RES Integration for Increasing of Energy Supply Security in Latvia:
description
Transcript of RES Integration for Increasing of Energy Supply Security in Latvia:
RES Integration for Increasing of Energy Supply Security in Latvia:
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMICAL FACTORS
NEEDS FORUM 2 “Energy and Supply Security – Present and Future Issues”
Krakow 5-6 July 2007
6th RTD Framework Programme Integrated Project
Ivars Kudrenickis, Gaidis Klavs,
Janis Rekis
Institute of Physical Energetics, Latvia
Plan of presentation
Part I: Energy supply development trends and National Energy Strategy Part II: Integrated analysis of RES utilization, energy supply security and climate change mitigation factors in the national energy system developmentPart III: RES in Latvia power production and DH sector: assessment of employment effects and regional benefits
Part I: Energy supply development trends and National Energy Strategy
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
PJ
0
0,25
0,5
0,75
1Electricity
Fuel wood
Natural gas
Oil productsand shale oil
Peat
Coal etc.
Self-sufficiency
35% 34% 34%
33% 36% 36%14%
Trends in primary energy supply
Primary energy flows in 2005
Import of oil products from rest of world
12,3%
Import of electricity from Estonia and Lithuania 3,2%
Import of coal from CIS 1,7%
Import of oil products from CIS
16,8%
Import of electricity from Russia 0,7%
Import of natural gas from Russia
28,8%
SHARE OF DOMESTIC ENERGY RESOURCES IN TPER
36,5%
National Energy Strategy 2007-2016
The principal measures identified to increase energy supply security
Increase in supply security and sustainability of national energy system has to be basic criteria for economic analysis and decision-making related to its development.
Diversification of fuels or fuel supply sources, relates both imported and local ones.
Latvia active participation in the common EU policy - power
interconnection with European power systems (Nordel, UCTE), expansion of Incukalns underground gas storage; regional co-operation with Baltic sea region states, particularly, Lithuania and Estonia.
Effective use of resources in all stages: extraction, conversion, transportation and end-use.
National Energy Strategy 2007-2016
The quantitative targets:
1. Self-supply of total primary energy at the level of 37% (year 2025)
2. RES-E share of 49.3% in the electricity supply (year 2010)
3. Biofuels share of 10% (year 2016) and 15% (year 2020) in the transport sector
Local resources: future challenges
despite significant improvement of energy intensity indicator, further growth of total primary energy supply is expected
to meet the indicated target of self-supply, the challenging growth in use of local resources, especially RES, have to be reached: per 25% in year 2020 and 40% in year 2025, compared with existing one
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005 2020
Energyintensity
TPES
Localresources
Energy, economy and environment indicator interaction
Environmental indicators 2004
Source: Key world energy statistics 2005. IEA - CO2 emissions from fuel combustion only
48,447,1
35,439,3
4647,745,5
41,243,5
43,244,5
45,44745,8
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
GWh
0
10
20
30
40
50
60%
RES-e
Fossil fueland import
RES-esharecorrected
RES-eshare
RES-E share in power production
RES-E structure in year 2005
1 %
2 %
3 %
2 %
95 %
Large HPP Small HPP Wind Biogas
Part II: Integrated analysis of RES utilization, energy supply security and climate change mitigation factors
Research Tasks
integrated analysis of national energy system development taking into account both:
RES wider utilization, energy supply security, climate change mitigation
factors. finding optimal structure of primary
sources balance for power production optimisation model MARKAL applied
Description of modelled scenarios
REF REF-CAP REF-CCAP REF-RESE
Target for GHG emissions’ restriction in energy sector
No In year 1990 energy sector contributed 72.2% (18690 kT) of national GHG emissions. Annual restriction of GHG
emissions: year 2010: 92% - 17195 kT
starting from year 2015:75% - 14018 kT
Cumulative restriction
of GHG
emissions for the period up to year
2050: 725764 kT
No
Target for minimal RES-E share in the total electricity supply
No No No 49.3% starting
from year 2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
REF (2015)
REF+CAP(2015)
REF+CCAP(2015)
REF+RESE(2015)
REF (2025)
REF+CAP(2025)
REF+CCAP(2025)
REF+RESE(2025)
TWh
Wind
Biomass
Import
Coal +biomassHydro
Gas
Modelling results: primary sources for power production
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
kTon
REF
REF+CAP
REF+CCAP
REF+RESE
Kyoto
Modelling results: total GHG emissions in energy sector
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
REF (2015)
REF+CAP(2015)
REF+CCAP(2015)
REF+RESE(2015)
REF (2025)
REF+CAP(2025)
REF+CCAP(2025)
REF+RESE(2025)
kTon
Agriculture
Households
Service
Industry
Energygeneration
Transport
Modelling results: division of GHG emissions among end-users of energy sector
Modelling results: RES-E share in the power production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
%
REF
REF-CAP
REF-CCAP
REF-RESE
Principal conclusions
1. Hydro and natural gas are the main primary resources for power production in all scenarios
2. In reference scenario (REF) coal use, together with 15% solid biomass co-firing, will be new important source for power production thus increasing supply security. However the reference scenario without defining particular environmental targets in conditions of increased power demand will not allow to fulfil the objectives of EU climate policy
3. RES-E target alone can not be enough effective instrument to mitigate climate change: RESE scenario target will allow in year 2030 to fulfil GHG emissions according Kyoto protocol only, but not be enough to fulfil strong obligations for post-Kyoto period.
4. To fulfil post-Kyoto obligation, RES-E target should be applied together with other climate change mitigation instruments, taking GHG emissions restriction obligation as a departure point (scenarios CAP & CCAP).
REF+CAP
REF+CCAP
REF+RESE
GHG mitigation marginal costs, year 2030, EUR (2000) / t 63 42
GHG mitigation costs, average for the period 2005-2025, EUR (2000) / t
41 15 45
RES-E additional costs, average for the period 2005-2025, EUR (2000) / MWh 4,0
GHG emissions mitigation costs and RES-E additional costs
the highest costs are indicated at the beginning of the period; the factor of fossil fuels prices and forecasted trends of RES-E technologies’ specific
investments strongly influence the calculated additional costs.
Part III: RES in Latvia power production and DH sector: Assessment of employment effects and regional benefits
Research Tasks
To estimate economical benefits of RES integration into national power production system in accordance of the target to reach RES share 49.3%
To assess economical impact of potential wide use of non-traditional RES – straw – for district heating
New capacities assessed
Biomass (Wood) CHP - 70 MWel
Wind: onland (135 MW) and
off-shore (77 MW)
Biogas – 8 MWel
Straw DH - 46 MWth
Possible approaches
Use of standard factors – the installation and operation of a given energy production capacity are associated with the specific number of jobs
Production chain analysis –identifying of the wages share in the value chain of a given energy production installation
Job places per 100 GWh annually produced electricity
Fossil technologies 1-6 Wind 15-20Solar PV 50-54 Solar thermal 25-27Small hydro 8-9Biomass, forestry waste 18-19 Biomass, energy plantations 64 Biogas, agriculture waste 58
Source: R.E.H.Sims, “Biomass and Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies”, OECD Publication, Paris, September 2004, pp.91-103
Pre-feasibility study of employment, based on production chain analysis model
Facilitycost
OMcost
Fuelcost
Technologyvalue chain
O & Mvalue chain
Fuelvalue chain
End-user
All costs RE
energy
30%
70%
80%
20%
Totalandperunit
Estimation of the wages part of the value chain
Wages
Equipment
Income ofthe supplier
Fuel cost at the facility=
Localization of the employment
Localregional
Nacional
Transnational
Employment
Source:
Tyge Kjær,Roskilde University
Production Chain Assessment Methodology
Example: Biomass CHP, steam turbine, 0.6-4.3 MWEfficiency
Electricity Heat
25%65%
Annual operating hours 5600Specific investments, mill.LVL/MW Operation & Maintenance costs (% of investments per year)Biomass fuel cost, LVL/GJ
3.29 41.75
Wages share of total investments (comprising Latvian local share)
8%(20%)
Wages share of O&M costs(comprising Latvian local share)
50%(80%)
Wages share of fuel costs (comprising Latvian local share)
80%(100%)
Production Chain Assessment Methodology Example of onland Wind Annually produced power, GWh 298 Installed capacity, MW 135
New direct job places Job places related to investments 151Investments’ jobs calculated per 1 year of technology life-time
7.5
Job places related to O&M 68Total new full-time job places 76
Tax revenues (direct jobs)Tax revenues in state budget, LVL 285 000Tax revenues in municipal budgets, LVL 125 400
note: 1 EUR ~ 0,7 LVL
Production Chain Assessment MethodologyExample of Biomass CHP Steam
turbineGasifiers
Power production capacity, MW 35 35
New direct job places Job places related to investments(assessed as new – 100%)
158(158)
115(115)
Investments’ jobs calculated per 1 year of technology life-time
8 11
Job places related to O&M(assessed as new – 75%)
154(116)
246(185)
Job places related providing wood fuel(assessed as new – 50%)
317(158)
264(132)
Total new full-time job places 282 328Tax revenues (direct jobs)
Tax revenues in state budget, LVL 1 057 475 1 229 971 Tax revenues in municipal budgets, LVL 465 300 541 200
Production Chain Assessment results: Employment effect and related tax
revenues
New capacities
(MW)
New direct jobs
New indirect
jobs
Tax revenues in statebudget(LVL)
Tax revenues in municipal budgets
(LVL)
Straw DH 46 51 76 478 114 210 375
Biogas-E 8 50 75 468 739 206 250
Wind-E 135 onland +77 off-shore
173 259 1 621 837 713 625
Biomass (Wood) CHP
70 610 915 5 718 616 2 516 250