost negligible, supplying only a fraction of do-mestic demand [34,35]. The main electricity producer of thecountry is the nuclear plant in Paks with 2000 MW capacity, pro-ducing 43% of the electricity alone in 2009 [36].

Carbohydrates dominate in the mix of the primary energysupply of the countrye they reach a higher share in themix of TPES(Total Primary Energy Sources) of Hungary than of the EU average(Fig. 1). This is mainly the result of the high share of natural gas,which is the most popular energy source in Hungary, with animportant role in electricity and heat production as well. TheHungarian nuclear power share is almost the same as for the EU in2009, while the coal and renewable energy penetration are around30% less than the European average.

Hungary has a diverse and favourable abundance of renewablesources, although they are underutilised due to the lack of politicalwill and therefore the constantly changing and unfavourableregulation system [38]. This explains why Hungary committed to

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

Fig. 1. Structure of primary energy sources in the European Union [37] and in Hungary [32], respectively, in 2009.

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e9 3

the European Union to reach only 13.0% renewable energy pene-tration (compared to the European average of 20%) from the grossfinal energy consumption by 2020, while this value was already8.7% in 2010 [39].

Regarding renewable energy production, the unbalanced mix ofthe energy sources is a problematic issue. Since Hungary hasfavourable agronomic potentials, 79% of the primary renewableenergy utilisation comes from biomass [28], which basically meanssolid biomass (co-)burning in condensing power plants with verylow efficiency (27% in average, according to Ref. [40]). The secondmost important renewable energy source is geothermal, due to therelatively thin lithosphere of the Carpathian basin, where thegeothermal gradient is 1.5-times higher than the global average[41]. The energy production from solar, hydro and waste is notsignificant, while wind energy production has seen a slight increasein the last decade. The first turbine was installed in 2000. In 2011,329 MWof wind capacity was producing near 2000 TJ; but there isno development since than due to disadvantageous regulationchanges [28].

Regarding electricity production, the main sources havechanged significantly in the last two decades:

- lignite is the most important type of coal used in electricityproduction;

- due to its increasing prices, oil consumption has decreasedsignificantly;

- the role of natural gas is increasing constantly;- following the millennium, renewable-based electricity produc-tion began to grow, but its penetration is still low (less, than 10%according to Ref. [35]).

In recent years, domestic power production has been nearlyequal to the final electricity consumption of 35e40 TWh/yr(without losses of 6e7 TWh/yr) [27]. Hungary is an electricitytransit country, exporting 9e10 TWh and importing 13e15 TWh ofelectricity annually [27].

The installed capacity of the Hungarian power plants was9317MW in 2010 [42]. Fewer than 20 large (>50MW) power plantsproduce 83% of the electricity. They aremainly centralised, obsoletecondensing power plants with low efficiency. One of the mainproblems of the Hungarian power system is its inflexibility: 64% ofthe power plants capacities cannot be regulated [42]. The newnuclear power plants, planned by the government, would make thelarge-scale integration of renewable energy sources hard, if notimpossible for a long time.

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

When comparing Hungary’s energy system to neighbouring EUcountries and to the average of the European Union, one can statethat its characteristics are similar to surrounding countries’, fromwhich only Austria represents the trends of the Western countries(Fig. 2).

In terms of energy dependence, the former satellite countries ofthe Eastern Bloc retain a high dependency on Russia’s energysources, especially on natural gas and crude oil e and in Hungary’scase, on uranium as well. These countries have economies withhigh energy intensity e e.g. in Hungary, double the energy con-sumption is needed to produce a unit of GDP (Gross DomesticProduct), compared to the European average [43]. The main causesare supposed to be the outdated power plants and infrastructure.Austria, representing a technically more developed country and amember of the European Union for a longer time, shows a differentenergy pattern (Fig. 2). In relation to renewable energy penetration,Hungary has the lowest values of the selected countries describedabove.

4. Methodology of creating an energy model for Hungary

In order to create 100% renewable scenarios, a model of theexisting energy system is needed. The methodology of creating andverifying this model, the data sources and the applied computersoftware (EnergyPLAN) will be detailed in the following sections.Since the model represents the situation of the energy system in2009, its latest version is called Hungarian Reference model 2009,version 4.0 (in the followings: model 4.0).

4.1. EnergyPLAN

EnergyPLAN is a computer model, an energy system analysistool, developed since 1999 at Aalborg University, Denmark. It is adeterministic inputeoutput model, in which the main inputs are(yearly aggregated) demands, renewable and fossil energyquantities and capacities, costs and numerous options of regu-lation strategies. The outputs are energy balances, annual pro-ductions, fuel consumption, electricity import or export and totalcosts. The software is available for technical analyses (withdifferent technical regulation strategies available), market ex-change analyses (taking fuel, transformation prices, taxes andCO2-costs into consideration) and detailed feasibility studies[44].

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Energy dependence(2011)

Energy intensity of theeconomy (2010)

Share of renewableenergy in gross finalenergy consump on

(2010)

%(1

00=

aver

age

of E

U-2

7)

Hungary

Austria

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Fig. 2. Energy-related characteristics of Hungary and neighbouring countries’ energy systems (calculation based on Ref. [36]). 100% equals the average of the European Union (EU-27).

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e94

There are numerous energy system tools available (e.g. LEAP,EnergyPRO, HOMER etc.) [6], fromwhich EnergyPLAN (version 9.0)was chosen since it meets all the following requirements [45]:

- creates an energy system model on a national level;- for a detailed analysis, hour by hour simulation is available;- includes all consumption sectors;

Fig. 3. Front page of the EnergyPLA

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

- focuses on integration of fluctuating renewable energy sources,which is a relevant aspect regarding the future 100% renewablescenario;

- various regulation options are available.

The structure of an energy system designed in the EnergyPLANmodel can be seen in Fig. 3. It should be noticed that the software

N software, version 10.0 [46].

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

Table 1Main input data of the Referencemodel 4.0. HP: heat plant; CHP: combined heat andpower plant; PP: power plant.

Input field in EnergyPLAN Data Source

Electricity demand 35.91 TWh/yr IEA [36]Fixed electricity

import5.51 TWh/yr IEA [36]

Transmission gridcapacity

2000 MW MAVIR [48,54]

District heatingproduction

by HPs 4.07 TWh/yr IEA [36]by small CHPs 6.85 TWh/yr CHP productions aggregated

from: PÖYRY-ER}OTERV [51]by large CHPs 5.48 TWh/yr

Capacity of small CHPs 1135 MWe All capacities aggregatedfrom: ETV-ER}OTERV [50];MEH-MAVIR [47]

of large CHPs 2632.9 MWe

of PP group 1 900 MWe

of PP group 2 271 MWe

Efficiency of small CHPs 28.9% (el);81.0% (th)

All efficiencies (input-weighted averages) basedon: ETV-ER}OTERV [50];MEH-MAVIR [47];PÖYRY-ER}OTERV [51]

of PP group 1 30.0% (el);39.0% (th)

of PP group 2 18.5% (el);28.7% (th)

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e9 5

involves conventional technologies and recent solutions as well aselectrolysers and hydrogen storage, V2G systems, CO2 hydrogena-tion, bio Jet Fuel production, CAES (Compressed Air Energy Stor-age), etc. [46].

The overall process of energy analysis in the EnergyPLAN modelcan be summed up in the following four main steps [45]:

1. Small computations are made simultaneously when typing intothe Input and Cost fields.

2. A series of initial calculations, excluding electricity balancing.3. Depending on the user’s choice:

A) Technical optimisation: minimising electricity import/exportand aiming to find the method of operation using the leastfuel consumption.

B) Market-economic optimisation: aiming to find the operationmode with the least costs based on the business-economiccosts of production units.

4 CEEP (critical excess electricity production) regulation, fuel, CO2and cost calculations.

Although this software is the most suitable for energy systemsimulation and optimisation with a high penetration of renewableenergy sources, the model 4.0 (with less than 10% renewable share)was also created using EnergyPLAN. This was to ensure the possi-bility of proper comparative analyses between the basis and thefuture scenarios made by the same software.

4.2. Data and sources

Since more Hungarian energy statistics were available for 2009than for the following years, this year was chosen as the base yearfor the analyses. All data refer to this year, where another is notindicated.

The main source for the model, including statistics of energybalances; electricity, heat and renewable energy production; resi-dential, industrial and the transportation sector’s energy con-sumption; and waste and biomass conversion was the database ofthe IEA (International Energy Agency) [36]. Since energy systemmodel building in EnergyPLAN needs far more data than availablein this database, it was completed with data from the MEH (Hun-garian Energy Office) and the MAVIR (Hungarian TransmissionSystem Operator) [47,48]; from the F}OTÁV (District Heating Ser-vices of Budapest) [49]; from detailed data publications for 2009,partly for 2010 and 2011 from Stróbl A. from a power plant andenergy network planner company (ETV-ER}OTERV; PÖYRY-ER}OTERV) [50,51]; from Eurostat [33]; from the Hungarian CentralStatistical Office [53]; and from the Energy Centre (which has notexisted autonomously since 2011) [48]. Table 1 indicates the mainfigures which were own calculations (aggregations, groupings etc.)made to supply more detailed data for the model.

Until model version 2.6, the IEA statistics [36] of 2009were usedfor the district heating inputs. Since data of IEA are aggregated inthree groups without advanced details (capacities, production, ef-ficiencies by power plants), from version 3.0, the suitably detailedstatistics from Stróbl A. [50,51] and MEH-MAVIR [47] were usedinstead. Although these statistics partly refer to the year 2010 and2011, due to the improved details and the minimal changes in en-ergy production (e.g. the difference in total energy production isless than 0.5% between these years), with the appropriate correc-tions, these figures lead to more accurate results than the previousmodels.

The hourly distribution files of electricity demand, and elec-tricity import and export were generated from the statistics of theHungarian Transmission System Operator [54]. For the districtheating demand’s distribution file, a Hungarian city’s (Pécs) hourly

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

district heating production data of 2011 were used with a 6-hmoving average [55]. As for renewable energy production, mainlymeteorological measurements from Debrecen (Eastern-Hungary),such as wind speed at 10 m and global radiation, were convertedinto distribution files. The Hungarian water level statistics [56]were unable to demonstrate the trends of hydro production (dueto the multi-directional utilisation of the dams), therefore a Croa-tian hydropower distribution file, which finally lead to a satisfac-tory result, was used instead. A new distribution file was created fornuclear power production in the following way. The four reactorsare shut down one after another in the summer period for 30e40days; therefore a distribution with 75% load in 140 summer daysand 100% load in all other dayswas generated. All other distributionfiles assumed constant energy production and/or consumptionregarding the industrial, agricultural and public sectors.

4.3. Issues of the Hungarian application of the EnergyPLAN model

Although the EnergyPLAN model was developed for interna-tional applications, and thus is considered to be compatible withthe simulation of most (national) energy systems, there are stillsome options missing if we are to be able to properly model theHungarian energy system. As for geothermal energy, only elec-tricity production is available in the model, while Hungary has onlyheat production: 220 TJ heat was produced in 2009 fromgeothermal sources [36], which cannot be integrated into themodel in this form. As a solution, this heat production is added tothe solar heat production. The situation is the same with the heatproduction of the Hungarian nuclear power plant: 509 TJ utilisedheat production [36] of the nuclear power plant cannot bedistinctly indicated. This production is also added to the solarproduction. The consequence is that their energy production, aswell as the nuclear, is indicated now as renewable; and their dis-tribution curve will follow the global radiation’s curve. However,the sum of these two heat productions gives only around 1.5% to theyearly district heating demand in 2009, therefore their distribu-tions’ influence on the results is negligible.

Another issue is partly the consequence of using the Ener-gyPLAN software not for its original purpose, and partly theconsequence of the Hungarian energy system’s peculiar regulation.Namely, several Hungarian power plants’ e including, but not only

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e96

peaking power plants e utilisation is considerably lower due totheir low efficiency, economic, legal or other reasons. Since theutilisation rate of the power plant groups cannot be indicated inEnergyPLAN, these power plants are producing more electricity inthe simulation, than in reality. This is the case especially inwintertime, with combined power plants with low thermal effi-ciency, causing electricity export in these months. Therefore thepower plant’s capacities with low utilisation rate are reduced inmodel 4.0. The remaining yearly export reaches only 0.82 TWh (forthe comparison: the total net electricity import is 5.83 TWh).However, an appropriate solution for this problem would cause aslightly (with less than 1%) lower overall fuel consumption in themodel.

One has to highlight the issues of the Hungarian energy statis-tics and the lack of detailed information available as well. Institu-tional changes, refused data delivery by the Energy Office (referringto business confidentiality) and contradictions between officialsources made data collection for the model in the first years of itsdevelopment difficult. However, after gathering, calculating andcomparing the required input figures from further sources, almostall of the questionable data were confirmed or corrected. The onlyexception remained the individual electrical heating, for which noHungarian statistics are available (only for overall household elec-tricity consumption), therefore only an assumption could be used of5 TWh/yr, based on the households’ fuel and electricity consump-tion statistics [52,57]. If this consumption is changed by�50% in themodel, the total primary energy consumption and total electricityproduction do not change, since the electricity demand is notadded, but included in the total electricity demand. The onlymeasurable consequence is a�0.7% change in renewable electricityproduction share because of statistical reasons.

4.4. Validation of the Reference model 4.0

Since EnergyPLAN is basically used for modelling future energysystems with high penetration of renewable sources, and becausethis model will be the basis of a future scenario, it is important tosee how well this model was able to simulate the operation of theHungarian energy system of 2009.

The validation was performed through two comparisons: twokinds of indicators were compared from the statistics of 2009 andfromtheReferencemodel 4.0. In thefirst one, energy input data (fuelbalance of total primary energy supply) and in the second one,output data (CO2-emission, renewable electricity and energy pro-duction and their shares)were chosen as indicators. Table 2 presentsthe first comparison, where the fuel distribution of TPES in 2009 areindicated in annual consumption and shares, from three sources,next to thefigures fromthemodel4.0 generatedbyEnergyPLAN.Thedifferences between the IEAstatistics [36] and themodel canbe seenin the last columns in TWh and in percentage of the IEA statistics.

Table 2First comparison for validation: total primary energy supply in Hungary (2009) accordin

Primary energysupply by fuel

Hungarian statistics Intern

Hungarian CentralStatistical Office [28]

EnergyCentre [32]

IEA [3

TWh/yr % TWh/

Coal and coke n.a. 9.40 29.7Oil n.a. 32.30 81.0Natural gas n.a. 35.80 106.4Renewables and other 21.31 6.70 22.2Nuclear power n.a. 14.10 46.8Import electricity (fix) n.a. 1.70 5.5Total 293.22 100.00 291.8

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

The fuel consumption and distribution data are given to thesoftware as exact numbers regarding the transportation, residentialand industrial sectors. In the case of district heating and electricityproduction, it is the user’s choice to give fixed or variable con-sumption figures to each of the power plant groups (see groupsindicated in Table 1) by fuel: coal, oil, natural gas or biomass.However, at least one of them has to be indicated as variable toensure the opportunity to the software to balance them. In model4.0, oil consumption is variable, providing very similar results to thestatistics of 2009.

Based on this comparison, it can be stated that the calculationsof model 4.0 reflect the statistics sufficiently. The total primaryenergy supply of model 4.0 is around 4% less than in the CentralStatistical Office’s [27] and the IEA’s database [36]. The explanationmust be that the program also optimises the energy system. Thehighest difference can be seen regarding fossil fuel consumption,where the variance between the IEA statistics [36] and the modelreached 17% in the case of coal. At that point, one has to mentionthe differences between the Hungarian [32] and the IEA statistics[36] (notice shares in Table 2), which appeared in most versions ofthe model as well, meaning slightly lower fossil and higherrenewable-based energy production. If all the variance in fuelconsumption by each fuel type between the IEA statistics [36] andthe model are summed, the result is 13.89 TWh/yr (see last columnof Table 2). This means a total cumulated difference of 4.96%, whichis the lowest result among the different model versions, and whichcan be considered as an acceptable percentage of non-conformityof the model.

In Table 3, results of the second comparison can be seen, whereoutput data from model 4.0 are compared to the statistics of theyear 2009. The chosen indicators are CO2 emissions, which areaccumulating the environmental impacts of the energy system in ameasurable way; the two others are renewable energy-based en-ergy and electricity productions and shares. They are amongst themost significant characteristics of the present and future energysystems.

According to Table 3 it can be stated that the differences seen ininput data do not add up to a significant amount, because therenewable energy related measures show acceptable differencesfrom the statistics. Regarding CO2 emissions, the variance is higher,which is the result of lower coal and higher renewable consump-tion. This latter can be caused by the priority of renewable pro-duction in the model. If nuclear heat production is removed fromrenewables, their share of total primary energy production de-creases only by 0.1%.

5. Analysis of the model

In spite of the fact that the main purpose of model 4.0 is to be aReference model for Hungarian 100% renewable-based scenarios,

g to Hungarian and international statistics 2009 and in model 4.0.

ational statistics Results of theReference model 4.0

Difference betweenIEA statistics [36]and model 4.0 (inabs. values)

6] Calc. fromRef. [36]

yr % TWh/yr % TWh %

6 10.20 24.67 8.81 5.09 17.103 27.77 76.7 27.39 4.33 5.340 36.46 103.19 36.85 3.21 3.021 7.61 23.28 8.31 1.07 4.829 16.07 46.70 16.68 0.19 0.411 1.89 5.51 1.97 0.00 0.000 100.00 280.05 100.00 13.89 4.76

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

Table 3Second comparison for validation: output data in statistics (2009) and in model 4.0.

HungarianCentralStatisticalOffice [28]

EnergyCentre,[32,58]

IEA[36]

Referencemodel 4.0

Renewableenergysources’

electricity production(TWh/yr)

2.91a 2.99 3.01a 3.26

share in electricityproduction (%)

8.10 8.40 8.39a 10.6

primary energyproduction (TWh/yr)

21.31 n.a. 23.10a 23.8

share in primaryenergy production (%)

5.98a 6.70 6.13a 8.5

Carbon-dioxideemission (Mt)

58.90 n.a. n.a. 49.87

a Own calculation based on the sources indicated.

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e9 7

an analysis of the model of a current energy system can also yielduseful results.

The aim of this analysis is to find an answer to the followingquestion: howmuch renewable energy production and what sharecould the Hungarian energy system achieve with the existingtechnologies and infrastructure in 2009, if it worked in an envi-ronmentally optimised way?

For the analysis two alternative models were created. Theirmain difference is in the distribution of fuels: with changing theutilisation of the different power plants, different fuel consumptionscenarios can outlined. In this analysis, two alternative scenariosare created: a ‘Natural gas þ biomass’ and a ‘Biomass’ model(Table 4).

As it can be seen in Table 4, by changing the distribution of fuels,more favourable fuel consumption characteristics can be achievedfrom the environmental point of view within the existing infra-structure. The main differences in the alternative models are loweroil consumption, higher renewable energy production and thuslower CO2 emission.

In the Natural gas þ biomass model, while oil consumptiondecreases by 25%, the consumption of renewable energy sourcesincreases by 38% and consumption of natural gas increases by 10%.Renewable electricity production doubles from 3.26 to 6.25 TWh/yr, and the CO2 emission decreases by 6%. In the case of the Biomassmodel, the changes are even more radical: renewable (mainlybiomass) utilisation almost doubles, reaching 41.73 TWh. Renew-able electricity production is three times more than in the

Table 4Comparison of the main characteristics of the Reference model 4.0 and the alter-native models.

Primary energyconsumption

Reference model4.0

Naturalgas þ biomassmodel

Biomass model

TWh/yr % TWh/yr % TWh/yr %

Coal 24.67 8.81 24.72 8.83 24.69 8.82Oil 76.70 27.39 57.39 20.49 57.38 20.49Natural gas 103.19 36.85 113.65 40.58 104.03 37.15Renewables and other 23.28 8.31 32.07 11.45 41.73 14.90Nuclear power 46.70 16.68 46.70 16.68 46.70 16.68Import electricity 5.51 1.97 5.51 1.97 5.51 1.97

Total primary energysupply

280.05 100.00 280.04 100.00 280.04 100.00

Renewable electricityproduction

3.26 10.60 6.25 20.20 9.61 26.8

Carbon-dioxideemission (Mt)

49.87 46.88 44.90

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

Reference model, supplying 27% of electricity demand, causing adecrease of 10% in carbon-dioxide emission.

The main cause of the changes is a shift in utilisation from oil-based to natural gas and/or biomass-based condensing powerplants. Oil consumption is therefore minimised in power produc-tion, remaining mainly in transportation and other sectors. Thegrowth in renewable electricity production means an increase inbiomass-based power production since wind, solar or hydropowerproduction depends on the characteristics of the weather of 2009,which remains the same in all models above.

From an environmental point of view, within the same infra-structure of the year of 2009, the Biomass model would offer anoptimal energy system model. However, the above presentedalternative models are produced by technical optimisation in theEnergyPLAN software. Therefore economic feasibility studies e

which are not within the scope of this article e, especially inves-tigating fuel costs and the viability of biomass logistics, would alsobe needed to achieve more accurate results.

6. Conclusion

In this paper an energy model of the Hungarian energy systemof 2009 was designed and analysed with the EnergyPLAN soft-ware. This kind of application of EnergyPLAN e where an exactyear of the past is chosen for modellinge can be said to be unusualsince this energy modelling tool focuses on designing, analysingand optimising future energy systems with a high penetration ofrenewable sources. Therefore, besides creating the model itself,this research has also tested the software in this altered taskas well.

As for the EnergyPLAN software, a few development oppor-tunities can be assigned. The possibility of setting heat produc-tion (and/or combined heat and power generation) in the case ofnuclear and geothermal production would help to create moreprecise models. These deficiencies have no significant effects onthis model, but they can be crucial in case of a country withenormous nuclear and/or geothermal heat utilisation. Anothernew function, which could expand the utilisation opportunitiesof the software, is the possibility to define or limit the utilisationrates of power plants. This function would lead to more precisemodels especially of current as well as of future energy systems,scenarios.

Regarding the creation of the model, the main difficulty was thelack of reliable data about specific details of the Hungarian energysystem, which needed more than a year to complete and correctfrom different sources. The demand of individual electrical heatingremained the only assumption in the model. Validating compari-sons with international and Hungarian statistics showed the modelto be capable of analysis and producing accurate results, meaningthat it can be used as a reference model for the Hungarian energysystem for further purposes.

Two alternative models were developed, fromwhich, accordingto the analyses, the biomass model seemed the optimal one fromenvironmental point of view. Its characteristics are less fossil fuelconsumption and tripling of renewable power production, whilekeeping the electricity imports at the same level. However, it isimportant to highlight, that the recommendations of the alterna-tive model should only be considered as short-term improvementson the current (and from several aspects not sustainable) energysystem. In other words, they cannot be interpreted as long-termaims of development as radical and fundamental changes arenecessary regarding the current energy system. Furthermore,detailed analyses from a broader perspective, as economic as wellas geographical feasibility studies should be carried out regardingthe possibility of the above models.

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e98

However, an important message for Hungary from this experi-ment is that in 2009, with a different energy management andpower plant utilisation, but within the same infrastructural con-ditions and total primary energy use, 15% of energy productioncould have been based on domestic, renewable sources (whichamounted to only 8.5% in the Reference model). Meanwhile,renewable electricity production could have been tripled comparedto the Reference model of 2009. This study points out, that inHungary, even without new renewable capacity or changes ininfrastructure, renewable-based energy production can beincreased by optimising the distribution of fuel consumption by abetter utilisation of power plants.

Acknowledgements

This article is an updated and revised version of a paper pub-lished and presented at the 1st International Conference on Energy& Environment (ICEE), Porto, Portugal, May 9e10th 2013. I wouldlike to express my gratitude to Poul Alberg Østergaard for his adviceand recommendations on the proper creation and validation of themodels. I would also like to thank Béla Munkácsy, my Ph.D. su-pervisor for his encouragement and helpful comments. I would liketo thank Viktor Kiss for enabling me to use his application whichmade the conversion of the data to EnergyPLAN-compatible inputsmore efficient and transparent. Furthermore, I am obliged to JanBröker and Paul Thatcher who offered me a great help in languageediting.

References

[1] Tsoskounoglou M, Ayerides G, Tritopoulou E. The end of cheap oil: currentstatus and prospects. Energy Policy 2008;36(10):3797e806.

[2] Jakobsson K, Bentley R, Söderbergh B, Aleklett K. The end of cheap oil: bottom-up economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves. En-ergy Policy 2012;41(2):860e70.

[3] Haftendorn C, Holz F, Hirschhausen C. The end of cheap coal? A techno-economic analysis until 2030 using the COALMOD-World model. Fuel2012;102(12):305e25.

[4] IPCC. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. In: Core Writing Team,Pachauri RK, Reisinger A, editors. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and IIIto the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2007.

[5] Faragó T, Láng I, Csete L, editors. Climate change and Hungary: mitigating thehazard and preparing for the impacts (The “VAHAVA” Report). Budapest:“VAHAVA” Network; 2010.

[6] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools foranalysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems.Appl Energy 2010;87(4):1059e82.

[7] INFORSE. Sustainable energy visions e visions for a renewable Energy world.International Network for Sustainable Energy e Europe (INFORSE-Europe);2012. Available from: http://www.inforse.dk/europe/Vision2050.htm[accessed 02.02.12].

[8] Zervos A, Lins C, Muth J. Re-thinking 2050: a 100% renewable energy vision forthe European Union. Brussels: European Renewable Energy Council; 2010.

[9] Todd RW, Alty CJN, editors. An alternative energy strategy for the UnitedKingdom. Machynlleth: Centre for Alternative Technology; 1977.

[10] Helweg-Larsen T, Bull J. Zero Carbon Britain: an alternative energy strategy.Machynlleth: Centre for Alternative Technology; 2007.

[11] Kemp M, Wexler J, editors. Zero Carbon Britain 2030: a new energy strategy e

the second report of the Zero Carbon Britain Project. Machynlleth: CAT Pub-lications; 2010.

[12] The Danish Society of Engineers. The Danish Society of Engineers’ energy plan2030. Available from: ida.dk/sites/climate/introduction/Documents/Energyplan2030.pdf; 2006 [accessed 10.04.09].

[13] Olesen GB. Energy vision 2030 for Denmark. International Network for Sus-tainable Energy e Europe (INFORSE-Europe), “VedvarendeEnergi”; 2010.

[14] Kwon PS, Østergaard PA. Comparison of future energy scenarios for Denmark:IDA 2050, CEESA (coherent energy and environmental system analysis), andclimate commission 2050. Energy 2012;46(1):275e82.

[15] Lund H. The implementation of renewable energy systems. Lessons learnedfrom the Danish case. Energy 2010;35(10):4003e9.

[16] Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building. From coal, oil and gas togreen energy (website). Available from:, http://www.kemin.dk/en-us/newsandpress/news/2011/sider/energystrategy2050.aspx; 2011 [accessed10.06.11].

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

[17] Danish Energy Agency. Renewables now cover more than 40% of electricityconsumption. Available from: http://www.ens.dk/en-us/info/news/news_archives/2012/sider/20120924renewablesnowcovermorethan40percent.aspx; 2012 [accessed 05.12.12].

[18] Szabó D, Munkácsy B. A megújuló energiaforrások potenciáljai Magyar-országon e A biogáz potenciál [Renewable energy potentials in Hungary e thepotential of biogas]. In: Munkácsy B, editor. Erre van el}ore! Egy fenntarthatóenergiarendszer keretei Magyarországon [This way ahead! Framework of aHungarian sustainable energy system] e vision Hungary 2040 1.0. Szi-getszentmiklós, Hungary: Környezeti Nevelési Hálózat Országos Egyesület;2011. pp. 114e6 [Hungarian].

[19] Munkácsy B, Sáfián F. Az aktív napenergia-alkalmazások lehetséges szerepeegy 100%-ban megújuló er}oforrásokra támaszkodó energiarendszerben e

avagy Magyarország 2040-ben? [Active solar utilization potentials inHungary] In: Munkácsy B, editor. Erre van el}ore! Egy fenntartható energiar-endszer keretei Magyarországon [This way ahead! Framework of a Hungariansustainable energy system] e vision Hungary 2040 1.0. Szigetszentmiklós,Hungary: Környezeti Nevelési Hálózat Országos Egyesület; 2011. pp. 195e202[Hungarian].

[20] Munkácsy B. A területi tervezés szorításában e a szélenergia-hasznosításhazai lehet}oségei [Opportunities of wind energy utilization in Hungary e thelimits of spatial planning]. Területfejlesztés és innováció 2010;4(2):20e7.

[21] Ámon A, Kardos P, Kazai Zs, Perger A, Tóth N. Magyarországi fenntarthatóenergiastratégia [Hungarian sustainable energy strategy]. Hungarian: EnergiaKlub; 2006. Available from: http://energiaklub.hu/dl/kiadvanyok/fes.pdf.

[22] Teske S, Schaffer O, Zervos A. Energia[forradalom]: a fenntartható ener-giagazdálkodás lehet}oségei Magyaroszágon a 21. században. Veszprém,Hungary: Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe, Greenpeace MagyarországEgyesület; 2007.

[23] Teske S, Stoll B, Zervos A, Muth J. ProgresszívEnergia[forradalom]: a fenntar-tható energiagazdálkodás lehet}oségei Magyarországon. Budapest, Hungary:Greenpeace International, European Renewable Energy Council; 2011.

[24] Index. Az oroszok építik Paks két új blokkját [Russians are building the newblocks of the nuclear power plant in Paks]. News on Index website, http://index.hu/gazdasag/ado_es_koltsegvetes/2014/01/14/nem_veletlenul_ment_orban_moszkvaba/; 2014 [accessed 02.02.14].

[25] Munkácsy B, Sáfián F. A vision 2040 Hungary energia-forgatókönyv által fel-vázolt jöv}okép [The future according to the vision 2040 Hungary energy sce-nario]. In:Munkácsy B, editor. Erre van el}ore! Egy fenntartható energiarendszerkeretei Magyarországon [This way ahead! Framework of a Hungarian sustain-able energy system] e vision Hungary 2040 1.0. Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary:Környezeti Nevelési Hálózat Országos Egyesület; 2011. pp. 114e6 [Hungarian].

[26] INFORSE-Europe. Energy vision for Hungary. Available from: http://www.inforse.dk/europe/VisionHU.htm; 2011 [accessed 10.12.12].

[27] Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Táblák (STADAT) e Id}osoros éves adatoke Energiagazdálkodás [Tables e annual data series e energy management][Hungarian]. Available from: http://www.ksh.hu/stadat_eves_3_8; 2011[accessed 11.04.14].

[28] Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Táblák (STADAT) e Id}osoros éves adatok -Környezet [Tables e annual data series e environment] [Hungarian]. Availablefrom: http://www.ksh.hu/stadat_eves_5; 2011 [accessed 11.04.14].

[29] Eurostat. Energy dependence; 2013.[30] Ministry of National Development. National energy strategy 2030 (English

version). Budapest, Hungary: Ministry of National Development; 2012.Available from:, http://www.kormany.hu/download/7/d7/70000/Hungarian%20Energy%20Strategy%202030.pdf [accessed 12.12.12].

[31] MOL. Tények a földgázról. A földgáz felhasználása és forrásai [Facts aboutnatural gas. The utilization and sources of natural gas] [Hungarian]. Availablefrom: http://www.mol.hu/gazkerdes/szallitas.html; 2012 [accessed 18.07.11].

[32] Energy Centre. Az energiaforrások szerkezete, 2000-2009 [Structure of energysources, 2000-2009] [Hungarian]. Available from: http://www.energiakozpont.hu/download.php?path¼files/energiastatisztika/Energiaforrasok-szerkezete.pdf; 2011 [accessed 17.07.11].

[33] Eurostat. Energy balance sheets 2008-2009. Eurostat Statistical Books; 2011.[34] National Office of Mining and Geology. Mineral resources of Hungary [Hun-

garian]. Available from: http://www.mbfh.hu/home/html/index.asp?msid¼1&sid¼0&hkl¼72&lng¼1; 2012 [accessed 11.12.12].

[35] Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Környezeti helyzetkép, 2011. Budapest,Hungary: Hungarian Central Statistical Office; 2012 [Hungarian].

[36] IEA. Hungary: statistics for 2009. Available from: http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/hungary; 2012 [accessed 08.02.12].

[37] IEA. 2009 energy balance for European Union-27. Available from: http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE¼30; 2013 [accessed19.02.13].

[38] Ragwitz M, Held A. Barriers to the development of renewable energy. In:Coenraads R, Reece G, Voogt M, Ragwitz M, Held A, Resch G, et al., editors.Progress e promotion and growth of renewable energy sources and systems:final report. Utrecht: Ecofys Netherlands; 2008. pp. 65e82.

[39] Eurostat. Share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption; 2012.[40] Büki G, Lovas R, editors. Köztestületi Stratégiai Programok. Megújuló energiák

hasznosítása. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Academy of Sciences; 2010[Hungarian].

[41] Gáspár E. Magyarország geotermikus adottságai e termálkarszt gyógyvizekMagyarországon. Report of the University of Miskolc. Bányászat 2009; A se-ries(77):181e8. [Hungarian].

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy

F. Sáfián / Energy xxx (2014) 1e9 9

[42] Halmai O, Barka E, Oroszki L, Tihanyi Z, Romhányi Z, Seb}ok-Vajda V, et al.A magyar villamosenergia-rendszer (VER) 2010. évi statisztikai adatai [Sta-tistical data of the Hungarian Power System, 2010]. Budapest: HungarianEnergy Office, MAVIR; 2011.

[43] Eurostat. Energy intensity of the economy: gross inland consumption of en-ergy divided by GDP (kg of oil equivalent per 1000 EUR).

[44] Lund H. EnergyPLANe advanced energy system analysis computermodel, usersmanualdocumentation,version9.0.Aalborg,Denmark:AalborgUniversity;2011.

[45] Lund H. Renewable energy systems: the choice and modeling of 100%renewable solutions. MA, USA: Academic Press; 2009.

[46] Lund H. EnergyPLAN software, version 10.0. Aalborg, Denmark: AalborgUniversity; 2012. Available from: http://energy.plan.aau.dk/energyplanadgang/index.php [accessed 19.02.13].

[47] Szabó T, Halmai O, Barka E, Oroszki L, Tihanyi Z, Romhányi Z, et al. A magyarvillamosenergia-rendszer (VER) 2009. évi statisztikai adatai [Statistical data ofthe Hungarian Power System, 2009]. Budapest: Hungarian Energy Office,MAVIR; 2010.

[48] Bock D, Bürger L, Decsi T, Gölöncsér P, Lengyel Zs, Olasz F, et al. A MagyarVillamosenergia-Rendszer Hálózatfejlesztési Terve 2010 [Network developingplan of the Hungarian electricity system 2010]. Budapest: MAVIR; 2010[Hungarian].

[49] Orbán T. A hazai távh}oszolgáltatás jelene és jöv}oje [Present and future of thedomestic district heating service]. Presentation on MET Energy Forum, Bala-tonalmádi, 8e9.06.2011. 26 slides. [Hungarian].

[50] Stróbl A. A budapesti er}om}uvek múltja, jelene és jöv}oje. [Past, present andfuture of the power plants of Budapest.] Presentation, BME VIK, Budapest,16.03.11. [Hungarian].

[51] Stróbl A. A magyar villamosenergia-ellátás el}oz}o évi változásainak elemzése,különös tekintettel a kapacitások változására [Analysis of the changes in the

Please cite this article in press as: Sáfián F, Modelling the Hungarian energ(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.067

Hungarian electricity system, especially regarding capacities]. Report forMAVIRe PÖYRY-ER}OTERV. p. 68 [Hungarian]. Available from:, http://realzoldek.weboldala.net/albums/userpics/10001/POYRY-2012-1-tanulmany_.doc; 2012[accessed 07.08.13].

[52] Hungarian Central Statistical Office. A háztartások energiafelhasználása, 2008[Energy consumption of households, 2008]. Digital report of the HungarianCentral Statistical Office. p. 33. [Hungarian]. Available from: www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/pdf/haztartenergia08.pdf [accessed 16.02.12].

[53] Elek L. Energiahatékonysági politikák és intézkedések Magyarországon.Report of the Energy Centre [Hungarian]. Available from:, http://www.energiakozpont.hu/download.php?path¼files/energiastatisztika/ODY2009_zaro.pdf; 2009 [accessed 11.07.11].

[54] MAVIR. Havi jelentése 2009-1.hónap.e 12. hónap [Monthly report for the year2009] [Hungarian]. Available from: http://www.mavir.hu/mavir-ver-portlet/MonthlyView?lang¼hu&year¼2009&month¼1; 2012 [accessed 07.10.11].

[55] Kiss V, Sáfián F. A Hungarian energy system model 2011. Presentation atadvanced energy systems analysis on the EnergyPLAN model Ph.D. course.Aalborg: 23e24.04.2013.

[56] VITUKI. Archívum: Éves vízállás táblázatok a reggeli mérések alapján[Archive: annual water level tables based on morning measures] [Hungarian].Available from: http://www.hydroinfo.hu/Html/archivum/archiv_tabla.html;2012 [accessed 14.02.12].

[57] Elek L. A háztartások energiafogyasztása [Energy consumption of households].Budapest: Energia Központ; 2009. p. 49 [Hungarian].

[58] Energy Centre. Villamosenergia-mérleg, 2000-2009 [Electricity balance, 2000-2009] [Hungarian]. Available from: eh.gov.hu/gcpdocs/201201/villamosenergiamerleg.pdf; 2011 [accessed 10.01.13].

y systeme The first step towards sustainable energy planning, Energy