nordic energy technology perspectives 2013 · ccs plays a central role in all netp scenarios, with...

Nordic Energy Technology

Perspectives 2013

Reference Group meeting

Copenhagen 20 September 2012

Agenda

Light breakfast buffet available 8:30–10:00, should you arrive early

Draft report

Presentation of the draft report and key results

– Markus Wråke, IEA

10:00

Coffee 11:00

Discussion of key results, input from Reference Group 11:10

Lunch 12:10

Key issues: chapter by chapter

Indicators – Kari Espegren, IFE

Technology policies – Markus Wråke, IEA

Power generation and district heating – Bo Rydén, Profu AB

Industry – Tiina Koljonen, VTT

13:00

Coffee 14:00

Key issues: chapter by chapter (continued)

Transport – Kenneth Karlsson, DTU

Buildings – Jónas Hlynur Hallgrímsson, University of Iceland

Discussion of Policy Options chapter, Summary

14:10

Meeting ends 15:30

Timeline

• Meeting summary sent to RG Sept 25

• Written feedback from RG on current

draft + meeting summary by Oct 2

– Final chance for input on major (structural, scope,

model-related) changes

• Final draft sent to RG Oct 22

• Written Feedback from RG by Nov 5

– Final chance for input on minor changes

• Presentation of results Nov 20 in Oslo

• Publication of report in December

Sept

Wk Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

35 1 2

36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

37 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

38 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

39 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Oct


40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

42 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

43 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

44 29 30 31

Nov


44 1 2 3 4

45 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

47 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

48 26 27 28 29 30

© OECD/IEA 2012

Reference group meeting, September 20 2012

Markus Wråke, International Energy Agency

Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives

© OECD/IEA 2012

Nordic priorities

Assist energy technology policy making

Create visibility internationally

Develop the Nordic research community

IEA priorities

Assist energy technology policy making

Model functionality

Learn from ambitious Nordic scenarios

Recalling the objectives

© OECD/IEA 2012

Stand-alone Nordic ETP

Contribute to Energy Technology Perspectives 2012

Strategy for post 2012

Three deliverables

© OECD/IEA 2012

National Nordic International

NETP: international, Nordic & domestic

© OECD/IEA 2012

Enhanced IEA ETP model the core tool.

Flanking analysis made by Nordic institutions to provide domestic detail and more nuances

“Least cost” the guiding principle, but with limitations.

Analytical approach

ETP 2012 – Choice of 3 Futures

© OECD/IEA 2012

6DS where the world is now heading with potentially devastating results

The 6°C Scenario

4DS reflecting pledges by countries to cut emissions and boost energy efficiency

The 4°C Scenario

2DS a vision of a sustainable energy system of reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions

The 2°C Scenario

NETP scenarios

© OECD/IEA 2012

2DS 85%

Three variants:

Base

Big’nBio

FlexFlow

Nordic 4DS

Nordic countries broken out of ETP 2012 4DS

Nordic 2DS

Nordic countries broken out of ETP 2012 4DS

© OECD/IEA 2012

NETP Emission pathways

The 2DS 85% scenario is significantly more ambitious than Nordic share of ETP 2DS

© OECD/IEA 2012

Nordic scenarios in the global context

© OECD/IEA 2012

Nordic scenarios in the global context

NETP scenarios are more ambitious than the global pathways

© OECD/IEA 2012

Total Primary Energy Supply

© OECD/IEA 2012

Contributions by sector, 2DS vs 4DS

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mt C

O2

Agriculture, fishery and other 6%

Commercial 3%

Residential 2%

Transport 47%

Industry 16%

Other transformation sector 3%

Power generation 22%

© OECD/IEA 2012

Nordic countries demonstrate that decoupling is possible

Nordic 2DS is already challenging

The 85% scenario highlights general long term issues

Key challenges:

Power flexibility, wind integration

Biomass availability

Decarbonising industry

International transport

Hedging risk of failing international commitment

Key findings; the big picture

© OECD/IEA 2012

Emissions down by 23% vs 2010.

Continues the positive trends; decarbonised power, some new transport technologies, BAT in new build.

Electricity sector decarbonises further (emissions halved vs 2010).

BAT at time of plant construction or refurbishment

Fuel economy improvements mainly in passenger transport

Characteristics: the 4DS

© OECD/IEA 2012

Energy related CO2 emissions down 68% vs 2010

Deeper decarbonsation

Accelerated efficiency improvements

Higher electrification

Better system integration

New technology penetrate quickly (e g CCS, BEVs)

Characteristics Nordic 2DS

© OECD/IEA 2012

Wind makes up almost 25% of generation in 2050. Better systems integration required

Nordic 2DS: power

© OECD/IEA 2012

Characteristics Nordic 2DS: Transport

2DS only possible with avoid/shift/improve strategy

By 2050 more than half of the vehicles have an electric

By 2050 bio-fuels cover more than 25% of total transport energy use.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

PLD

V s

ale

s sh

are

(No

rdic

2D

S)

H2 Fuel Cell

BEV, Plugin hybrid

Hybrids

CNG/LPG

Gasoline & Diesel

Annual EV sales need to grow at double digits through 2030.

© OECD/IEA 2012

Accelerated efficiency: some refurbishments before technical lifespan.

Heavy deployment of CCS in industry, start 2025

Commercial buildings at 70 kWh/m2 by 2050, residential at 30 kWh/m2 by 2050.

Nordic 2DS – Industry and buildings

© OECD/IEA 2012

Biomass supply becomes critical, especially to reduce emissions in the transport sector.

Optimistic technology assumptions required.

Early retiring and renovation

CCS on all new cement and iron and steel plants

Electrification rates and use of renewables will be maximised (given technology constraints),

Going “neutral” – the 85% scenario

© OECD/IEA 2012

Setting the scene

Nordic in the global context

Nordic system at a glance

Policy priorities

Sector chapters

Activity and recent trends

Core scenario results

Technology spotlights/side case

Critical Challenges

Conclusions and policy options

Structure of report

© OECD/IEA 2012

Integrate feedback from RG

Consolidation and synthesis; do the Nordic priorities and targets add up?

Iron out last wrinkles in the core scenarios

Integrate the technology spotlights/case studies

Investment and cost numbers

Editing and formatting

Next steps

© OECD/IEA 2012

Priorities for synthesis?

Are we balancing the independence vs political reality?

E g hydro, biomass import, nuclear, CCS

Gaps?

E g case studies, model contraints

Structure of the report?

Central questions for RG

© OECD/IEA 2012

Power generation

NEXT PRESENTATION

Energy Indicators

Kari Aamodt Espegren

Institute for energy technology

Reference Group meeting

September 20, 2012

Nordic ETP

The Nordic energy system at a glance

• The Nordic region already has a high share of

renewable energy production

• Oil and gas production is significant

• The common electricity market (Nord pool) is a unique

feature of the Nordic energy system

• Given the Northern climate, heating demand in the

region is substantial

• Energy intensive industry in the region is an important

contributor to the economy

The Nordic region

Primary energy production

Primary energy production in the Nordic region represents more

than a third of the EU-27 primary production, mainly owing

Norway’s role as a major oil and gas producer

2010

Primary energy imports and exports

Renewable primary production

The renewable production in the Nordic countries is dominated by biomass

(heat) and hydropower (electricity)

Final energy demand

The relative share of energy use for industry varies from 15% in

Denmark to 41% in Finland

Gross electricity generation

83 % of the electricity production in the Nordic countries is carbon

neutral, of which 63 % is renewable

Electricity demand, by sector (2010)

Industry accounts for more than 40 % of electricity consumption in

the Nordic countries

Import/export of electricity, 1991-2009

Consumer electricity prices are much higher in Denmark than in

Finland, Norway and Sweden

Comparison of average electricity prices

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2011

Households

Despite economic growth, emissions in the region have remained at

around 200-250 Mt since the 1970’s

Since 1990 Sweden and Denmark have reduced emission by ~10%

Energy related CO2 emission

Development in CO2 emission

NEXT PRESENTATION

The Nordic countries have demonstrated international leadership by taking ambitious long‐term goals for reducing GHG emissions and increasing their share of renewable energy, often going beyond international agreements. Valuable lessons can be drawn from their approach in the areas of regional cooperation, market‐based mechanisms, and emphasis on research, development and deployment. Key messages:• The Nordic region has set ambitious long‐term domestic policy targets. Some details

are shown in a table on the next slide.• Long‐term technology development and deployment strategies have been

supported by relatively stringent policies and regulations. This has helped translate the ambitious plans into accelerated clean energy investment while sustaining economic development.

• Each Nordic country has its own unique approach to energy policy design and implementation, but there are also a number of common features. These common elements include

• A strong focus on research, development and demonstration (RD&D) through domestic programmes and international collaboration;

• Carbon and energy taxation, which is one of the most important policies behind the decreased use of fossil fuels, especially in the energy sectors;

• A market driven approach that is also effectively complemented by targeted energy technology policy.

2

The table summarises emission (greenhouse gases) targets/visions/ambitions in the Nordic countries in different time horizons.

3

To achieve ambitious long‐term targets such as given by the NETP scenarios, policies willbe needed. In an efficient policy design carbon pricing (market pull policy) is the coreinstrument, and it is flanked by both policies to unlock cost‐effective efficiencyimprovement actions and technology policies such as RD&D.

The Nordic countries will need both collaborative and domestic efforts to find the best policy design for each country.

The scenarios show various challenges in a policy context. Four important challenges arepolicies regarding:• Energy efficiency improvement• Biomass supply and technologies• CCS• Electricity transmission and regulation capacity

All these four are explained in more detail in the following slides.

4

Policies to realise energy efficiency improvement potentials are needed. These potentials are locked by e.g. behavioural barriers and need special attention. Measures are often very cost‐effective.

Policies are needed especially in the building and industry sectors, but all sectors are affected.

Examples of policies include:• Information to private energy customers to increase knowledge• Financial incentives for energy efficient buildings. E.g. there is very little (if any)

incentive at present for private house owners to invest in energy efficient building techniques.

• Minimum energy performance standards for industrial equipment

There is also a need to ensure long‐term duration of energy efficiency improvement actions (i.e. to reduce rebound effects). This might need policies.

5

Demand for bioenergy will grow by 69‐121 % in the NETP scenarios from 2010 to 2050 (see example in figure). The demand is highest in the 2DS 85% Big and Bio scenario.

Policies to support development of advanced biofuel development will be important to provide the different sectors with biofuels. Public RD&D and governmental support.

All scenarios show a need for biomass import. It will be important to ensure this demand is met by sustainable biomass. It will also be important to analyse how this demand can be met and what policies may be needed. What will be the supply on the international biomass market?

6

CCS plays a central role in all NETP scenarios, with 31‐40 Mton CO2 captured in 2050 (2DS scenarios). In 4DS, “only” 7 Mton CO2 is captured mainly from Danish power plants. Today few commercial CCS projects exist even on a global scale. For a large Nordic introduction of CCS to be realised, broad policies will be needed covering the whole CCS chain. This challenge requires action now – CCS is introduced already from 2025 in the NETP scenarios!

More specifically, policy attention is needed in the following areas: • Public funding for demonstration projects needs to increase if to be compared with

the level of ambition associated with CCS. • Industrial demonstration projects covering the whole CCS chain are needed. • Incentives are needed to develop CCS projects beyond demonstration. • Identify storage sites• Develop the infrastructure around the technology • Continuous monitoring and responsibilities during the storage• Financial commitments will be necessary, probably requiring support.

7

Variable electricity production increases in the NETP scenarios. To achieve a well‐functioning electricity system regulation will be needed e.g. by:• Increased transmission capacity• Regulating power such as hydropower• Demand‐side management• Electricity storage

This will require policy attention. E.g. the existing electricity transmission grid in the Nordic countries will have to be strengthened and new transmission lines, domestic as well as international, must be built. The NETP scenarios involve new transmission capacity to/from the EU18, between Denmark and Norway as well as between Sweden and Finland. The Flex Fuel scenarios even shows some electricity export potential which points to the importance of new transmission projects.

8

NEXT PRESENTATION

Nordic ETP

Power generation and district heating

Key findings

• Electricity use growing slowly, decreased use of fossil fuels (2DS: all coal with CCS), renewables increase (mainly wind)

• Nordic region net exporter of electricity.

– Slow demand increase, continued use of nuclear, large expansion of renewables.

– High CO2-price increases electricity price. Nordic competitive advantages.

– Interconnectors need to be strengthened.

• CO2 emissions decrease at higher pace than in other sectors (2DS: close to CO2 neutral by 2050)

Key findings, continued

• Increased volumes of intermittent power, e.g. wind, highlight regulating and capacity issues. Hydro power increasingly valuable.

• District heating important in energy system transformation. Maintained high market share and negative CO2 emissions

• Important synergies – power generation, district heating, industrial energy systems and waste management (co-generation, renewable energy, waste heat, waste incineration, …)

Key findings, continued – IEA suggestions

• Nordic technological strengths

• Differences between Nordic countries

• Well-developed power market

• Highly integrated grid

• Stagnating traditional electricity load, but electrification may drive demand

• Nordic countries – policies and ambitions in place to enable a decarbonized power sector

Nordic electricity generation today

• Differences i power generation between Nordic countries

• Increased European integration

• Relatively low Nordic electricity prices

Future Nordic electricity generation and export

• Long-term close to CO2 neutral electricity generation • Large net electricity export

– High CO2 price => high electricity price => Nordic competitive advantage (large potential for CO2 free generation)

4DS 2DS

District heating – history and future

Technology spotlights

• Co-generation – an efficient technology linking several energy markets

• The role of nuclear power in the Nordic countries – other modelling experiences

• Can the electricity system handle an electrified transport system - the Icelandic case

• (Far) offshore wind power

Critical challenges in the power sector

• Transmission system and wind power investments that are essential for the development shown in the scenarios.

• Changes in market rules for the electricity market that are needed in order to handle capacity problems

• Nuclear power decisions (mainly in Sweden, but also in Finland) and the future development of CCS are of great importance as prerequisites for the development according to the presented scenarios.

• Maintain or strengthen the competitiveness of district heating on the heating market in order to continue utilizing important synergies.

Policy options

• Harmonized support system in the Nordic region for renewable electricity generation.

• Development of market rules for the electricity market in order to secure sufficient supply of capacity.

• Goals for energy efficiency efforts based on minimization of primary energy use, thereby utilizing the advantages of district heating.

• Put a significant price on CO2-emissions, e.g. through an emission trading scheme or/and CO2-taxes.

Key questions

• Modelling looks beyond national agendas, e.g. hydro (SE), fossil fuels 2030 (DK). OK, but clarification is needed.

• Policy recommendations are difficult due to differences in energy systems and energy policy making, e.g. renewable electricity – electricity certificates (NO, SE) vs feed-in tariffs (DK, FI).

• Calculations show large Nordic power export. Will users in low price areas accept this, will necessary investments be possible to make?

NEXT PRESENTATION

NETP scenarios - transport

Kenneth Karlsson, János Hethey

NETP Working group

Chapter structure 1. Key findings focus on the Nordic countries 2. Recent trends

a. Current goals and policies b. Theme: EV status and policies across Nordic countries c. Historic trends for transport activity and energy

consumption 3. Scenarios

a. The IEA transport model b. Scenario overview (assumptions) c. Avoid, efficiency improvement, technology shift, modal

shift d. Scenario results:4DS, 2DS, 2DS 85% (and variants)

4. Critical challenges a. gap between current policies and goals b. Modal shift c. Technology shift (BEV + PHEV penetration)

21/09/2012 NETP Reference group, Hilton Copenhagen 2

Existing Policies


DK FI IS NO SE

Goals

-2020 10 % RE 10 % RE CHECK 10 % RE 10 % RE

-2030 - - - -100 % (if climate agreement)

A vehicle stock that is

independent of fossil

fuels

-2050 -100 % GHG

(100 % RE)

Energy and transport:

-80% GHG

Energy and transport:

- 50 – 70% GHG

-100% GHG -100% GHG (net)

Policies

Energy fuel tax YES YES YES YES YES

Carbon fuel tax YES YES YES YES YES

“Green” owner ship

tax (annual)

YES YES CHECK YES YES

“Green” registration

fee

YES YES YES YES NO

(no registration fee)

Other EVs and hydrogen

vehicles exempted from

registration fee.

[xxxx ]

Reykjavík city offers

free parking for

environmentally

friendly vehicles

Electric vehicles (BEV

and FCEV) are

exempted from,

registration taxes, VAT,

road tax, can drive in

the bus lane, have free

parking in public

parking area, may use

toll roads for free.

Subsidies for the

purchase of certain EV

or HEV.

[xxxx ]

Scenario assumptions


Measures/ means

4 DS 2 DS 2 DS 85% 2 DS 85% FF 2 DS 85% BB

Avoid No avoid strategy 10% reduction in individual passenger transport

10% reduction in individual passenger transport

Same as 2DS 85% Same as 2DS 85%

Efficiency gains

40% reduction of average tested new PLDV fleet fuel economy 15% reduction of average tested new CV fleet fuel economy 1% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in air transport 0.4% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in rail transport

55% reduction of average tested new PLDV fleet fuel economy (excluding the effect of electrification) 30% reduction of average tested new CV fleet fuel economy 1.5% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in air transport 1% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in rail transport

60% reduction of average tested new PLDV fleet fuel economy (excluding the effect of electrification) 45% reduction of average tested new CV fleet fuel economy 1.5% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in air transport 1% annual reduction on energy intensity per pkm in rail transport

Same as 2DS 85% Same as 2DS 85% The substitution of FCEVs by hybrids and conventional ICE vehicles somewhat lowers overall fleet efficiency in the road transport sector



Measures/ means

4 DS 2 DS 2 DS 85% 2 DS 85% FF 2 DS 85% BB

Technology shift

15% stock share of EVs (PHEV and BEV), 30% stock share of conventional hybrids on PLDVs Minor penetration of CNG trucks

45% stock share of EVs (PHEV and BEV), 15% stock share of FCEVs, 15% stock share of conventional hybrids on PLDVs 10% sales share of CNG trucks, progressive hybridisation of short and medium haul trucks, 10% sales share of FC trucks Full electrification of rail

55% stock share of EVs (PHEV and BEV), 15% stock share of FCEVs, 15% stock share of conventional hybrids on PLDVs No conventional ICE LCV (<3.5t) sold, 75% sales share of alternative power-train configuration (hybridisation, CNG, FC) of medium and long haul trucks

Like 2DS 85% for PLDVs, the share of BEVs on stock is 50% (reducing the share of conventional hybrid vehicles) Same as 2DS 85% for all other transport modes

Like 2DS 85% for PLDVs, FCEVs are substituted by PHEVs Like 2DS 85% for road freight, FC trucks are substituted by hybrids and conventional ICE trucks Same as 2DS 85% for all other transport modes



Measures/ means

4 DS 2 DS 2 DS 85% 2 DS 85% FF 2 DS 85% BB

Modal shift No shift strategy 20% reduction in individual pass.km, shifted equally to bus and rail 50% of road freight transport growth is shifted to rail

20% reduction in individual pass.km, shifted equally to bus and rail 50% of long haul absolute freight is shifted to rail

Same as 2DS 85% Same as 2DS 85%

Fuel switch 10% share of biofuels in petroleum blends

35% share of biofuels in petroleum blends

75% share of biofuels in petroleum blends

Same as 2DS 85% 100% share of biofuels in petroleum blends

Historic transport demand (ETP2012)


•Vehicle travel began to flatten or even decline after 2000, suggesting “peak” travel may be occurring in the OECD.

PLDV ownership


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ve

hic

les

pe

r ca

pit

a

GDP per capita

PLDV ownershipIceland

Finland

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Iceland Gompertz

Finland Gompertz

Denmark Gompertz

Norway Gompertz

Sweden Gompertz

Veh

icle

s p

er 1

00

0 c

ap

ita

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

bil.

pkm

Air

Rail

Bus

Individual

2DS 85% total

2DS 85% Individual

Growth in passenger transport activity


4DS: 0.7% per year

4DS: 1% per year

2DS 85%: 0.9% per year

2DS 85: 0.2% per year

Growth in freight transport activity


0

50

100

150

200

250

bil.

tkm

Rail

Road

2DS 85% total

2DS 85% road

4DS: 0.7% per year

Modal shift as of 2015

Fuel use 4DS and 2DS


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

4DS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel

Conventional Gasoline0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

2DS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel

Conventional Gasoline

Fuel use 2DS and 2DS 85% BBS


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

2DS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel


0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

BBS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel


Fuel use 2DS and 2DS 85% FFS


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

2DS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel


0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

20

00

20

05

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

20

50

Fue

l use

(EJ

)

FFS

Hydrogen Total

Biofuels Total

Electricity - Total

CNG/LPG

CTL

GTL

Residual Fuel

Jet Fuel

Conventional Diesel


CO2 reduction compared to 4DS


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

MtC

O2

2 DSBuses

Rail

Shipping

Air

Road freight

PLDVs

remaining emissions 2DS reduction scenario

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

MtC

O2

FFSBuses

Rail

Shipping

Air

Road freight

PLDVs

remaining emissions FFS reduction scenario

CO2 reduction compared to 4DS


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

MtC

O2

2 DSBuses

Rail

Shipping

Air

Road freight

PLDVs

remaining emissions 2DS reduction scenario

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

MtC

O2

BBSBuses

Rail

Shipping

Air

Road freight

PLDVs

remaining emissions BBS reduction scenario

Key Findings Generic

• The transport sector remains dependent on high energy density liquid fuels as certain transport modes including long-haul road freight, air and shipping require technology breakthroughs for large-scale decarbonisation (e.g. hydrogen aircrafts). In addition, stock turnover is slow.

• To reach 85% reduction target in 2050, an Avoid/Shift/Improve philosophy is needed.

• Improving the fuel economy of current internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by using cost-effective technologies offers great potential.

• CNG/LNG and biogas can play an important role for long distance transport.

• Biofuels will play an important role in transition to a low carbon transport sector, but the potential competition with food production has to be taken seriously.

• Deployment of electric cars has to take off now.

• Advanced technologies, such as fuel-cell vehicles might play a role in the longer-term (beyond 2040 )


Key Findings/Challenges Nordic

• Current policies seem not to fully support 2DS 85% development.

Major barriers: infrastructure investments, stock turnover, physical planning?

• Ambitious targets:

• Norway: CO2-neutral by 2050

• Sweden: Transport CO2 free 2030

• Denmark: Free of fossil fuels by 2050

• Country specific strengths:

• Sweden: High share of rail freight- > Special policies? Biogas for transport use.

• Norway: Relative high share of EVs. Policies for EVs e.g. in Oslo.

• Denmark: EV technologies (BetterPlace has a special infrastructure concept). 2. gen. bio-fuels (Inbicon, Kalundborg). Physical planning for bike transport in Denmark (super biking roads)]

• Finland [XXX]

• Iceland [XX]

• Role of rail for freight transport?


•New versions chapt. 6. Oct.

•Address comments and collect inputs

•8-9 Oct. send to editor

•Final draft 15. Oct

•Possibilities to succeed in the policies

•Be cautious on conclusions

•Hedging in transport scenarios: compare 4DS and FF, BB for the years 2020, 2030.


NEXT PRESENTATION

NETP 2013 Industry chapter

NETP Reference group meeting

September 20, 2012, Copenhagen

Tiina Koljonen

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

2 21/09/2012

Recent trends of Nordic Industry

The share of fossil fuels is less than 30% of industrial energy use

(globally fossil fuels account for 70% of industrial energy use)

3 21/09/2012

The economies of the Nordic countries are largely founded on

energy intensive industries, which results to high energy

intensities compared to the OECD average

4 21/09/2012

Moderate increase of production volumes of industrial products

has been used as a starting point in the scenario assessments In the future, Nordic industries may undergo major structural changes resulting

in high uncertainty of the assumed production volumes

5 21/09/2012

The share of fossil fuels use by the Nordic industry sector

decreases in all the scenarios In contrast, the energy consumption increases by 20% in 4DS while in 2DS and

carbon neutral scenario it decreases more than 15% compared to the 2010 level.

6 21/09/2012

50-70% reduction in industrial CO2 emissions could be achieved

by 2050 compared to the present level

7 21/09/2012

Significant reduction in CO2 emissions in industry by 2050

compared to the 2010 emissions are possible only if all the

industrial sectors contribute to the emissions reduction

In the 4DS scenario, the CO2 emissions are reduced approximately

by 10 MtCO2 by 2050. In the 2DS and the carbon neutral scenario,

the reductions achieved are 23 MtCO2 and 31 MtCO2 respectively

(52% and 71% lower than they were in 2010)

Between 20% and 30% of the reductions will be achieved through

the deployment of CCS in the iron and steel, pulp and paper,

chemicals and cement sectors (includes bio-CCS in pulp and

paper indsutries)

8 21/09/2012

Case study: Accelerated RD&D in the Nordic pulp and paper

industries to produce new high value products and biofuels

Tree scenarios Base (like 4DS), Tonni (like 2DS) and Inno (like

Carbon neutral with accelrated DR&D) with TIMES VTT model

Inno: structural changes in pulp & paper industries in Finland

and Sweden to produce:

new high value products => also production volumes

are reduced by 50% compared to tonni

2nd generation biodiesel integrated to p&p mills

Impacts on industrial final energy consumption

Impacts on industiral CHP

Impacts on biofuel cunsumption in the Nordic transport sector

9 21/09/2012

How much biofuel import do we accept?

Full market assumptions vs. EU’s possible policies on bioethanol B

ase

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Base

To

nn

i

Inno

0

50

100

150

200

250

205020402030202020102005

Bio

fue

l p

rod

uc

tio

n, P

J

Other

Biomethanol

Bioethanol

Biojet kerosene

Biodiesel

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

Ba

se

To

nn

i

Inno

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

205020402030202020102005

Tra

ns

po

rt f

ina

l b

iofu

el

en

erg

y,

PJ

Other

Biomethanol

Bioethanol

Biojet kerosene

Biodiesel

50% of biofuel use

in transportation is

imported

1-10% of primary

energy is imported

biomass & biofuel

10 21/09/2012

Side case 2: The role of CCS in industry?

In NETP: 20-30% of industrial CO2 is captured by 2050

Need for industrial CCS-side-case

High CCS potential, especially in the pulp & paper industries

(i.e. bio-CCS)

Low CCS potential through the industrial sector (no bio-CCS,

CCS only in the greenfield plants, high storage costs)

11 21/09/2012

VTT - 70 years of

technology for business

and society

NEXT PRESENTATION

NETP – Buildings Reference Group meeting Copenhagen 20/09/2012

Brynhildur Davidsdottir Jonas Hallgrimsson

University of Iceland – Institute of Economic Studies

Recent trends – share of residential building stock by age

Recent trends cont.

• The building stock is older in Sweden and Denmark compared to Norway and Finland

• 79% of Danish buildings built before 1979 when tighter building codes were put in place

• Refurbishments expected in Denmark and Sweden rather than new buildings

• Slow rate of turnover in the buildings sector

• Nordic countries are relatively prosperous and energy use per household is also relatively high

Energy use in the residential sector, 2010

• The energy use differs between the Nordic countries

• All the countries except Iceland use biomass and waste

• The share of oil use is relatively low

Energy use per household and CO2 emissions per capita

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

0

20

40

60

80

100

OECDAmericas

OECD Asia Oceania

OECDEurope

China India Other developing

Asia

LatinAmerica

Africa andMiddle

East

Other non-OECD

Nordic

tCO

2/c

apit

a

Energy use per household

CO2 emissions per capita

CO2 emissions per capita in the residential sector, 1970-2009

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

31

97

1

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

20

07

20

09

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

pe

r ca

pit

a

World OECD Americas

OECD Asia Oceania OECD Europe

Nordic

CO2 emissions per capita cont.

• The CO2 emissions per capita in the Nordic countries have fallen drastically

• The CO2 emissions have fallen much faster in the Nordic countries compared to other comparable groups of countries

• In 2009, the emissions per capita in the Nordic countries were slightly lower than the emissions per capita in the World

Scenario results – energy use and intensity

Scenario results – CO2 emissions and reductions

Additional investments needed to realize the 2DS in the buildings sector

Key findings

• The building stock is quite different in terms of age between the Nordic countries.

• Emphasis must be placed on refurbishment policies rather than policies for new buildings.

• The Nordic countries have progressively reduced the role of fossil fuels in the buildings sector and increased the energy efficiency in buildings.

• CO2 emissions per capita in the residential sector have fallen drastically.

• Additional investments needed to realize the 2DS around 11 trillion USD.

• Electricity, commercial heat and biomass and waste will continue to dominate in all scenarios.

• No great difference in terms of energy sources used between BigNBio and FlexFlow.

Critical challenges

• Slow rate of turnover of the building stock

• Difficulty in improving the efficiency in older buildings

• Financial incentives problems as well as social difficulties – For example, the Swedish Million Programme.

Energy efficiency improvements are not able to reduce the operating cost and, therefore, rents must be raised. Residents might not be able to pay higher rent.

nordic energy technology perspectives 2013 · ccs plays a central role in all netp scenarios, with...

Documents