estonian energy scenarios 2030, 2050 mikael togeby anders larsen
TRANSCRIPT
Estonian energy scenarios 2030, 2050
Mikael TogebyAnders Larsen
2
Agenda
• How will the future be?• Levelised cost of electricity• Focus on demand• Updated scenario results• Conclusion
3
Executive summary
Other analyses
BalmorelStream
4
HOW WILL THE FUTURE BE?
5
What we know!
• “The era of cheap oil is over” (IEA)• Energy policy will continue to be high on the
agenda– A combination of: Environment/Economy/Security
of supply• EU will continue to be an important player for
the development of national energy policy
6
What we don’t know
• Future CO2 price• Best oil shale options– To produce electricity?– To produce shale oil?– To supply retort gas for electricity generation?– Detailed cost and efficiency information is missing
7
Eight scenarios
8
Eight scenarios
• The scenarios are not predictions• Together they span a major part of possible
futures– Input driven scenarios:• Define input• Let model develop energy system• Study results and discuss!
9
LEVELIZED COST OF ELECTRICITY
10
Levelized cost of electricity
Coal Natural gas Oil shale Wood pellets Wood chips Rebuild shale to coal
Onshore wind Offshore wind0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
CO2-costAfgifter EUR/MWhO&M costCapital costTotal
€/M
Wh
6,000 full load hours per year (Wind: 3,000/4,000), 2020Rebuild from oil shale to coal attractive (limited potential)
116,000 full load hours per year, 2020
Coal - E
XT
Natural
gas -
EXT
Oil shale
- EXT
Wood pell
ets - E
XT
Wood ch
ips - EX
T - la
rge
Wood ch
ips - BP - m
edium
Wood ch
ips - BP - s
mall
Straw
- BP - s
mall
Biogas -
BP
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Heat sales
CO2-cost
Afgifter EUR/MWh
Capital cost
Fuel cost
Total
€/M
Wh
12
CHP!
• Combined heat and power (CHP) is an effective way to produce heat and electricity
• 40% of the current district heating in Estonia is delivered by CHP– In Denmark: 71%– Model result: This is also realistic for Estonia
• Including investments in heat storage
• By January 2014 Estonia shall report to EU about plans to develop CHP– The collective nature of district heating requires careful
development of framework
13
Energy efficiency
EU27
Denmark
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuan
ia
Finlan
d
Swed
en
Norway
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PrimaryFinalkW
h/€
14
Energy efficiency
• Estonian specific energy intensity is unusual high– Households is the biggest energy sector…
• Estonia must report to EU about how to implement the new Energy Efficiency Directive by December 2013– Energy efficiency obligation or alternative policy instruments
• Reduced cost in energy efficiency scenario: x M€ (net present value, 5%)– This can be used as benchmark: Investments and costs of
policy instruments must be lower than this value
15
Nord Pool
• By 3 June 2013 all Baltic states is part of Nord pool– Can greatly improve trading– Next important milestone to integrate Nordic and
Baltic markets: • EstLink 2 in 2014• SwedLit connection in 2015
16
FOCUS ON DEMAND
17
Electricity
Business as usual Energy efficiency
(36 PJ = 10 TWh)
18
District heating
2010 2020 2030 20500
5
10
15
20
25
ResidentialIndustryTertiary
PJ
2010 2020 2030 20500
5
10
15
20
25
ResidentialIndustryTertiary
PJ
Business as usual Energy efficiency
19
Heated area – residential
Business as usual Energy efficiency
20
Transport
Business as usual Energy efficiency
Note: Conversion losses of electricity are not included
21
SCENARIO RESULTSMODEL AREA
22
Electricity generation
23
SCENARIO RESULTSESTONIA
24
Investments in electricity generation
25
Electricity generation
26
District heating generation20
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
5020
1220
2020
2220
2420
2620
2820
3020
3520
4020
4520
50
CO2 CONCERN
110 % CO2 COL-
LAPSE
LIBERAL OIL SHALE RE FOCUS RETORT GAS CARBON LEAKAGE
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ElWood chipsStrawBiogasNatural gasOil shaleCoalOilWaste
PJ/y
ear
27
Stakeholder economics(Mio. euro) ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA RUSSIA NORDIC GERMANY & POLAND TOTAL
110%Generator profits: -577 -27 7 -19 -474 -167 -1257Consumer surplus: 356 13 5 26 462 126 987TSO profit: -2 15 3 2 36 -92 -38Socio economic benefit: -223 1 15 8 24 -133 -308
CO2 collapseGenerator profits: -471 -1728 -3881 -22020 -99918 -49407 -177426Consumer surplus: 2427 2835 3134 31193 107424 213947 360959TSO profit: -58 -16 2283 296 674 2913 6092Socio economic benefit: 1897 1091 1536 9469 8180 167452 189625
CO2 concern**Generator profits: 200 1351 3086 15072 30397 18146 68253Consumer surplus: -79 -1560 -2438 -24705 -39040 -122899 -190720TSO profit: -98 168 -3010 306 -10438 -20767 -33839Socio economic benefit: 24 -41 -2363 -9327 -19081 -125519 -156307
Oil shaleGenerator profits: 297 5 6 -178 224 366 720Consumer surplus: -69 -41 -2 219 -175 -266 -335TSO profit: -37 2 70 7 -95 39 -13Socio economic benefit: 191 -33 74 47 -46 139 371
RE focus**Generator profits: 210 105 -61 60 -2184 -2981 -4850Consumer surplus: 719 -205 -208 -4598 -60 6986 2634TSO profit: 106 76 -206 416 1565 3613 5568Socio economic benefit: 1035 -24 -475 -4123 -679 7618 3351
Retort gasGenerator profits: 2294 -158 14 -235 -906 -543 466Consumer surplus: 62 37 26 212 813 444 1594TSO profit: 0 28 -186 -13 -9 -164 -343Socio economic benefit: 2356 -93 -146 -35 -103 -263 1716
Carbon leakageGenerator profits: -1126 -550 -452 -19279 -5537 -2960 -29904Consumer surplus: 661 336 222 30241 4993 4094 40547TSO profit: 72 140 -486 667 779 -332 840Socio economic benefit: -392 -75 -716 11629 235 802 11483
Reference = Liberal scenario
Net present value (5%)
** = EE demand(and reduced number of time steps)
Positive benefit in RE focusscenario is due to EE demand scenario.Cost of reaching EE is not included.
28
CONCLUSION
29
Conclusions
• New future for oil shale?• No regret options?– CHP– Energy efficiency– Biomass
• Energy planning in a liberalised market• Political questions:– OK with coal? • If yes, this is attractive in most scenarios
30
EXTRA
Balmorel – updated assumptions• Wood chips resource unlimited and small plant inv.
costs increased.• Wood chips potential for entire model increased.• Retort gas inserted as a fuel• Western part of North west link (Sweden-Norway)
scrapped• District heating and electricity demand updated• Wind data updated• RE-scenario setup with 100% RE in electricity and
district heating by 2050. No new fossil investments – only rebuild of existing plants to fossil fuels