Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
100% renewable energy wikipedia , lookup
Open energy system models wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
RES Integration for Increasing of Energy Supply Security in Latvia: ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMICAL FACTORS Ivars Kudrenickis, Gaidis Klavs, Janis Rekis Institute of Physical Energetics, Latvia NEEDS FORUM 2 “Energy and Supply Security – Present and Future Issues” Krakow 5-6 July 2007 6th RTD Framework Programme Integrated Project Plan of presentation Part I: Energy supply development trends and National Energy Strategy Part II: Integrated analysis of RES utilization, energy supply security and climate change mitigation factors in the national energy system development Part III: RES in Latvia power production and DH sector: assessment of employment effects and regional benefits Part I: Energy supply development trends and National Energy Strategy Trends in primary energy supply 350 PJ 1 Electricity 300 Fuel wood 0,75 250 Natural gas 200 0,5 150 100 35% 34% 34% Peat 33% 14% Oil products and shale oil 36% 36% 0,25 50 Coal etc. Selfsufficiency 0 0 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Primary energy flows in 2005 Import of natural gas from Russia 28,8% Import of oil products from rest of world 12,3% Import of electricity from Estonia and Lithuania 3,2% Import of electricity from Russia 0,7% SHARE OF DOMESTIC ENERGY RESOURCES IN TPER 36,5% Import of oil products from CIS 16,8% Import of coal from CIS 1,7% National Energy Strategy 2007-2016 The principal measures identified to increase energy supply security Increase in supply security and sustainability of national energy system has to be basic criteria for economic analysis and decision-making related to its development. Diversification of fuels or fuel supply sources, relates both imported and local ones. Latvia active participation in the common EU policy - power interconnection with European power systems (Nordel, UCTE), expansion of Incukalns underground gas storage; regional cooperation with Baltic sea region states, particularly, Lithuania and Estonia. Effective use of resources in all stages: extraction, conversion, transportation and end-use. National Energy Strategy 2007-2016 The quantitative targets: 1. Self-supply of total primary energy at the level of 37% (year 2025) 2. RES-E share of 49.3% in the electricity supply (year 2010) 3. Biofuels share of 10% (year 2016) and 15% (year 2020) in the transport sector Local resources: future challenges despite significant improvement of energy intensity indicator, further growth of total primary energy supply is expected to meet the indicated target of self-supply, the challenging growth in use of local resources, especially RES, have to be reached: per 25% in year 2020 and 40% in year 2025, compared with existing one 140 120 Energy intensity 100 80 TPES 60 Local resources 40 20 0 2005 2020 Energy, economy and environment indicator interaction Environmental indicators 2004 Source: Key world energy statistics 2005. IEA - CO2 emissions from fuel combustion only RES-E share in power production GWh % 60 8000 RES-e 45,5 6000 45,8 47,7 47 46 44,5 47,1 48,4 43,2 45,4 43,5 39,3 41,2 35,4 4000 50 40 Fossil fuel and import 30 20 RES-e share corrected 2000 10 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 RES-e share RES-E structure in year 2005 1% 2% 3% 95 % 2% Large HPP Small HPP Wind Biogas Part II: Integrated analysis of RES utilization, energy supply security and climate change mitigation factors Research Tasks integrated analysis of national energy system development taking into account both: RES wider utilization, energy supply security, climate change mitigation factors. finding optimal structure of primary sources balance for power production optimisation model MARKAL applied Description of modelled scenarios REF Target for GHG emissions’ restriction in energy sector No Target for minimal RES-E share in the total electricity supply No REF-CAP REF-CCAP In year 1990 energy sector Cumulative contributed 72.2% (18690 kT) restriction of national GHG emissions. of Annual restriction of GHG GHG emissions: emissions for the period year 2010: 92% - 17195 kT up to year starting from year 2015: 2050: 75% - 14018 kT 725764 kT No No REFRESE No 49.3% starting from year 2010 Modelling results: primary sources for power production TWh 12 Wind 10 Biomass 8 Import 6 Coal + biomass 4 Hydro 2 Gas 0 REF (2015) REF+CAP (2015) REF+CCAP REF+RESE (2015) (2015) REF (2025) REF+CAP (2025) REF+CCAP REF+RESE (2025) (2025) Modelling results: total GHG emissions in energy sector kTon 20000 18000 REF 16000 REF+CAP 14000 REF+CCAP 12000 REF+RESE 10000 Kyoto 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Modelling results: division of GHG emissions among end-users of energy sector kTon 18000 16000 Agriculture 14000 Households 12000 Service 10000 8000 Industry 6000 4000 Energy generation 2000 Transport 0 REF (2015) REF+CAP (2015) REF+CCAP REF+RESE (2015) (2015) REF (2025) REF+CAP (2025) REF+CCAP REF+RESE (2025) (2025) Modelling results: RES-E share in the power production % 60 50 REF 40 REF-CAP 30 REF-CCAP REF-RESE 20 10 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Principal conclusions 1. Hydro and natural gas are the main primary resources for power production in all scenarios 2. In reference scenario (REF) coal use, together with 15% solid biomass co-firing, will be new important source for power production thus increasing supply security. However the reference scenario without defining particular environmental targets in conditions of increased power demand will not allow to fulfil the objectives of EU climate policy 3. RES-E target alone can not be enough effective instrument to mitigate climate change: RESE scenario target will allow in year 2030 to fulfil GHG emissions according Kyoto protocol only, but not be enough to fulfil strong obligations for post-Kyoto period. 4. To fulfil post-Kyoto obligation, RES-E target should be applied together with other climate change mitigation instruments, taking GHG emissions restriction obligation as a departure point (scenarios CAP & CCAP). GHG emissions mitigation costs and RES-E additional costs GHG mitigation marginal costs, year 2030, EUR (2000) / t GHG mitigation costs, average for the period 2005-2025, EUR (2000) / t REF+ CAP REF+ CCAP 63 42 41 15 REF+ RESE RES-E additional costs, average for the period 2005-2025, EUR (2000) / MWh the highest costs are indicated at the beginning of the period; the factor of fossil fuels prices and forecasted trends of RES-E technologies’ specific investments strongly influence the calculated additional costs. 45 4,0 Part III: RES in Latvia power production and DH sector: Assessment of employment effects and regional benefits Research Tasks To estimate economical benefits of RES integration into national power production system in accordance of the target to reach RES share 49.3% To assess economical impact of potential wide use of non-traditional RES – straw – for district heating New capacities assessed Biomass (Wood) CHP - 70 MWel Wind: onland (135 MW) and off-shore (77 MW) Biogas – 8 MWel Straw DH - 46 MWth Possible approaches Use of standard factors – the installation and operation of a given energy production capacity are associated with the specific number of jobs Production chain analysis –identifying of the wages share in the value chain of a given energy production installation Job places per 100 GWh annually produced electricity Fossil technologies Wind 1-6 15-20 Solar PV Solar thermal Small hydro Biomass, forestry waste 50-54 25-27 8-9 18-19 Biomass, energy plantations Biogas, agriculture waste Source: R.E.H.Sims, “Biomass and Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies”, OECD Publication, Paris, September 2004, pp.91-103 64 58 Pre-feasibility study of employment, based on production chain analysis model Facility cost Estimation of the wages part of the value chain Technology value chain OM cost All costs RE energy Income of = Fuel cost at the supplier the facility Wages Equipment Enduser O&M value chain Localization of the employment Employment 80% 30% Fuel cost Total and per unit Local regional Nacional Transnational Fuel value chain 20% 70% Source: Tyge Kjær,Roskilde University Production Chain Assessment Methodology Example: Biomass CHP, steam turbine, 0.6-4.3 MW Efficiency Electricity 25% Heat 65% Annual operating hours 5600 Specific investments, mill.LVL/MW Operation & Maintenance costs (% of investments per year) Biomass fuel cost, LVL/GJ 3.29 4 1.75 Wages share of total investments (comprising Latvian local share) 8% (20%) Wages share of O&M costs (comprising Latvian local share) 50% (80%) Wages share of fuel costs (comprising Latvian local share) 80% (100%) Production Chain Assessment Methodology Example of onland Wind Annually produced power, GWh 298 Installed capacity, MW 135 New direct job places Job places related to investments 151 Investments’ jobs calculated per 1 year of technology life-time 7.5 Job places related to O&M 68 Total new full-time job places 76 Tax revenues (direct jobs) Tax revenues in state budget, LVL 285 000 Tax revenues in municipal budgets, LVL 125 400 note: 1 EUR ~ 0,7 LVL Production Chain Assessment Methodology Example of Biomass CHP Power production capacity, MW Steam turbine Gasifiers 35 35 New direct job places Job places related to investments (assessed as new – 100%) 158 (158) 115 (115) 8 11 Job places related to O&M (assessed as new – 75%) 154 (116) 246 (185) Job places related providing wood fuel (assessed as new – 50%) 317 (158) 264 (132) 282 328 Investments’ jobs calculated per 1 year of technology life-time Total new full-time job places Tax revenues (direct jobs) Tax revenues in state budget, LVL Tax revenues in municipal budgets, LVL 1 057 475 1 229 971 465 300 541 200 Production Chain Assessment results: Employment effect and related tax revenues New capacities (MW) New direct jobs New indirect jobs Tax revenues in state budget (LVL) Straw DH 46 51 76 478 114 210 375 Biogas-E 8 50 75 468 739 206 250 135 onland + 77 off-shore 173 259 1 621 837 713 625 70 610 915 5 718 616 2 516 250 Wind-E Biomass (Wood) CHP Tax revenues in municipal budgets (LVL) Thank You ! Institute of Physical Energetics Aizkraukles 21, Rīga, LV-1006 Latvia [email protected]