1.4.3. Valoración articular
1.4.3.2 Evaluación instrumental articular
total
In the BAU-scenario the amount of coal for electricity production decreases until 2010, and increases afterwards because it is assumed that coal will be more profitable as the price of natural gas increases. No growth is projected to take place in the amount of in- stalled hydropower, whereas a strong growth is projected to take place in the use of wind power. The CO2-intensity of the electricity production is expected to decrease from 0.5 kg/kWh in 1997 to 0.39 kg/kWh in 2010 and stabilise on this factor until 2020. Total CO2 emissions from electricity production are estimated to increase to a level of 1400 Mtonne in 2020.
Table 4 holds an overview of the BAU development in electricity demand in the Euro- pean Union. The table shows that electricity demand in all sectors is estimated to in- crease. Overall electricity consumption is projected to increase by 1.9% annually over the period 1995-2010, and by 1.6% annually over the period 2010-2020. Large growth in electricity consumption is expected to take place in the service sector due to continued penetration of cooling and an increase in the number of electric appliances, such as com- puters.
39 EC (1999). Energy in Europe. European Union Energy Outlook to 2020. Special Issue
November 1999. The Shared Analysis Report
40 Data on installed amount of photovoltaic in the baseline scenario is taken from Harmelink et al
(2002). PRETIR. Implementation of Renewable Energy in the European Union. Ecofys, 3E and Fraunhofer ISI.
41 The BAU was adapted with regard to the phase out of nuclear energy. It was assumed that
Germany, Belgium and Sweden will phase out large parts of their nuclear energy production capacity before 2020 and that no additional nuclear capacity will be installed as of 2003. Instead of 788 TWh of electricity produced with nuclear we took ~ 640 TWh. We assumed that the nuclear capacity will be replaced by more natural gas fired power stations.
Tab le 4 B A U s c e nar io (s tand ar d c as e ) in e le c tr ic ity d e m and i n t he E ur o p e a n Unio n. S o ur c e : EC (1 9 9 9 )42 TWh 1995 2010 2020 Industry 858 1,046 1,122 Services 503 765 1,007 Households 582 747 873 Transport 55 100 111 Other 32 15 11 Total 2,030 2,673 3,124 1995 2010 2020 5,456 6,970 8,121 Consumption per capita (kWh/cap) 4 . 3 R e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l f o r e l e c t r i c i t y c o n s u m p t i o n Table 5 provides an overview of the estimated CO2-reduction compared to the BAU sce- nario per option on the energy demand side in 2010 and 2020 for the European Union for the standard and adapted case.
Tab le 5 Est ima ted C O2-r e d uct io n p e r o p t io n i n 2 0 1 0 and 2 0 2 0 f o r the e le c -
tr ic ity d ema nd sid e f o r the Eur o p ea n Un io n co mp ar ed to the sta n - d ar d BA U scenar io a nd t he ad ap t ed BA U scenar i o (Mto nne o f C O2)
2010 2020 2010 2020
Standard Standard Adapted Adapted 1 Households Efficient electric appliances 5-10 10-25 10-25 25-50
2 Households Efficient cooling equipment 5-10 10-25 5-10 25-50
3 Households Efficient lighting 1-5 5-10 Idem Idem
4 Households Reduce stand-by losses 1-5 10-25 Idem Idem
5 Services Efficient electric appliances 10-25 25-50 Idem Idem
6 Services Efficient lighting 10-25 25-50 10-25 >50
7 Services Efficient cooling 1-5 10-25 Idem Idem
8 Industry Increase secundairy aluminium production 5-10 10-25 Idem Idem 9 Industry Efficient electricity use in the Chlorine industry 1-5 1-5 Idem Idem
10 Industry Efficient motor technologies 5-10 >50 Idem Idem
No Sector Reduction option
Table 5 shows that large reduction potential can be achieved through (numbers refer to the numbers of the options in Table 5):
1,2 The implementation of best practice appliances and cooling equipment in the household sector.
3 The introduction of appliances with low stand-by losses (< 1W) in the household sector.
4-6 The introduction of energy efficient office equipment, lighting and cooling. 8 Increasing the amount of recycled aluminium to 90%.
10 The introduction of energy efficient motors in the industry.
42 EC (1999). Energy in Europe. European Union Energy Outlook to 2020. Special Issue
Total additional electricity savings (compared to the standard BAU scenario) amount to approximately 270 TWh in 2010, and 750 TWh in 202043. This is equal to a saving of 9% on the total electricity consumption in 2010 and 27% in 2020. The savings for the year 2020 are illustrated in Figure 3.
TWh 65 74 22 47 106 113 60 45 0 215 2433 households:electric appliances households:cooling households: lighting
households: standby losses
services:electric appliances
services:lighting
services:cooling
industry:secondary aluminum production
industry:electricity use chlorine industry
industry:motor technologies
REMAINING CONSUMPTION
F ig ur e 3 A d d it io na l e le c tr ici ty d e mand s av ing s i n t he y e ar 2 0 2 0 c o mp ar e d to the BA U s c e nar io f o r the Eur o p e an U nio n (T Whe )
4 . 4 R e d u c t i o n p o t e n t i a l o n t h e s u p p l y s i d e
The BAU scenario already includes several supply-side reduction options, of which the main options are:
• Energy efficiency improvements of existing fossil fuel production capacity • Fuel switch from coal (and oil) to gas
• Increased share of renewable electricity production
Table 6 provides an overview of the estimated additional supply-side CO2-reductions compared to the BAU scenario. The reduction potentials for the European Union are for the years 2010 and 2020 for the standard and adapted case.
43 These data concern savings in electricity consumption. To determine avoided electricity
Tab le 6 Est ima ted C O2-r e d uc tio ns ( in Mto n ne C O 2 ) f r o m s up p ly s id e o p t io n s
r e lat iv e to t he BA U s c e n ar io i n the Eur o p e a n Un i o n.
2010 2020 2010 2020
Standard Standard Adapted Adapted
1 Industry Increase the amount of CHP 10-25 10-25 10-25 25-50
2 Households & Sevices District heating and small-scale CHP <1 <1 25-50 25-50
3 Coal fired power plants Retrofit existing coal fired power plants <1 <1 Idem Idem
4 Coal fired power plants Implement more efficient new power plants <1 <1 Idem Idem
5 Coal fired power plants Fuel Switch: from coal to low carbon fuels <1 >50 Idem Idem
6 Coal fired power plants Co-firing of biomass in existing coal plants >50 25-50 Idem Idem
7 Coal fired power plants CO2-removal 10-25 >50 Idem Idem
8 Oil fired power plants Retrofit existing oil fired power plants <1 <1 Idem Idem
9 Oil fired power plants Implement more efficient new power plants <1 <1 Idem Idem
10 Oil fired power plants Fuel Switch: from oil to low carbon fuels <1 <1 Idem Idem
11 Oil fired power plants CO2-removal <1 <1 Idem Idem
12 Natural gas fired power plants Implement more efficient new power plants <1 <1 10-25 10-25
13 Natural gas fired power plants CO2-removal 1-5 10-25 Idem Idem
14 Wind power Increase installed capacity 10-25 >50 Idem Idem
15 Photovoltaic Increase installed capacity 1-5 5-10 Idem Idem
16 Solar Thermal Electricity Increase installed capacity <1 1-5 Idem Idem
17 Biomass More biomass for electricity production 25-50 >50 Idem Idem
18 Small hydro (< 10 MWe) Increase installed capacity 5-10 5-10 Idem Idem
19 Large hydro (< 10 MWe) Retrofit existing large hydro plants 1-5 5-10 Idem Idem
20 Geothermal Increase installed capacity 1-5 1-5 Idem Idem
No Sector Reduction option
The main additional supply side reduction options are: • Increase of the amount of CHP production
• Additional fuel switching from coal (and oil) to gas
• Co-firing of biomass in existing coal-fired plants, especially lignite plants • Increased use of wind and biomass for electricity production
• CO2 removal
The Details on the reduction potentials and the underlying assumptions are included in Annex I.
4 . 5 P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r c a r b o n n e u t r a l e l e c t r i c i t y p r o - d u c t i o n
This section explores the possibilities for starting the introduction of a carbon neutral electricity system in the European Union. We examine the possibilities for new or retro- fitted capacity to be carbon neutral in the period 2010-2020. The possibilities for carbon neutral electricity were examined on the basis of the following assumptions:
• High uncertainties exist on the implementation level of demand side electricity sav- ing measures. Therefore two scenarios are used: a high scenario in which these de- mand side savings are very successful (i.e. the full reduction potential is achieved both in 2010 and 2020), and a low scenario in which only 1/3 of the full reduction potential is achieved.
• Existing large-scale coal fired plants will either be taken out of operation, or will un- dergo a full refurbishment after 30 years. For natural gas fired power plants the time period used is 25 years.
• The potential for wind, solar (photovoltaic, solar electricity), geothermal, hydro and co-firing of biomass in existing power plants will be fully exploited.
• Additional electricity production with biomass will be the key option to make new or retrofitted capacity carbon neutral in the period 2010-2020. If this is not sufficient to reach the targets set, CO2-storage is considered.
Based on the analysis in earlier sections, the following consecutive steps are taken to de- termine the possibility of a carbon neutral electricity production:
• Determine electricity demand and supply side emission savings in the BAU scenario • Calculate additional demand side emission savings (see section 4.3)
• Determine additional renewable electricity potential (see section 4.4)
• Calculate additional opportunities to switch to low-carbon fuels in existing fossil fuel production capacity (including co-firing of biomass)
• Calculate additional potential for using biomass in new power production plants • (If necessary) use carbon storage
Figure 4 pictures the resulting CO2 emissions from electricity production in the BAU and for the High Power Switch Scenario. The figure shows that in the high Power Switch scenario emission can be reduced by 50% in 2020 compared to 1997.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year
Million Tons CO2
BAU
High Power Switch
F ig ur e 4 C O2 e m is s ions in the E u r o p e an U nio n i n t he BAU scenario a nd i n th e
Hig h Po w e r S w itc h s c e n ar io .
Figure 5 pictures the corresponding electricity production in 1997 and in 2020 for the BAU and the High Power Switch Scenario. The picture shows that the crucial renewable energy options for 2020 are wind and biomass. The results of our analyses indicate that the overall share of renewable electricity production (including large hydro) will have to
increase to approx. 26% in 2010 and 60% in 2020 (excluding large hydro these figures are 14% in 2010 and 47% in 2020). 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1997 BAU-2020 High Power Switch - 2020
TWh
Other renewables
Solar (Photovoltaics + Thermal) Biomass Wind Hydro Other Fossil Natural Gas Coal Nuclear
F ig ur e 5 Ele c tr ic ity p r o d uct io n in 1 9 9 7 and in 2 0 2 0 in the BA U a nd f o r th e Hig h Po w e r S w itc h s c e n ar io .
4 . 6 T h e c o s t s o f l o w - c a r b o n e l e c t r i c i t y s y s t e m s
The aim of this study was to sketch a broad outline of a low-carbon electricity system for the European Union. A detailed economic analysis is beyond the scope of this study. However, a brief discussion of the costs of a transition to a low-carbon electricity system may be useful.
A low-carbon electricity system may be attained through demand-side and supply-side measures. On the basis of several studies carried out for a variety of situations44, we can provide the following considerations.
44 See for instance the following reports:
Nadel, S., M. Shepard, S. Greenberg, G. Katx, A.T. de Alemida (1992). Energy Efficient Motor Systems. A Handbook on Technology, Program, and Policy Opportunities. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, DC and Berkeley, California.
B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart, J. Pan: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
Hendriks, C., D. de Jager, J. de Beer, M. van Brummelen, K. Blok and M. Kerssemeeckers, Economic Evaluation of Emission Reduction of Greenhouse Gases in the Energy Supply Sector in the EU – Bottom-up Analysis, European Commission, DG Environment,
Demand-side measures mainly are measures to improve the energy efficiency of lighting,
electric appliances, and motor systems. A range of studies has shown that a substantial potential for these measures exist where the benefits over the lifetime of the measures are larger than the costs. Therefore, we expect that the net costs for the energy user will be modest or even negligible.
However, there may be costs for governments or other agencies to stimulate the adoption of the new technologies; in addition there may be transaction costs for the energy users. The magnitude of these costs highly depends on the policy instruments that are used for stimulating the energy-efficient technologies. For instance, if investment subsidies are offered, the costs for the government will be higher than when efficiency standards are implemented.
The main supply-side measures are biomass energy, wind energy and carbon dioxide removal. In all the cases the costs for power production are expected to be higher than those of conventional power generation. This most probably will always remain the case for carbon dioxide removal. For the renewable energy sources it is expected that technological learning will occur, leading to lower costs per unit of electricity production in the long run. However, for the period considered 2010 or even 2020 it is not likely that competitiveness will be attained. Many factors have influence on the net costs of adding more renewables or carbon dioxide removal, e.g. fossil fuel prices, the supply and demand situation on the EU electricity market, the rate of technological development in the area of renewables etc. Therefore, the costs for the supply side options are uncertain.
• For biomass electricity costs depend on the development of conversion technology and biomass prices – they may range from 10 – 60 € per tonne of CO2 avoided
45 .
• For wind electricity costs depend on the learning rates for wind turbine technology, but also on siting policies. Some estimate that costs might come down to those of conventional electricity by 202046. We expect that learning will be less fast and partly offset by the need to use less windy sites; costs could be between 20 and 40 € per tonne of CO2 avoided.
• For carbon dioxide removal costs are estimated to be mainly between 20 and 50
€ per tonne of CO2 avoided47. For large scale project the costs can even be lower with favourable transport and storage conditions but costs can also be much higher in case of small projects and large transport distances.
From these figures we see that supply-side options typically will cost between 10 and 50
€ per tonne of CO2 avoided (all are calculated at social discount rates). We assume that in 2010 costs will be rather in the higher end of the range and in 2020 in the lower end. For
45 Derived from: R. van den Broek (2000). Sustainability of Biomass Electricity Systems, Ph.D.
Thesis, Utrecht University.
46 EWEA/Greenpeace (2001). Wind Force 12 – A Blueprint to Achieve 12% of the World’s
Eelectricity from Wind Power by 2020, EWEA, Brussels.
47 C.A. Hendriks, W. Graus, F. van Bergen (2002). Global Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential and
the images presented in the Power Switch scenario these options are utilized for about 100 Mtonne of CO2 emission reduction in 2010 and about 700 Mtonne in 2020. This translates to costs on the order of 10 € per capita per year in 2010 and on the order of 30
€ per capita in 2020.
An important synergetic effect is that strong efforts to improve energy efficiency on the demand side will have a downward pressure on the electricity prices in the European Union. Hence – despite higher average production costs in a low-carbon development – it might well be that the total costs of the electricity production/consumption system remain the same or even decrease. Further analysis should determine whether this will be the case.
4 . 7 C o n c l u s i o n s
The following key overall conclusions are drawn:
• The potential for additional electricity savings on the demand side (compared to the BAU scenario) ranges from 9% in 2010 to 27% in 2020. In the scenario with a low level of electricity savings – assuming only 1/3 of the full savings potential is imple- mented – results in 4% savings by 2010 and 11% savings by 2020.
• The estimated potential for renewable electricity production is 587 TWh in 2010 to 1158 TWh in 2020. This results in an overall share of 25% renewables by 2010 and approx. 60% renewables by 2020 (including large hydro). The main share of this po- tential must comes from co-firing of biomass (16 GWe in 2010, and 9 GWe in 2020) and from wind (60 GWe in 2010, and 150 GWe in 2020).
• Implementing more biomass-fired plants, and/or storing the emitted CO2 in the un- derground can reduce the emissions of the new or retrofitted plants. Assuming that the White Paper target of 135 Mtoe48 biomass fuel input will be met in 2010, and that in the period 2010-2020 electricity production through biomass grows with 10% per year respectively, 32 Mtonne of CO2 is avoided in 2010 and 180 Mtonne in 2020. This means that in 2010 approximately 40 GWe additional (compared to the BAU scenario) biomass capacity needs to be installed, and in 2020 approximately 225 GWe. With regard to CO2-removal we assumed 10 experiments before 2010, and 40 additional plants with CO2-removal after 2010.
• In the case of full implementation of the electricity saving potential on the demand side (the high scenario), and almost full implementation of the biomass potential, CO2-storage is not necessary in the period 2010-2020 to reach carbon neutrality for new or retrofitted capacity (the share of renewable reaches a level of 60% of total electricity production (including large hydro)).
48 European Commission, Energy for the Future: renewable sources of energy, White Paper for a
Community Strategy and Action PLan, COM(1997)599 final, 26.11.1997. 1Mtoe equals 41.9 PJ
• In case of disappointing savings on the demand side, an additional reductions of CO2