WP 5.5 - RenewablesDevelopment and application of
specific tools for energy security inthe renewable energy sector
Christian Panzer (TU Vienna - EEG)Anne Held (Fraunhofer ISI)
SECURE Workshop – Milan, January 18th, 2010
Page 2
Outline
1. Overview
2. Preliminary results
� Characteristics of RES
� Potentials and future pathways of RES and their contribution to Security of Supply in the EU
3. Implications for security of energy supply
Overview of WP 5.5 - Renewables
• Partners: Fraunhofer ISI (lead), TU Vienna, FEEM, Ramboll, ERSE
• Duration: Month 9 – Month 24 � Start December 2008
Overview of RES-characteristics
Potential impact of RES on the security of supply
Costs of RES-measures and policy support
General risks and opportunities of RES
Summary and Conclusions
1st Deliverable
2nd Deliverable
3rd Deliverable
Page 4
Characteristics of RES – Policy background
Characterization of currently applied policy measures in the EU:
- 19 Member States apply Feed-In Tariffs in the electricity sector- 6 Member States apply a quota system- The heat sector is mostly dominated by investment incentives
Direct Indirect
Price-driven Quantity-driven
• Investment incentives
Investment
focused
• Tax credits • Low interest / Soft loans
• Tendering system for investment
grant
Regulatory
Generation
based
• (Fixed) Feed- in tariffs
• Fixed Premium system
• Production tax incentives
• Tendering system for long term contracts
• Tradable Green Certificate system
• Environmental taxes
• Simplification of • Connexion charges,
balancing costs
• Shareholder Programs
Investment
focused
• Contribution Programs
Voluntary
Generation
based
• Green tariffs
• Voluntary agreements
Feed-in tariffs
Quota obligation
Tax and investment incentives
SE
FI
EELA
LT
PL
CZSK
BL
ROHUAT
DE
DK
UKIE
ESPTIT
MTCY
GR
SIFR
NLBE
LU
SE
FI
EELA
LT
PL
CZSK
BL
ROHUAT
DE
DK
UKIE
ESPTIT
MTCY
GR
SIFR
NLBE
LU
Page 5
Characteristics of RES – RES development total
Historic RES development in terms of gross final energy:
- Heat sector still dominates the RES contribution (57%)- 38% renewable energy is generated in the electricity sector- Transport sector plays a marginal role at a recently increasing share- Generally, RES contributed to 9.7 % of gross final energy demand in 2007
0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
RE
S-s
hare
in fi
nal e
nerg
y co
nsum
ptio
n
Fin
al e
nerg
y ba
sed
on R
ES
[k
toe/
a]
Transport Production Electricity Generation Heat Production RES-Total Final Share
[Mto
e/a]
05
101520253035404550
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Ele
ctri
city
gen
erat
ion
[Mto
e/a
]
'New' RES-E excl. hydro Small-scale hydro Large-scale hydro
Historic RES development on sectoral level:
0
1234
567
89
10
1990 1995 2000 2005
Bio
fuel
con
sum
ptio
n [M
toe/
a]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1990 1995 2000 2005
Hea
t Gen
erat
ion
[Mto
e/ye
ar]
Solarthermal Geothermal Biomass
Characteristics of RES – RES development on sectoral basis
� Dominance of biomass energy in heat sector
� Strong growth in the transport sector at comparatively low level
� Broader technology portfolio in the electricity sector
Heat Transport
Electricity
Page 7
Characteristics of RES – Economic characterisation
30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
100%105%110%115%120%
200
6
200
8
201
0
201
2
201
4
201
6
201
8
202
0
202
2
202
4
202
6
202
8
203
0Cos
t red
uctio
n -
shar
e of
initi
al
inve
stm
ent
(as
in t
he y
ear
2006
)
Hydropower
Geothermal electricity
Solid biomass - cofiring & large-scale plant Solid biomass - small-scale CHPGaseous biomass
Gaseous biomass CHP
Wind energy
Tidal & wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
0 50 100 150 200
Biomass - district heat
Geothermal - district heat
Biomass (non-grid) - log wood
Biomass (non-grid) - wood chips
Biomass (non-grid) - pellets
Heat pumps
Solar thermal heat & hot water
Costs of heat (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]
Mar
ketp
rice
in 2
006
(non
-grid
)
Mar
ketp
rice
in 2
006
(grid
)
0 50 100 150 200
Biogas
(Solid) Biomass co-firing
(Solid) Biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & Wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
Costs of electricity (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]
Ele
ctric
ity M
arke
t P
rice
in 2
006
PV: 430 to 1640 €/MWh →
TransportHeat Electricity
Page 8
Characteristics of RES – Identification of risks
Risk of RES technologies:
• Hydro: Changing utilisation
• Wind: Impact of storms• Biomass: Change in BM-Potential
• Development of cost reduction
• Raw material prices (e.g. steel, silicon)
• Electricity generation costs
• CSP from North Africa• Biomass imports (transport distance, state of aggregation)
• Biomass availability and prices
• Harvesting season
Long-term impacts Operational impacts
EconomicClimate change impacts
Feedstock competition
Import dependency
• Wind in particular on short-term(Remedies: Back-up capacity; Grid reinforcement; DSM)
• Solar (comparatively good correlation of peak load and demand)
• Hydro (Inter-annual variability)
Variability of RES-output
• Geothermal (Hot-Dry-Rock and Earthquakes �Basel)
Technological risks
Others
• Political factors hampering RES-development (Non-economic barriers, policy uncertainty)
Political risks
Identification of risks – The Spanish case
Situation:•High share of CCGT
•High share of RES, in particular hydropower and wind
•Legal differentiation between large centralised and small decentralised power plants (Ordinary Regime vs. Special Regime)
•Phasing-out of nuclear power plants foreseen after end of lifetime is achieved
Page 10
Identification of risks – The Spanish case
Hydropower at the Iberian Peninsular (1/2)
Situation:Hydropower plants are concentrated on a few rivers
Iberian Peninsula
France
Morocco400 MW
1000 MW
400 MW
1400 MW
Regarded CountryNeighbouring CountryNet Export Transfer CapacitiesNet Import Transfer Capacities
Limited cross-border transmission capacities
Identification of risks – The Spanish case
Major Drought Major Drought
Hydropower at the Iberian Peninsular (2/2)
Management of drought periods:• Import capacity of electricity restricted
• Stronger use of conventional power, in particular by CCGT
Identification of risks – The Spanish case
Wind electricityWind Power Production Record
Record wind power feed-inWind power provides 53% of electricity demand in the morning hours of November 8, 2009 (Sunday)
�Reactions• Reduction of CCGT-output
• Electricity exports (85% of capacity)
• Charging of pump-storage power plants (38% of capacity)
Page 13
Characteristics of RES – Identification of opportuni ties
Opportunity to increase Security of Supply due to RES:
� Estimation of the future contribution of RES to increasing Security of Supply in the EU by means of scenario analysis with Green-X
• Reduction of import dependency
• Location closed to demand � Less infrastructure risk
• Reduced impact on electricity system in case of shutdowns
• Reduction of price risks induced by fossil fuel prices
• Price effect of wind power feed-in
• Diversification of power plant portfolio
Decentralised character
Mainly indigenous resources
No fuel cost (except BM) Portfolio effect
Page 14
Outline – Scenario analysis with Green-X
1. Introduction and background information
2. Methodology and assumptions
3. RES deployment according to policy storylines
� In terms of generation
� In terms of corresponding costs
4. Sensitivity cases
5. Conclusions
How the European Commission set the targets … „FLAT RATE“ & „GDP-Variation“
… i.e.: RES-target2020 = RES2005% + 50% *RESNEW % + 50%*“RESNEW % GDP-weighting“-“first mover bonus“
National RES targets for 2020 the proposed definiti on
Note: Additional potentials do not include biofuel imports
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
EE FI
FR
DE
GR
HU IE IT LA LT LU MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SK SI
ES
SE
UK
EU
27
RE
S in
term
s of
fina
l ene
rgy
[% o
f dem
and]
RES potential 2020 - share on current (2005) demand
Proposed RES target for 2020
RES share 2005
The core objective of the project Green-X was to develop a computer model allowing an assessment of
the future deployment of RES in the ‘real world’.
Derived objectives are:
to describe the potential & the accompanying cost of the various RES-E options in a brief and suitable manner for
model implementation;
to model the impact of policy instruments;
to address dynamic aspects in a proper way, including:
− Future technological changes – e.g. a reduction of investment costs or efficiency improvements
due to technological learning
− Technology diffusion – i.e. the impact of non-economic barriers for RES-E
… to derive a picture of a likely future as close as possible to reality …
The The GreenGreen--XX modelmodel
Reference clients: European Commission (DG RESEARCH, DG TREN, DG ENV), Sustainable Energy Ireland, German Ministry for Environment, European Environmental Agency, Consultation to Ministries in Serbia, Luxembourg, Morocco, etc.
Simulation model for energy policy instruments in the European energy market
•RES-E, RES-H, RES-T and CHP, conventional power•Based on the concept of dynamic cost-resource curves•Allowing forecasts up to 2020/2030 on national / EU-27 level
The The GreenGreen--XX modelmodel
Base input information
Scenario Information
Power generation
(Access Database)
Policy strategies selection
Social behaviourInvestor/consumer
Externalities
Framework Conditions
(Access Database)
Results Costs and Benefits on a yearly basis (2005-2020 )
Country selection
Electricity demand reduction (Access Database)
Technology selection
Economicmarket and policy
assessmentpotential, costs,
offer prices
Simulation of market interactionsRES-E, CHP, DSM power market, EUAs
Base input information
Scenario Information
Power generation
(Access Database)
Policy strategies selection
Social behaviourInvestor/consumer
Externalities
Framework Conditions
(Access Database)
Results Costs and Benefits on a yearly basis (2006 -2030 )
Country selection
Electricity demand reduction (Access Database)
Technology selection
Economicmarket and policy
assessmentpotential, costs,
offer prices
Simulation of market interactionsRES, CHP, DSM
power market, EUAs
Energy demand projections derived from POLES
-
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Gro
ss fi
nal
ele
ctric
ity d
ema
nd [
TW
h]
Global Regime - Full Trade
Europe Alone
Muddling Through
-
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Tot
al fi
nal e
nerg
y de
man
d [T
Wh]
Global Regime - Full Trade
Europe Alone
Muddling Through
Energy demands for all scenarios are taken from the POLES scenarios, but had to be adjusted(reduced) due to statistical accounting methodologies in order to consider the European Directive of 20% RES in 2020 on gross final energy demand correctly!
Primary energy prices and CO2 prices – derived from POLES
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
prim
ary
ene
rgy
pric
es [
€/M
Wh]
Oil Natural gas Coal
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Muddling Through €/t 0,00 7,94 11,90 15,86 19,83 23,79Europe Alone €/t 0,00 7,75 18,62 45,05 66,71 88,51Global Regime - Full Trade €/t 0,00 6,96 12,99 26,01 45,70 62,02
CO2 prices
Relatively low primary energy prices for all scenarios, with strongly varying CO2 prices in the different policy storylines
Barriers (non-economic)
Definition of potential terms
Theoretical potential ... based on the determination of the energy flow.
Technical potential … based on technical boundary conditions (i.e. efficiencies of conversion technologies, overall technical
limitations as e.g. the available land area to install wind turbines)
Realisable potential …
The realisable potential represents the maximal
achievable potential assuming that all existing barriers can be overcome and all driving forces are
active. Thereby, general
parameters as e.g. market growth rates, planning
constraints are taken into account in a dynamic context
– i.e. the realisable potential has to refer to a
certain year.
AdditionalAdditionalrealisablerealisablemidmid --term term potential potential (up to 2020)(up to 2020)
2000 2005 2010 2015
Historical deployment
Theoretical potential
Ene
rgy
gene
ratio
n
Economic Potential(without additional support)
Technical potential R&D
2020
Policy, Society
Achieved Achieved potential potential (2005)(2005)
Maximal time-path for penetration (Realisable Potential)
Long-term potential
Mid-term potential
Definition of the (additional) realisable mid-term potential (up to 2020)
Key parameter:
Derived from FORRES 2020 & follow-upprojects
►RES potentials
RES potentials – Total energy sector
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
EE FI
FR
DE
GR
HU IE IT LA LT LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK SI
ES
SE
UK
EU
27
RE
S in
term
s of
fina
l ene
rgy
[% o
f dem
and]
RES share 2005RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (MT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (GR-FT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on current ( 2005) demand
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
RES-electricity
RES-heat
Biofuels for transport
RES in terms of final energy [% of demand]
Achieved potential 2005Additional long term (2030) potential
Key parameter:
Derived from FORRES 2020 & follow-upprojects
►RES potentials
RES potentials – Electricity sector
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
AT
BE
BG
CY CZ
DK EE FI
FR
DE
GR
HU IE IT LA LT LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SK SI
ES
SE
UK
EU
27
RE
S-E
- E
lect
rici
ty g
ener
atio
n po
tent
ial
[% o
f gro
ss e
lect
ricity
de
man
d]
RES share 2005RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (MT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (GR-FT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on current ( 2005) demand
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Biogas
(Solid) Biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & Wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E - Electricity generation potential [TWh]
Achieved potential 2005Additional long term (2030) potential
Key parameter:
Derived from FORRES 2020 & follow-upprojects
►RES potentials
RES potentials – Heat sector
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
EE FI
FR
DE
GR
HU IE IT LA LT
LU MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SK SI
ES
SE
UK
EU
27
RE
S-H
- H
eat g
ener
atio
n po
tent
ial
[% o
f gro
ss h
eat d
eman
d]
RES share 2005RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (MT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (GR-FT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on current ( 2005) demand
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Biomass heat (CHP & DH)
Geothermal heat (CHP & DH)
Biomass heat (decentral)
Heat pumps
Solar collectors
RES-H - Heat generation potential [Mtoe]
Achieved potential 2005
Additional long term (2030)potential
Key parameter:
Derived from FORRES 2020 & follow-upprojects
►RES potentials
RES potentials – Transport sector
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
EE FI FR
DE
GR
HU IE IT LA
LT LU MT
NL PL
PT
RO SK SI
ES
SE
UK
EU
27
RE
S-T
- B
iofu
el g
ener
atio
n po
tent
ial
[% o
f gro
ss tr
ansp
ort f
uel d
eman
d]
RES share 2005RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (MT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on 2030 demand (GR-FT)RES long term (2030) potential - share on current ( 2005) demand
Three main policy storylines have been investigated:
►Muddling through: Global Baseline RES development
►Europe Alone: Alternative RES development within Europe and baseline RES development in the RoW
►Global Regime: Alternative RES development on global scale
Strengthened national policy: Accelerated RES deployment, assuming that the European RES policy framework will be improved with respect to its efficiency & effectiveness (i.e. strengthened national RES support incl. flexibility mechanism for 2020 national RES target fulfillment). These changes will become effective by 2011 in order to meet the agreed target of 20% RES by 2020 and the ambition is continued beyond 2020. Improvements refer to both the financial support conditions (if necessary) as well as to non-financial barriers (i. e. administrative deficiencies etc.) where a rapid removal is also preconditioned.
With respect to the Global Regime, sensitivity runs are carried out, highlighting the importance of efficient policy measures to be implemented. Consequently technology specific premium tariffs are considered as well as quota systems based on technology neutral Tradable Green Certificates schemes
Scenario definition
Scenario results – Muddling ThroughMuddling Through
26,5%
13,8%
7,0%
13,5%
18,7%
15,5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
RE
S-d
eplo
ymen
t - in
rela
tive
term
s (i
.e. a
s sh
are
of c
orre
spon
ding
gr
oss
dem
and)
[%]
RES-electricity
RES-heat
RES-transport
RES primary(EUROSTAT)
RES primary(SUBSTITUTION)
RES-final
2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2020 2020*
Austria 64% 63% 61% 29% 28% 32% 1% 4% 5% 28,9% 28,9% 34% 85%
Belgium 6% 10% 11% 4% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4,3% 4,3% 13% 33%
Denmark 34% 34% 43% 31% 34% 36% 0% 0% 0% 22,7% 22,7% 30% 76%
Finland 28% 24% 25% 46% 43% 47% 0% 0% 0% 29,4% 29,4% 38% 77%
France 18% 22% 24% 17% 16% 19% 2% 10% 12% 16,2% 16,2% 23% 70%
Germany 14% 15% 13% 6% 7% 10% 1% 7% 7% 8,8% 8,8% 18% 49%
Greece 12% 19% 22% 17% 21% 25% 1% 6% 7% 15,1% 15,1% 18% 84%
Ireland 13% 21% 35% 5% 6% 8% 2% 6% 8% 9,1% 9,1% 16% 57%
Italy 21% 29% 29% 4% 5% 7% 1% 5% 6% 10,3% 10,3% 17% 60%
Luxembourg 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 4% 1% 3% 6% 2,9% 2,9% 11% 27%
Netherlands 10% 9% 9% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 5% 4,6% 4,6% 14% 33%
Portugal 40% 45% 54% 38% 28% 22% 1% 5% 6% 24,2% 24,2% 31% 78%
Spain 34% 45% 56% 12% 15% 18% 1% 5% 6% 19,3% 19,3% 20% 96%
Sweden 52% 56% 63% 60% 51% 43% 1% 7% 8% 42,2% 42,2% 49% 86%
United Kingdom 10% 18% 24% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3% 5% 7,1% 7,1% 15% 47%
Cyprus 1% 2% 3% 17% 19% 23% 1% 2% 4% 6,1% 6,1% 13% 47%
Czech Republic 6% 12% 15% 10% 7% 5% 2% 8% 8% 8,6% 8,6% 13% 66%
Estonia 3% 4% 11% 38% 36% 39% 0% 1% 1% 17,5% 17,5% 25% 70%
Hungary 5% 7% 7% 8% 7% 9% 2% 7% 7% 7,0% 7,0% 13% 54%
Latvia 36% 38% 35% 51% 38% 28% 0% 1% 1% 26,7% 26,7% 42% 64%
Lithuania 4% 5% 11% 31% 30% 34% 0% 3% 11% 15,6% 15,6% 23% 68%
Malta 0% 1% 1% 5% 7% 9% 1% 3% 5% 2,6% 2,6% 10% 26%
Po land 6% 12% 15% 11% 11% 11% 4% 14% 13% 11,6% 11,6% 15% 77%
Slovakia 20% 23% 24% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 9,2% 9,2% 14% 66%
Slovenia 27% 32% 30% 25% 28% 39% 0% 0% 1% 20,3% 20,3% 25% 81%
Bulgaria 10% 10% 13% 17% 19% 25% 1% 3% 6% 11,6% 11,6% 16% 72%
Romania 31% 30% 30% 21% 18% 18% 0% 1% 6% 16,9% 16,9% 24% 70%
EU 27 19,6% 24,0% 26,5% 12,1% 12,2% 13,8% 1,3% 5,9% 7,0% 13,2% 13,2% 20% 66%
% RES-E % RES-H % RES-T % RES-final
* considering an equal biofuel 2020-target in size of 10% for
all Member States ("biofuel equalisation")
Country
breakdown
Proposed RES
targets
European Union 272006 2010 2020 2030
Share of RES-E on electricity demand 16% 20% 24% 26%
Share of RES-H on heat demand 10% 12% 12% 14%Share of RES-T on transport fuel demand 1% 1% 6% 7%
Share of RES on final demand 9% 11% 13% 15%
Share of RES on primary demand 7% 8% 11% 14% (Eurostat convention)
10% 12% 16% 19% (Substitution principle)
% deployment
• No target achievement
• Hardly any contribution in the heat sector
• Low increase of RES share beyond 2020
Scenario results – Europe AloneEurope Alone
• Exact target achievement in 2020
• Well contribution in all three energy sector
• Ambitious increase of RES share beyond 2020
European Union 272006 2010 2020 2030
Share of RES-E on electricity demand 16% 20% 35% 50%
Share of RES-H on heat demand 10% 12% 20% 31%Share of RES-T on transport fuel demand 1% 2% 8% 10%
Share of RES on final demand 9% 11% 20% 30%
Share of RES on primary demand 7% 9% 18% 26% (Eurostat convention)
10% 13% 23% 35% (Substitution principle)
% deployment
2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2020 2020*
Austria 69% 83% 88% 29% 37% 46% 1% 5% 7% 37,5% 38,2% 34% 112%
Belg ium 6% 13% 20% 4% 8% 13% 0% 9% 11% 9,2% 9,2% 13% 71%
Denmark 35% 43% 89% 31% 38% 52% 0% 11% 18% 30,1% 29,4% 30% 98%
Finland 29% 35% 45% 45% 55% 71% 0% 5% 8% 40,2% 40,6% 38% 107%
France 19% 31% 47% 16% 26% 37% 4% 10% 8% 22,7% 21,9% 23% 95%
Germany 14% 32% 39% 6% 15% 23% 4% 8% 10% 16,7% 16,7% 18% 93%
Greece 13% 26% 49% 16% 23% 31% 2% 8% 8% 18,9% 19,2% 18% 106%
Ireland 14% 40% 88% 5% 11% 19% 2% 9% 11% 15,7% 15,9% 16% 100%
Italy 21% 30% 34% 4% 11% 27% 2% 7% 9% 14,2% 14,6% 17% 86%
Luxembourg 4% 10% 16% 2% 6% 9% 1% 6% 7% 6,2% 7,4% 11% 67%
Netherlands 10% 23% 41% 2% 6% 13% 1% 6% 8% 10,1% 11,0% 14% 79%
Portugal 41% 59% 87% 38% 40% 54% 1% 1% 1% 31,4% 34,0% 31% 110%
Spain 34% 59% 86% 12% 20% 34% 2% 7% 4% 25,2% 26,0% 20% 130%
Sweden 55% 64% 80% 58% 53% 60% 3% 9% 11% 46,1% 45,5% 49% 93%
United Kingdom 11% 34% 53% 3% 8% 20% 1% 7% 10% 13,8% 14,5% 15% 97%
Cyprus 1% 17% 41% 15% 23% 32% 1% 4% 8% 11,9% 13,4% 13% 103%
Czech Republic 7% 19% 22% 10% 16% 22% 4% 9% 9% 14,9% 14,8% 13% 114%
Estonia 3% 14% 38% 37% 50% 79% 0% 4% 8% 28,1% 30,1% 25% 121%
Hungary 6% 21% 25% 8% 17% 28% 3% 12% 18% 16,4% 15,3% 13% 118%
Latvia 38% 60% 74% 52% 61% 78% 0% 7% 15% 44,7% 45,3% 42% 108%
Lithuania 5% 15% 44% 32% 48% 61% 3% 15% 42% 30,4% 27,5% 23% 119%
Malta 0% 16% 22% 4% 11% 22% 1% 5% 8% 9,3% 10,3% 10% 103%
Po land 6% 20% 33% 12% 20% 30% 6% 16% 23% 19,1% 17,2% 15% 115%
Slovakia 20% 32% 36% 8% 17% 27% 0% 7% 12% 18,4% 18,5% 14% 132%
Slovenia 29% 45% 41% 24% 41% 55% 0% 2% 5% 29,5% 31,9% 25% 128%
Bulgaria 10% 20% 33% 18% 32% 44% 2% 12% 14% 22,5% 21,5% 16% 134%
Romania 32% 48% 58% 21% 25% 35% 1% 20% 25% 28,8% 26,5% 24% 111%
EU 27 20,4% 35,3% 49,9% 12,1% 19,7% 30,6% 2,3% 8,3% 9,7% 20,1% 20,1% 20% 100%
% RES-E % RES-H % RES-T % RES-final
* considering an equal biofuel 2020-target in size of 10% for
all Member States ("biofuel equalisation")
Country
breakdown
Proposed RES
targets
49,9%
30,6%
9,7%
26,0%
34,7%
30,2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
RE
S-d
eplo
ymen
t - in
rela
tive
term
s (i
.e. a
s sh
are
of c
orre
spon
ding
gr
oss
dem
and)
[%]
RES-electricity
RES-heat
RES-transport
RES primary(EUROSTAT)
RES primary(SUBSTITUTION)
RES-final
Scenario results – Global Regime / Full TradeGlobal Regime / Full Trade
• Exact target achievement in 2020
• Lower RES-E share due to higher demand
• Ambitious increase of RES share beyond 2020
European Union 272006 2010 2020 2030
Share of RES-E on electricity demand 16% 20% 36% 48%
Share of RES-H on heat demand 10% 12% 19% 30%Share of RES-T on transport fuel demand 1% 2% 8% 10%
Share of RES on final demand 9% 11% 20% 29%
Share of RES on primary demand 7% 9% 18% 25% (Eurostat convention)
10% 13% 23% 33% (Substitution principle)
% deployment
2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2020 2020*
Austria 69% 81% 87% 29% 37% 45% 1% 6% 7% 37,4% 38,0% 34% 112%
Belgium 6% 12% 15% 4% 8% 14% 0% 9% 10% 8,9% 8,9% 13% 68%
Denmark 35% 51% 102% 31% 38% 49% 0% 11% 20% 32,0% 31,4% 30% 105%
Finland 29% 37% 43% 45% 54% 68% 0% 5% 8% 40,2% 40,7% 38% 107%
France 19% 28% 42% 16% 25% 37% 4% 11% 8% 21,8% 21,0% 23% 91%
Germany 14% 35% 37% 6% 14% 24% 4% 8% 12% 17,3% 17,2% 18% 96%
Greece 13% 25% 46% 16% 24% 29% 2% 8% 10% 18,5% 18,8% 18% 105%
Ireland 14% 40% 84% 5% 11% 19% 2% 9% 10% 15,2% 15,5% 16% 97%
Italy 21% 30% 31% 4% 11% 26% 2% 7% 9% 14,0% 14,4% 17% 85%
Luxembourg 4% 9% 15% 1% 5% 9% 1% 6% 7% 5,8% 7,1% 11% 65%
Netherlands 10% 31% 40% 2% 7% 14% 1% 6% 8% 12,1% 13,1% 14% 93%
Portugal 41% 56% 79% 38% 40% 51% 1% 5% 1% 31,9% 33,0% 31% 106%
Spain 34% 60% 90% 12% 20% 32% 2% 7% 6% 25,3% 26,1% 20% 130%
Sweden 55% 63% 77% 58% 52% 58% 3% 9% 13% 45,6% 45,2% 49% 92%
United Kingdom 11% 32% 51% 3% 9% 18% 1% 7% 10% 13,5% 14,3% 15% 96%
Cyprus 1% 16% 35% 15% 25% 29% 1% 4% 7% 12,2% 13,7% 13% 106%
Czech Republic 7% 18% 21% 10% 16% 22% 4% 8% 10% 14,8% 14,8% 13% 114%
Estonia 3% 22% 42% 37% 50% 75% 0% 4% 7% 30,0% 32,1% 25% 129%
Hungary 6% 20% 23% 8% 17% 26% 3% 12% 18% 16,2% 15,2% 13% 117%
Latvia 37% 55% 72% 51% 60% 76% 0% 8% 13% 43,5% 44,0% 42% 105%
Lithuania 4% 16% 43% 32% 47% 59% 3% 15% 41% 30,2% 27,4% 23% 119%
Malta 0% 16% 22% 4% 11% 18% 1% 5% 8% 9,0% 10,1% 10% 101%
Po land 6% 19% 32% 12% 20% 28% 6% 15% 21% 18,8% 17,1% 15% 114%
Slovakia 20% 33% 36% 8% 18% 27% 0% 7% 11% 19,0% 19,3% 14% 138%
Slovenia 29% 44% 41% 24% 39% 53% 0% 2% 5% 28,8% 31,3% 25% 125%
Bulgaria 10% 20% 30% 18% 31% 43% 2% 12% 13% 22,1% 21,1% 16% 132%
Romania 32% 46% 57% 21% 24% 32% 1% 20% 25% 27,7% 25,5% 24% 106%
EU 27 20,3% 35,6% 47,9% 12,1% 19,5% 29,6% 2,3% 8,5% 10,3% 20,0% 20,0% 20% 100%
% RES-E % RES-H % RES-T % RES-final
* considering an equal biofuel 2020-target in size of 10% for
all Member States ("biofuel equalisation")
Country
breakdown
Proposed RES
targets
47,9%
29,6%
10,3%
25,1%
33,2%
29,2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
RE
S-d
eplo
ymen
t - in
rel
ativ
e te
rms
(i.e
. as
shar
e of
cor
resp
ondi
ng
gros
s de
man
d) [%
]
RES-electricity
RES-heat
RES-transport
RES primary(EUROSTAT)
RES primary(SUBSTITUTION)
RES-final
Comparison – Development of different policy storyli nes
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
Biogas (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Solar thermal heat. & water
Heat pumps
1st generation biofuels
2nd generation biofuels
Biofuel import
Energy generation (electricity, heat, transport fue l) from NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2030) [TWh/yr ]
GR - Optimised na tional polic ies
EA - Optimised national policies
MT - BAU
Ele
ctric
ityH
eat
Tran
spo
rt
Due to higher CO2 constraints for Europe, electricity wholesale prices in the Europe Alone scenario are higher and hence a stronger RES-E contribution is expected than at global common
CO2 constraints
Policy sensitivity – Different policy support measur es
Less RES generation in the electricity sector at technology neutral support measures , leading to fail the 20% RES by 2020 target, regardless the maximum certificate price. Strong deviations in
2020 and especially strong beyond 2020
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2010 2020 2030cum
ula
tive
ener
gy
gen
erat
ion
by
sect
or
(200
6-20
30)
in
[TW
h]
RES-Biofuel (TOTAL)
RES-Heat (TOTAL)
RES-Electricity (TOTAL)
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2010 2020 20300
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2010 2020 20300
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
2010 2020 2030
Global Regime - Full TradeStrengthened national
Global Regime - Full TradeHarmonized Feed-In premium
Global Regime - Full TradeQuota system on TGC (pen75)
Global Regime - Full T radeQuota system on TGC (pen150)
• Strengthened national policy: National policy implementation in order to meet the 20% RES target
• Harmonized premium feed-in tariff: Common premium on top of the electricity wholesale price in order to meet the 20% RES target
• Quota system based on technology neutral, tradable green certificates:Quantity driven with a maximum price on top of the electricity wholesale price
Policy sensitivity – Different policy support measur es
Strong deviations of RES generation for currently novel, more expensive technologies which are needed for challenging future RES targets (wind offshore, PV, solar thermal electricity)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
Biogas (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Solar thermal heat. & water
Heat pumps
1st generation biofuels
2nd generation biofuels
Biofuel import
Energy generation (electricity, heat, transport fue l) from NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2030) [TWh/yr ]
GR - Feed-in premium
GR - Optimised nationa l polic ies
GR - Quota tech neutral penalty 75
GR - Quota tech neutral penalty 150
Ele
ctric
ityH
eat
Tran
spo
rt
Costs of enhanced RES deployment
Only moderate increases are expected in the Business as Usual case
A tripling of investments is expected within the next 10 years in order to meet the target ->Need for efficient and effective policy measures to limit consumer expenditures
Less investments have to be taken beyond 2020 due to learning effects and decreased costs
0
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
2006 2010 2020 2030
Ann
ual i
nve
stm
ent n
eeds
[M€]
RES-T totalRES-H totalRES-E total
0
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
2006 2010 2020 20300
20.000
40.000
60.000
80.000
100.000
120.000
2006 2010 2020 2030
Muddling Through - Business as Usual
Europe Alone -Stregthened national policy
Global Regime - Full Trade -Stregthened national po licy
Required investment in order to meet the enhanced RES deployment in 2010, 2020 and 2030
Higher policy costs in the Global Regime than in the Europe Alone scenario, due to less CO2 constraints in the EU and consequently lower energy wholesale prices
0
30.000
60.000
90.000
120.000
150.000
180.000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Ann
ual
tra
nsf
er c
ost
s fo
r so
cie
ty
due
to R
ES
po
licy
[M€]
RES-E total RES-H to tal RES-T total
Costs of enhanced RES deployment
Corresponding consumer expenditures = policy costs
0
30.000
60.000
90.000
120.000
150.000
180.000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Ann
ual
tra
nsf
er c
ost
s fo
r so
cie
ty
due
to R
ES
po
licy
[M€]
RES-E total RES-H total RES-T total
0
30.000
60.000
90.000
120.000
150.000
180.000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Ann
ual
tra
nsf
er c
ost
s fo
r so
cie
ty
due
to R
ES
po
licy
[M€]
RES-E tota l RES-H total RES-T to tal
Tripling the investments only leads to less than a doubling of policy costs
Sensitivity cases :Costs of enhanced RES deployment according to the different policy options
Only technology specific support options meet the 20% RES in 2020 target (left figures)
Nevertheless, technology specific options result in lower consumer expenditures due to enhanced RES support
Increasing the limit of certificate prices hardly increases the RES generation but tremendously increase the policy costs, hence the consumer expenditures
0
40.000
80.000
120.000
160.000
200.000
2010 2020 2030
Ann
ual
so
ciet
y co
sts
due
to
RE
S p
olic
y in
[M€]
RES-T totalRES-H total
RES-E total
0
40.000
80.000
120.000
160.000
200.000
2010 2020 20300
40.000
80.000
120.000
160.000
200.000
2010 2020 20300
40.000
80.000
120.000
160.000
200.000
2010 2020 2030
Global Regime - Full TradeStrengthened national
Global Regime - Full TradeHarmonized Feed-In premium
Global Regime - Full TradeQuota system on TGC (pen75)
Global Regime - Full TradeQuota system on TGC (pen150)
Sensitivity cases :Costs of enhanced RES deployment according to the different policy options
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21%
RES share on (gross) final energy demand [%]
Ave
rage
(2
006
to 2
020)
yea
rly a
dditi
ona
l co
st -
refe
rrin
g to
NE
W R
ES
pla
nts
(200
6 to
20
20) [
Bill
ion
€]
Average transfer costdue to RES support
Average additiona lgeneration cost
GR - Optimised national RES support
EA - Optimised national RES support
MT -BAU (continuation of current RES support)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17% 18% 19% 20% 21%
RES share on (gross) f inal energy demand [%]
Ave
rag
e (2
006
to 2
020
) ye
arly
add
ition
al
cost
- r
efe
rrin
g to
NE
W R
ES
pla
nts
(20
06
to
2020
) [B
illio
n €]
Average transfer cost dueto RES support
Average additionalgeneration cost
GR - Optimised national RES support
GR - Harmonised technology-specific RES support (Premium feed-in tariff system)
GR - Harmonised technology-neutral RES support (Quota system/penalty 75€/MWh)
GR - Harmonised technology-neutral RES support (Quota system/penalty 150€/MWh)
Business as Usual fails to meet the target at high consumer costs
Strengthened national policy options meet the target at only moderately higher consumer costs
Technology specific support is deeply recommended in order to increase ambitious shares of RES and avoid big producer surpluses causing higher consumer expenditures and less social acceptance of RES
Contribution of RES to decreasing import dependency
Muddling Through:267 Mtoe avoided fossil fuel consumption in 2030 due to domestic RES
generation, meaning 78 billion Euro
Europe Alone:540 Mtoe avoided fossil fuel consumption in 2030 due to domestic RES
generation, meaning 146 billion Euro
Global Regime – Full Trade:539 Mtoe avoided fossil fuel consumption in 2030 due to domestic RES
generation, meaning 145 billion EuroOil imports can be reduced by 18%, gas imports by 51% and coal imports even by 68%.
Conclusions – General implications for security of ene rgy supply
• An increased use of RES in the electricity, transport and the heating sector may contribute considerably to decreasing import dependency
• Additional benefits of RES with regard to the achievement of climate change targets
• But: Decrease in import dependency involves certain transfer costs for society
• Economic risk: competitiveness of RES is expected to improve in the future
• Other threads resulting from the specific character of RES (variable power output) seem to be still manageable � May require certain changes in system operation and infrastructure
Page 38
Contact
Anne Held
e-mail: [email protected]
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) Breslauer Straße 48 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany www.isi.fraunhofer.de
Christian Panzer
e-mail: [email protected]
Energy Economics Group (EEG)Vienna University of TechnologyGusshausstraße 25-29/E373-21040 Vienna, Austriahttp://eeg.tuwien.ac.at
Thank you for your attention!
Top Related