20% RES by 2020
– a balanced scenario
to meet Europe’s
renewable energy target
Authors: Gustav Resch, Thomas Faber, Mario Ragwitz,
Anne Held, Christian Panzer, Reinhard Haas
Vienna University of Technology, Energy Economics Group, Austria
in cooperation with Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research,
Karlsruhe, Germany
February 2008
Within the scope of the project
futures-e
Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE), ALTENER
Contract no. EIE/06/143/SI2.444285
The
futures-e
project
Year of implementation:
December 2006 – November 2008
Client:
European Commission, DG TREN;
Intelligent Energy for Europe - Programme,
Contract No. EIE/06/143/SI2.444285
Partners:
EEG - Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power
Systems and Energy Economics, Energy Economics
Group, Austria
(Project co-ordinator)
Fh ISI - Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research, Germany
Ecofys BV, The Netherlands
Risoe – Risoe National Laboratory, Denmark
LEI – Lithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuania
Ambiente Italia srl Istituto di Ricerche (AMBIT), Italy
Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg Austria GmbH (EGL),
Austria
Centralne Laboratorium Naftowe (EC BREC/CLN),
Poland
ApE – Agencija za prestrukturiranje energetike d.o.o.,
Slovenia
Web:
http://www.futures-e.org
Imprint:
Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics,
Energy Economics Group (EEG)
Printed in Austria – 2008
Deriving a future European Policy
for Renewable Electricity
The core objective of this project is to better involve Member State stakeholders in
the debate on policy optimisation & coordination for renewable electricity (RES-E)
and the process of post 2010 target discussion. This will pave the way for a successful and in the long-term stable deployment of RES-E in Europe.
The work is based on outcomes of previous activities (OPTRES, Green-X) and includes to discuss consequences of possible policy decisions on the future of RES-E
support schemes from a national viewpoint and to elaborate on best practices of
the main instruments.
The expected major achievements and results of the project comprise
► Facilitate establishing a common European vision on the long-term future of renewable energy as proposed in a top down manner by setting bottom-up activities at national level.
► Assess national costs and benefits of RES-E and to derive a methodology to
share them under a future coordinated European policy.
► Establish a lively information exchange among the major market actors on experiences gained at national level.
► Discuss consequences of possible policy decisions with respect to the future of
support schemes for RES-E from a national viewpoint.
► Elaborate on best practices of the main policy instruments, i.e. feed-in tariffs,
premium systems, quota obligations based on tradable green certificates – suitable for policy coordination between Member States or even coordination at
European level.
Contact details:
<< Lead author of this report >>
Gustav Resch
Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power Systems and
Energy Economics, Energy Economics Group (EEG)
Address: Gusshausstrasse 25 / 373-2, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
Phone: +43(0)1/58801-37354
Fax: +43(0)1/58801-37397
Email: resch@eeg.tuwien.ac.at
This report presents a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy commitment. It provides an assessment on the effects of a 20% RES target in terms of final energy demand in the
year 2020 within the European Union (EU27). Embedded in the realworld policy context it aims to demonstrate the practicability and
consequences of facing the energy challenge. The application of
effective & efficient RES support instruments all over Europe, which
set necessary incentives on technology level, aims to identify a
feasible sectoral allocation of the overall target and provides the
depiction of a corresponding technology-portfolio.
Please note that a comprehensive scenario elaboration discussing various policy
options for renewable electricity to meet Europe’s 2020 RES commitment will
follow within the futures-e project later on this year.
Authors of this report:
Gustav Resch, Thomas Faber, Christian Panzer, Reinhard Haas – EEG
Mario Ragwitz, Anne Held – Fraunhofer-ISI
Acknowledgement:
The authors and the whole project consortium gratefully acknowledge the financial and intellectual support of this work provided by the Intelligent Energy for Europe – Programme. In particular, special thanks go to the project officers Ulrike Nuscheler, Beatriz Yordi and Tom Howes.
with the support of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport,
Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation
Intelligent Energy for Europe
Legal Notice:
Neither the European Commission, nor the Intelligent Energy Executive Agency, nor any person
acting on behalf of the Commission or Agency is responsible for the use which might be made of
the information contained in this publication. The views expressed in this publication have not
been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission or the Agency and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission’s views.
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
i
Table of Contents
Page
1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1
2
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS .................................................3
3
4
5
6
2.1
Green-X model.............................................................................................. 3
2.2
Modelling approach ........................................................................................ 4
SCENARIO PARAMETERS ..........................................................5
3.1
Scenario description: The 20% RES-by-2020 balanced case................................. 5
3.2
Overview on key parameters ........................................................................... 5
3.3
Energy demand ............................................................................................. 6
3.4
Conventional supply portfolio .......................................................................... 6
3.5
Fossil fuel and reference energy prices ............................................................. 8
3.6
CO2 prices .................................................................................................... 9
3.7
RES potential ................................................................................................ 9
3.8
RES cost .....................................................................................................13
RESULTING DEPLOYMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ..... 16
4.1
Sector- & technology-specific deployment ........................................................18
4.2
Exploitation of biomass..................................................................................23
4.3
Country-specific deployment ..........................................................................24
RESULTS ON RELATED POLICY ISSUES .................................... 27
5.2
Impact on security of supply ..........................................................................28
5.3
Financial impact ...........................................................................................29
CONCLUDING REMARKS......................................................... 31
ANNEX A: COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESULTS ON RES DEPLOYMENT AND
POTENTIAL EXPLOITATION........................................................... 34
ANNEX B: SHORT CHARACTERISATION OF THE GREEN-X MODEL ...... 41
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
ii
futures-e
List of figures
Page
Figure 1
Overview of the computer model Green-X (electricity sector) .........................3
Figure 2 Country-specific average conversion efficiencies of conventional (fossil-based)
electricity and grid-connected heat production in the EU25. (source: PRIMES
scenarios) ........................................................................................................7
Figure 3 Country-specific average sectoral CO2 intensities of the conventional (fossilbased) energy system in the EU25. (source: PRIMES scenarios)..............................8
Figure 4 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from RES
in the EU-15 – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right) ............................. 10
Figure 5 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from RES
in NMS countries – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right) ....................... 11
Figure 6 Biomass potentials in terms of primary energy in the European Union (EU-27)
for the years 2010, 2020 .................................................................................. 13
Figure 7 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-E
options in EU countries..................................................................................... 14
Figure 8 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-H
options in EU countries..................................................................................... 14
Figure 9 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-T
options in EU countries..................................................................................... 14
Figure 10 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of primary energy
(based on Eurostat convention) within the European Union (EU-27)....................... 16
Figure 11 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of final energy
within the European Union (EU-27).................................................................... 17
Figure 12 Deployment of RES-E, RES-H, RES-T and RES in total as shares of
corresponding gross demands up to 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)......... 18
Figure 13
Deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in terms of energy output
until 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)..................................................... 18
Figure 14
RES-E generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ...................... 19
Figure 15
RES-H generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ...................... 20
Figure 16
RES-T production and import up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ...... 20
Figure 17 Technology-breakdown for new RES installations in the period 2006 to 2020
within the European Union (EU-27) – in absolute and relative terms (below) as well as
corresponding growth rates (above) .................................................................. 22
Figure 18 Sectoral breakdown of the biomass exploitation in terms of primary energy for
the period 2006 to 2020................................................................................... 23
Figure 19 Country-specific deployment of RES (in total) by 2020 expressed as share on
final energy demand ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 20 Country-specific deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) by 2020
expressed as share on final energy demand........................................................ 25
Figure 21 Comparison of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment, the proposed RES
targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level – expressed
as share on final energy demand ....................................................................... 25
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Figure 22
iii
Avoided CO2-emissions from new RES deployment (2006-2020) .................. 27
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
iv
futures-e
List of tables
Page
Table 1
Main input sources for scenario parameters ..................................................5
Table 2
Energy consumption parameters (in TWh) ....................................................6
Table 3
Primary energy price assumptions in US$2005/boe (source: PRIMES scenario) .8
Table 4
Reference prices for electricity, heat and transport fuels.................................9
Table 5
Breakdown of fuel cost and corresponding primary potentials by fuel category
for the European Union (EU-27) ........................................................................ 12
Table 6
Share of renewable energies in electricity, heat and transport fuel demand..... 17
Table 7
RES penetration in the period 2006 to 2020 at technology level in the European
Union (EU-27)................................................................................................. 21
Table 8
Share of RES production in demand (primary (based on Eurostat convention),
electricity, heat, transport fuels and final energy) for EU-27 countries.................... 26
Table 9
Avoided CO2 emissions due to RES plant installed 2006-2020 (sub-sector
specific) ......................................................................................................... 28
Table 10 Avoided fossil fuels due to new RES plant installed 2006-2020 (in energy units
and monetary terms) ....................................................................................... 28
Table 11 Investment needs for new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in the European Union
(EU-27).......................................................................................................... 29
Table 12
Additional generation costs in absolute terms (2006 to 2020) ....................... 30
Table 13
Additional generation costs per unit of RES generation (2006 to 2020) .......... 30
Annex A
Table A. 1 Breakdown of the 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for
EU-15 countries .............................................................................................. 35
Table A. 2 Breakdown of the 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for
New Member States and total EU-27.................................................................. 36
Table A. 3 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and
by technology – for EU-15 countries .................................................................. 37
Table A. 4 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and
by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27..................................... 38
Table A. 5 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for
RES by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries..................................... 39
Table A. 6 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for
RES by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27 ........ 40
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
1
1
Introduction
The year 2007 was a year of important policy decisions for the future of renewable energies in Europe. Of highlight in this respect - the agreement of the Council of the European
Union on a binding 2020 target of 20% of renewable energy sources (RES) as set on 9
March 2007. With this decision the European Commission’s view was confirmed as expressed in the Renewable Energy Road Map (COM (2006) 848 final)1 as published some
weeks ahead on 10 January 2007, insisting on the importance to assure the long term perspective for renewable energies with a view to forming a more sustainable future. In this
context, also an agreement on a minimum target of 10% for 2020 regarding the share of
biofuels in diesel and gasoline demand was taken. Following this endorsement, the overall
20% target for RES had to be broken down into national RES targets, which emphasised
the need for further sound, quantitative analyses.
This study presents a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy
commitment. It provides an assessment on the effects of a 20% RES target in
terms of final energy demand in the year 2020 within the European Union
(EU27). Embedded in the real-world policy context it aims to demonstrate the
practicability and consequences of facing the energy challenge. The application
of effective & efficient RES support instruments all over Europe, which set necessary incentives on technology level, aims to identify a feasible sectoral allocation of the overall target and provides the depiction of a corresponding technology-portfolio.
The objective of this analysis is to facilitate informed decision making on how to meet future RES targets. This is done by developing a cost-effective RES portfolio suitable for
practical policy implementation by analysing (cost) implications of key policy choices. This
assessment represents an update of previous modelling activities. In line with recent policy
decisions, an update of the Green-X ‘balanced scenario’ as presented in the European
Commission‘s Renewable Energy Roadmap (COM (2006) 848 final) was undertaken
throughout 2007. In more detail this comprised:
•
an extension of the geographical scope (i.e. EU-27 instead of EU-25);
•
the incorporation of the agreed minimum target of 10% for biofuels; and
•
the consideration of the modified definition of the overall RES target (i.e. 20% in
terms final instead of primary energy demand).
1 The Renewable Energy Road Map (COM (2006) 848 final) was published on the 10th of January 2007
as part of the integrated energy and climate change package “Energy for a changing world”. This
proposed comprehensive package of measures aimed to establish a new Energy Policy for Europe
to combat climate change and boost the EU's energy security and competitiveness. The package of
proposals set a series of ambitious targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy
and aimed to create a true internal market for energy and strengthen effective regulation.
2
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
Besides this, updates of the input data with regard to the achieved RES deployment (i.e.
2005 instead of 2004) and energy demand developments (i.e. PRIMES energy efficiency
scenario of 2007 instead of 2006) were undertaken, accompanied by intensive feasibility
cross-checks at the European and national level – in order to provide a most recent and reliable depiction of the required future RES deployment.
Results are reliable as well as fully comparable to other work conducted in this topical area
– i.e. DG Environment’s study “Economic analysis of reaching a 20% share of renewable
energy
sources
in
2020
(RES
2020
–
Least
cost)”
(EC,
DG
Environment,
ENV.C.2/SER/2005/0080r) as well as recent PRIMES modelling as illustrated in “Scenarios
on energy efficiency and renewables” (EC, DG TREN, 2006), conducted by NTUA.
In order to optimally support policy making, it was explicitly decided to not develop a complete new scenario approach, but to base modelling on the well known Green-X model and
to use widely accepted data from PRIMES and FORRES 20202 as applied in the “RES 2020
– Least cost” study as major input.
The research, involving all sectors of renewable energies (i.e. electricity, heat and transport) within the European Union, concentrates on the following:
•
Identification of the technology-portfolio of a 20% RES target for the sectors electricity, heat and transport - meeting criteria such as cost-effectiveness and future
perspectives
•
Determining the additional generation costs of 20% renewable energy
•
Determining the avoided (costs of) fossil fuel use and benefits in terms of security
of supply
•
Calculating the avoided CO2 emissions
•
Identifying the country-specific RES deployment
Please note that a comprehensive scenario elaboration discussing various policy options for
renewable electricity to meet Europe’s 2020 commitment will follow within the futures-e
project later on this year.
2 Analysis of the Renewable Energy Sources’ evolution up to 2020, project conducted by Fraunhofer
Isi, EEG, Ecofys, REC and KEMA, Tender No. TREN/D2/10-2002.
3
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
2
Methodology for analysis
2.1 Green-X model
3
The quantitative analysis is centred around the well known Green-X model . The model allows a comparative, quantitative analysis of interactions between RES, conventional energy
and combined heat and power (CHP) generation, demand-side management (DSM) activities and CO2-reduction, both within the EU as a whole, as well as for individual Member
States. The model forecasts the deployment of RES under various scenarios regarding supporting policy instruments, the availability of resources and generation technologies as well
as energy, technology and resource price developments.
The Green-X model matches demand and supply of energy sources. Demand is based on
the EU energy outlook. Supply is described by means of a cost-resource curve build up in
two parts:
•
A static cost resource curve that describes the relationship between technical
available potentials and the corresponding costs of utilisation of this potential
•
A dynamic cost resource curve, which is based on the static cost resource curve
including dynamic parameters as technological change (using the concept of experience curves or expert judgment) and the dynamic barriers for the implementation, determining the yearly available RES potential. The dynamic curve is endogenous to the model and determined annually.
Base input
information
Country
selection
Technology
selection
Power
generation
(Access Database)
Electricity
demand reduction
(Access Database)
Economic
market and policy
assessment
potential, costs,
offer prices
Simulation of
market interactions
RES-E, CHP, DSM
power market, EUAs
Scenario
Information
Policy
strategies
selection
Social behaviour
Investor/consumer
Externalities
Framework
Conditions
(Access Database)
Results Costs and Benefits on a yearly basis (2005-2020 )
Figure 1
Overview of the computer model Green-X (electricity sector)
3 The Green-X model is originally developed under Microsoft Windows by EEG in the EC-funded project Green-X (5th FWP – DG Research, Contract No: ENG2-CT-2002-00607). For more details see
Annex B of this report or visit http://www.green-x.at.
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
4
futures-e
Figure 1 provides an overview of the Green-X model. For a detailed description of the
Green-X model see Annex B of this report or visit www.green-x.at .
2.2 Modelling approach
The key approach in the modelling calculations which are conducted by the application of
the Green-X model is that all Member States apply immediately (i.e. from 2008 on) efficient & effective support policies for RES, setting incentives on technology level, accompanied by strong energy efficiency measures to reduce the overall growth of energy demand
as projected by NTUA (i.e. the PRIMES efficiency case as of 2007).
Results with regard to the overall cost for meeting 20% RES by 2020 are presented in
terms of additional generation costs, that is, the total costs of generation per energy output minus the reference cost of energy production per unit of energy output. To avoid underestimation of the resulting cost with regard to an enhanced RES-deployment, negative
additional costs appearing on technology level by country are not counted – i.e. set to
zero.4
This approach differs to the study “Economic analysis of reaching a 20% share of renewable energy sources in 2020” (EC, DG Environment, ENV.C.2/SER/2005/0080r), where
a purified least-cost portfolio of renewable energies has been identified for meeting 20%
RES by 2020. In contrast to that, this analysis explicitly builds on the currently implemented policy framework. Embedded in the real-world policy context it aims to demonstrate the practicability and consequences of facing the challenge of 20% RES by 2020.
The application of effective & efficient support instruments for RES, which set necessary incentives on technology level, aims to identify an optimal sectoral allocation of the overall
target and provides the depiction of a corresponding technology-portfolio.
This analysis explicitly builds on the outcomes of the FORRES 2020 study as well as on
PRIMES modelling. Note that a detailed depiction of all key input parameters is provided in
the following chapter.
4 Negative additional cost appearing within one sector may compensate the additional cost in another,
which leads to a misinterpretation of the overall associated societal transfer cost. Moreover, negative cost of conventional supply options are also not taken into account as conventional reference
prices reflect the marginal cost and not the average. Consequently, to come up with a fair comparison it has been finally decided to neglect such cost.
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
3
5
Scenario parameters
3.1 Scenario description: The 20% RES-by-2020 balanced case
As mentioned in Section 2 this so-called 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case describes a scenario of the future deployment of renewable energies in the European Union based on proactive energy policy support. The key modelling approach is that all Member States apply
immediately (i.e. from 2007 on) efficient & effective support policies for RES, setting incentives on technology level in all energy sectors (i.e. electricity, heat and transport), accompanied by strong energy efficiency measures to reduce the overall growth of energy demand. The finally presented main scenario represents the outcome of an extended scenario
analysis, where a large variation of applied technology and country-specific support policy
settings led to a variety of scenarios which were evaluated on criteria such as cost effectiveness or practical implementation. It depicts the outcome of this extended evaluation
process. With regard to the overall development of energy demands clear reference is
given to PRIMES modelling, where the recently conducted PRIMES efficiency case (as of
August 2007) forms the base of this investigation.
Sections 3.2 to 3.8 below describe the parameters used for the scenario runs. In general it
has to be stated that a conservative approach has been taken in terms of assumptions e.g.
with respect to technology learning of RES technologies.
3.2 Overview on key parameters
In order to ensure maximum consistency with existing EU scenarios and projections the
key input parameters of the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario are derived from PRIMES
modelling and from (updates of) the FORRES 2020 study – similar to the approach as used
in the “RES 2020 – Least cost”-study. Table 1 shows which parameters are based on
PRIMES and which have been defined for this study. More precisely the PRIMES scenario
used is:
•
The European Energy and Transport Trends by 2030 / 2007 / Efficiency Case
(a reduction of gross consumption by 15% in 2020 compared to baseline)
Table 1
Main input sources for scenario parameters
Based on PRIMES
Defined for this study
Sectoral energy demand
Primary energy prices
Conventional supply portfolio and
conversion efficiencies
CO2 intensity of sectors
20% target
Reference electricity prices
RES cost (FORRES, incl. biomass)
RES potential (FORRES)
Biomass import restrictions
Technology diffusion
Learning rates
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
6
futures-e
3.3 Energy demand
The energy consumption data for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case are based on the
PRIMES energy efficiency scenario, which assumes a 15% increase in energy efficiency
compared to the PRIMES baseline scenario. In this context, Table 2 provides the energy
consumption parameters for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case.
Table 2
Energy consumption parameters (in TWh)
Parameter
2005
2010
2020
Gross electricity demand
3,287
3,563
3,527
Transport fuel demand
4,133
4,461
4,159
Heat demand
6,830
7,007
5,975
Total final energy demand
14,250
15,031
13,661
Primary energy demand
21,067
21,596
19,761
3,484
3,699
3,448
Diesel and Gasoline
Note: Data for primary energy consumption (expressed according to the EUROSTAT convention) was
initially taken from PRIMES, but had to be endogenously corrected within Green-X due to the differing RES penetration. Expressed figures refer to the output of the Green-X 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case.
Please note that Heat demand as expressed in Table 2 summarises the final residual demand for energy of all relevant economic activities, i.e. comprising the sectors of industry,
service and agriculture as well as the residential sector. Residual in that sense as it excludes consumption of electricity, transport fuels and, besides district heat supply, inputs
to other transformation processes as well as non-energetic uses.5
3.4 Conventional supply portfolio
The conventional supply portfolio, i.e. the share of the different conversion technologies in
each sector, has been based on the PRIMES forecasts on a country specific basis. These
projections on the portfolio of conventional technologies have an impact in particular on
the calculations done within this study on the avoidance of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.
As it is at least out of the scope of this study to analyse in detail which conventional power
plant would actually be replaced by for instance a wind farm installed in the year 2014 in a
certain country (i.e. either a less efficient existing coal-fired plant or a possibly new highefficient combined cycle gas turbine), the following assumptions are taken:
•
Keeping in mind that, besides renewable energies, fossil energy represents the
marginal generation option that determines the prices on energy markets, it was
decided to stick on country level to the sector-specific conventional supply portfolio
projections as provided by PRIMES. Sector- as well as country-specific conversion
efficiencies, as derived on a yearly base, are used to get a sound proxy to calcu-
5 Electricity and transport fuel consumption was excluded to avoid double counting.
7
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
late from derived renewable generation figures back to the amount of avoided
primary energy. Assuming that the fuel mix stays unaffected, avoidance can be
expressed in units of coal or gas replaced.
•
A similar approach is chosen with regard to the avoidance of CO2 emissions, where
yearly changing average country- as well as sector-specific CO2 intensities of the
fossil-based conventional supply portfolio forms the basis.
In the following the derived data on aggregate conventional conversion efficiencies and the
CO2 intensities characterising the conventional reference system is presented.
Ranges of average conventional
conversion efficiencies [%]
100%
90%
Average on EU-25 level
heat (grid)
baseline
80%
70%
Bandwith of average efficiencies due to
differing country-specific circumstances
heat (grid)
efficiency
60%
50%
electricity
baseline
40%
30%
electricity
efficiency
20%
10%
0%
2000
Figure 2
2005
2010
2015
2020
Country-specific average conversion efficiencies of conventional (fossil-based)
electricity and grid-connected heat production in the EU25.
(source: PRIMES scenarios)
Figure 2 shows the dynamic development of average conversion efficiencies as projected by
PRIMES for conventional electricity generation as well as for grid-connected heat production. Thereby, conversion efficiencies are shown for both the PRIMES baseline and PRIMES
efficiency case. Error bars indicate the range in country-specific average efficiencies between EU member states. For the transport sector, where efficiencies are not explicitly expressed in PRIMES results, the average efficiency of the refinery process to derive fossil
diesel and gasoline was assumed to be 95%.
The corresponding data on country- as well as sector-specific CO2 intensities of the conventional energy conversion system are shown in Figure 3. Error bars again illustrate the variation over countries.
8
Ranges of average CO2 intensities of
conventional conversion [t CO2 / MWh-output]
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
1.4
1.2
electricity
efficiency
Average on EU-25 level
1.0
0.8
electricity
baseline
Bandwith of average intensities due to
differing country-specific circumstances
0.6
heat (grid)
efficiency
0.4
heat (grid)
baseline
0.2
0.0
2000
Figure 3
2005
2010
2015
2020
Country-specific average sectoral CO2 intensities of the conventional
(fossil-based) energy system in the EU25. (source: PRIMES scenarios)
Note: The differences between the PRIMES efficiency and baseline case for non-grid heat and transport are very small and therefore not shown
3.5 Fossil fuel and reference energy prices
National reference energy prices used in this analysis are based on the primary energy
price assumptions as used in the EU energy outlook (as of 2006). Compared to current energy prices the price assumptions in the PRIMES energy efficiency and baseline scenario
are low for the later years up to 2020. The reference oil price for instance goes up to 48 $
per barrel while actual world market prices in the last year have fluctuated between 55 and
78 $ per barrel. Table 3 provides the development of energy prices assumed.
Table 3
Primary energy price assumptions in US$2005/boe (source: PRIMES scenario)
Baseline
2005
2010
2015
2020
54
44.59
44.95
48.08
Gas
30.31
33.86
34.22
36.99
Coal
13.32
12.53
13.38
14.1
Oil
Reference prices for the electricity sector are taken from the Green-X model. Based on the
primary energy prices, the CO2-price and the country-specific power sector, the Green-X
model determines country-specific reference electricity prices for each year in the period
2006-2020. Reference prices for the heat and transport sector are based on primary energy prices and the typical country-specific conventional conversion portfolio. All reference
prices are provided in Table 4. Note that heat prices in case of grid-connected heat supply
from district heating and CHP-plant do not include the cost of distribution – i.e. they represent the price directly at defined hand over point.
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table 4
9
Reference prices for electricity, heat and transport fuels
in €/MWh output
2005
2010
2015
2020
Electricity price
52.1
54.9
49.6
48.6
Heat price (grid)
28.3
29.3
30.3
30.6
Heat price (non-grid)
50.5
51.2
51.6
53
42
40.1
37.8
41
Transport fuel price
3.6 CO2 prices
The CO2-price in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case is exogenously set at 20 €/t, again
similar to corresponding EU scenarios. Actual market prices (for 2006 EU Allowances) have
fluctuated between 7 and 30 €/t in the period January-July 2006, with averages fluctuating
roughly between 15 and 20 €/t. In the model, it is assumed that CO2-prices are directly
passed through to electricity prices. This is done fuel-specific based on the PRIMES CO2emission factors.
Increased RES-deployment can have a CO2-price reducing effect as it reduces the demand
for CO2-reductions. As RES-deployment should be anticipated in the EU Emission Trading
System and the CO2-price in the Green-X scenario is exogenously set, this effect is not included, which represents a rather conservative approach.
3.7 RES potential
A broad set of different renewable energy technologies exists today. Obviously, for a comprehensive investigation of the future development of RES it is of crucial importance to
provide a detailed investigation of the country-specific situation – e.g. with respect to the
potential of the certain RES in general as well as their regional distribution and the corresponding generation cost. Major efforts have been recently taken within the FORRES 2020
study to assess Europe’s RES resource base in a comprehensive manner. Consequently,
this project directly builds on these consolidated outcomes as presented in the Commission’s Communication ‘The share of renewable energy’.
Within the model Green-X, supply potentials for all main technologies for RES-E, RES-H
and RES-T are described in detail.
•
RES-E technologies include biogas, biomass, biowaste, onshore wind, offshore
wind, small-scale hydropower, large-scale hydropower, solar thermal electricity,
photovoltaics, tidal & wave energy, and geothermal electricity
•
RES-H technologies include heat from biomass – subdivided into log wood, wood
chips, pellets, and district heating -, geothermal heat and solar heat
•
RES-T options include traditional biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol, advanced biofuels as well as the impact of biofuel imports
The potential supply of energy from each technology is described for each country analysed
by means of dynamic cost-resource curves. Dynamic cost curves are characterised by the
10
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
fact that the costs as well as the potential for electricity generation / demand reduction can
change each year. The magnitude of these changes is given endogenously in the model,
i.e. the difference in the values compared to the previous year depends on the outcome of
this year and the (policy) framework conditions set for the simulation year.
Realisable mid-term potentials form the base for the overall approach. This potential describes 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. It is important to mention that this potential term must be seen in a dynamic context – i.e. the realisable potential has to refer to
a certain year where within the purpose of this study 2020 has been chosen.
The following figures illustrate – exemplarily for the electricity sector – the potential contribution of RES in the electricity sector within the EU-27 up to the year 2020 by considering
specific resource conditions in each country. Thereby, in accordance with the general modelling approach, a clear distinction is made between existing RES plants (installed up to the
end of 2005 – i.e. the achieved potential in 2005) and future RES options – the additional
mid-term potential. More precisely, Figure 4 depicts the achieved and additional mid-term
potential for RES-E in the EU-15 by country (left) as well as by RES-E category (right). A
similar picture is shown for the new member states (NMS) in Figure 5. It is notable that in
both figures the future potential as indicated for biomass represents only an approximation, as its allocation to the sectors of electricity, heat or transport is not explicitly predetermined in the applied modelling approach.
300
300
250
250
Achieved potential 2005
200
150
200
100
150
50
Figure 4
Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from
RES in the EU-15 – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right)
Wind offshore
Tide & Wave
Wind onshore
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
Biowaste
Solar thermal electricity
SE
UK
ES
PT
NL
LU
IT
IE
GR
DE
FI
FR
DK
AT
0
Geothermal electricity
50
(Solid) Biomass
Biogas
0
100
BE
RES-E - Electricity
generation potential [TWh/yr.]
Additional potential 2020
11
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
60
Additional potential 2020
50
Achieved potential 2005
50
40
30
40
20
30
10
Figure 5
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tide & Wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
Geothermal electricity
RO
BG
SI
SK
PL
MT
LT
LA
HU
EE
CZ
CY
0
Biowaste
10
(Solid) Biomass
0
20
Biogas
RES-E - Electricity
generation potential [TWh/yr.]
60
Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from
RES in NMS countries – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right)
The availability of biomass and the allocation of biomass resources across sectors are crucial as this energy is faced with high expectations with regard to its future potentials. The
total domestic availability of solid biomass was set at 221 Mtoe/yr. Biomass data has been
cross-checked with DG TREN, EEA and the GEMIS database.6 In the 20%-RES-by-2020
main case we assume that biomass can be imported to the European market. Specifically:
•
Solid biomass in the form of wood products and wood residues can be imported to
a maximum of 30% of the total additional primary input of forestry biomass, which
represents about.
•
Liquid biofuel in the form of ethanol and biodiesel products can be imported to a
maximum of 30% corresponding to a default case based on solely domestic biofuel
supply.
In this context, Figure 6 indicates the dynamic evolution of the identified biomass primary
potentials on EU27-level, whilst Table 5 shows a detailed breakdown of corresponding fuel
costs for the considered biomass options, incl. agricultural products / energy crops (e.g.
rape seed & sunflower, miscanthus), agricultural residues (straw), forestry products (e.g.
wood chips), forestry residues and biowaste.
6 For example the recent EEA report "How much bio-energy can Europe produce without harming the
environment?" gives 235 MtOE in 2020 for total biomass under the assumption of significant ecological constraints on biomass use.
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table 5
12
futures-e
Breakdown of fuel cost and corresponding primary potentials by fuel category
for the European Union (EU-27)
Solid biomass - Primary potentials &
corresponding fuel cost by 2020
Realisable midterm potential for
2020 in terms of
primary energy
Minimum
Maximum
Weighted
average
[Mtoe/yr.]
[€/MWh-p]
[€/MWh-p]
[€/MWh-p]
82.5
32.3
26.6
29.8
27.4
27.1
17.9
31.0
17.9
40.4
33.2
29.8
32.9
34.1
31.9
40.9
40.9
33.2
29.4
0.0
21.8
21.4
16.6
40.9
28.7
30.0
12.2
12.2
12.2
14.7
14.7
14.7
12.4
12.7
12.4
69.7
17.8
19.1
25.8
17.8
22.3
23.8
32.3
32.3
18.6
21.0
28.4
20.4
35.8
5.6
6.3
12.5
5.0
6.3
5.0
7.7
8.6
17.1
6.8
8.6
17.1
6.1
7.2
12.9
5.6
6.7
6.7
17.9
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.8
-3.7
-3.7
8.5
16.0
16.8
16.7
244.3
-3.8
40.9
16.1
235.8
-3.8
40.9
16.4
AP1 - rape & sunflower
AP2 - maize, wheat (corn)
AP3 - maize, wheat (whole plant)
AP4 - SRC willow..
AP5 - miscanthus
AP6 - switch grass
AP7 - sweet sorghum
Agricultural procucts - TOTAL
AR1 - straw
AR2 - other agricultural residues
Agricultural residues - TOTAL
FP1 - forestry products (current use (wood chips, log wood))
FP2 - forestry products (complementary fellings (moderate))
FP3 - forestry products (complementary fellings (expensive))
Forestry products - TOTAL
FR1 - black liquor
FR2 - forestry residues (current use)
FR3 - forestry residues (additional)
FR4 - demolition wood, industrial residues
FR5 - additional wood processing residues (sawmill, bark)
Forestry residues - TOTAL
BW1 - biodegradable fraction of municipal waste
Biowaste - TOTAL
FR6 - forestry imports from abroad
Solid biomass - TOTAL
… of which domestic biomass
Fuel cost ranges (2006)
13
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Solid biomass - potential in terms of
primary energy [Mtoe/year]
250
200
Forestry imports
Biodegradable waste
150
Forestry residues
Forestry products
100
Agricultural residues
Agricultural products
50
0
2010
Figure 6
2020
Biomass potentials in terms of primary energy in the European Union (EU-27)
for the years 2010, 2020
3.8 RES cost
Parameters on long-term cost developments of RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 main case
are based on the FORRES 2020 project. Costs are adapted endogenously on the basis of
technology-specific learning rates. Exceptions to this rule are the cost developments specified for novel RES options such as solar thermal, tidal and wave energy, for which expert
cost forecasts are used.
Note that the analysis uses a quite detailed level of specifying costs and potentials. The
analysis is not based on average costs per technology. For each technology a detailed costcurve is specified for each year, based on so-called cost-bands. These cost-bands summarise a range of production sites that can be described by similar cost factors. For each
technology a minimum of 6 to 10 cost bands is specified by country. For biomass at least
50 cost bands are specified for each year in each country.
Economic conditions of the various RES technologies are based on both economic and
technical specifications, varying across the EU countries.7 Figure 7 depicts the typical current bandwidth of long-run marginal generation costs8 per technology for the electricity
sector. A corresponding depiction is shown in Figure 8 for the heat sector, whilst Figure 9
indicates the cost of biofuels. In this context, for the calculation of the capital recovery factor a default setting is applied with respect to payback time (15 years) and weighted average cost of capital (6.5%):
7 Note that in the model Green-X the calculation of generation costs for the various generation op-
tions is done by a rather complex mechanism, internalized within the overall set of modelling procedures. Thereby, band-specific data (e.g. investment costs, efficiencies, full load-hours, etc.) is
linked to general model parameters as interest rate and depreciation time.
8 Long-run marginal costs are relevant for the economic decision whether to build a new plant or not.
14
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
The broad range of costs for several RES technologies reflects variations in resource- (e.g.
for photovoltaics or wind energy) or demand-specific conditions (e.g. full load hours in case
of heating systems) within and between countries as well as variations in technological options such as variations in plant sizes and/or conversion technologies.
Wind onshore
Tide & Wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Current market price
Wind offshore
cost range (LRMC)
PV: 430 to 1640 €/MWh
Hydro large-scale
Geothermal electricity
Biowaste
(Solid) Biomass
(Solid) Biomass co-firing
Biogas
0
50
100
150
200
Costs of electricity (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]
Figure 7
Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006)
Solar thermal heat & hot water
Biomass (non-grid) - pellets
Biomass (non-grid) - wood chips
Biomass (non-grid) - log wood
Geothermal - district heat
Biomass - district heat
Current market price
(grid-heat)
Heat pumps
Current market price
(non-grid)
for various RES-E options in EU countries.
0
50
100
150
200
Costs of heat (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]
Figure 8
Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006)
*Biomass-to-Liquid
*Lignocellulosic bioethanol
Bioethanol
Current
market price
for various RES-H options in EU countries.
Biodiesel
0
50
100
150
200
Costs of transport fuels (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]
Figure 9
Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006)
for various RES-T options in EU countries.
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
15
The data illustrated refers to new RES plants and are in accordance with the additional realisable mid-term potentials as specified in Section 3.7. For hydropower (large- and smallscale) and wind onshore non-harmonised cost settings are applied, i.e. country-specific
data on investment costs and where suitable also O&M-costs are used. For all other RES-E
options harmonised cost settings are applied across the EU. The ranges expressed for economic and technical parameters in these instances refer to differences in plant sizes
(small- to large-scale) and/or conversion technologies applied. All data on investment
costs, O&M-costs and efficiencies refer to the default start year of the simulations, i.e.
2006, and are expressed in €2006.
Prices for imported biomass are set exogenously:
•
The price of imported wood is set country specific, indicating trade constraints and
transport premiums. On European average a figure of 18 €/MWh is assumed.
•
The price of imported biofuels is assumed to equal a European average of
62 €/MWh.
16
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
4
futures-e
Resulting deployment of renewable energy sources
This section presents the key results obtained from the modelling calculation for the
20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case.
Figure 10 illustrates the sectoral contribution of renewable energy in terms of primary en-
ergy on EU25 level for the period 2006 to 2020. Note that all data as presented therein is
based on the Eurostat convention, referring to the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case. Facing this challenge means to achieve a tripling of current RES-deployment to about 305
Mtoe9 by 2020. Looking at the sectoral breakdown it is notable that RES-electricity and
RES-heat contribute in large terms, where electricity represents the largest contributor
with a share of 48% on total RES deployment by 2020. But also biofuels have to accelerate
deployment largely – the goal of 14% by 2020 represents a huge challenge compared to
the current situation.
RES deployment
- in terms of primary energy
[Mtoe]
350
RES primary consumption
by 2020
- sectoral breakdown
RES-transport
300
RES-heat
RES-electricity
250
RES-T
14%
200
150
RES-H
38%
100
RES-E
48%
50
Figure 10
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
0
Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of primary energy
(based on Eurostat convention) within the European Union (EU-27)
Figure 11 (next page) indicates the corresponding data in terms of final energy. As indi-
cated therein, from at present about 105 Mtoe a rise to 235.5 Mtoe by 2020 has to be
achieved. As a consequence of lower conversion efficiencies in case of biomass electricity
generation or biofuel conversion compared to heating, electricity (45%) and biofuels (12%)
end up with a lower contribution compared to their primary shares, whilst RES-heating
comprises a larger share in size of 43%.
9 The corresponding figure based on the substitution principle is 480 Mtoe.
17
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
RES deployment
- in terms of energy output
[Mtoe]
250
RES energy output
by 2020
- sectoral breakdown
RES-transport
RES-heat
200
RES-electricity
RES-T
12%
150
RES-E
45%
100
RES-H
43%
50
Figure 11
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
0
Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of final energy
within the European Union (EU-27)
The projected sectoral contribution can be analysed best by depicting deployment on sectoral level in relative terms – i.e. by indicating the deployment of RES-E, RES-H and RES-T
as shares of corresponding gross demands. In this context, Table 6 gives an overview on
results for 2010 and 2020. Although the share of renewable electricity stays below projections of the “RES 2020 – Least cost” study (42% by 2020), it can still be observed that
RES-E shall contribute largely (35% of corresponding gross demand) to the achievement of
the 20% RES target. The share of biofuels in transport fuel demand remains comparatively
low in the first years, but reaches 8% in 2020.10 Figure 12 illustrates the development in
the share of RES over time. Results on the sector-, technology- and country-specific RESdeployment and technology-specific costs are provided in the next sections.
Table 6
Share of renewable energies in electricity, heat and transport fuel demand
% deployment
Share of RES-E on electricity demand
Share of RES-H on heat demand
Share of RES-T on transport fuel demand
Share of RES on final demand
Share of RES on primary demand
European Union 27
2006
2010
2020
16%
10%
1%
9%
7%
11%
21%
12%
2%
35%
20%
8%
11%
20%
10%
13%
18%
26%
(Eurostat convention)
(Substitution principle)
10 This study compares biofuel production to the total transport fuel demand (excluding electricity),
while the target setting in the biofuels directive is based on the demand for diesel and gasoline. In
2020 diesel and gasoline consumption makes up 83% of total transport fuel demand according to
the PRIMES efficiency scenario. Hence, 8% of total transport fuel demand would correspond to
10% of the demand for diesel and gasoline.
18
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
RES-deployment - in relative terms
(i.e. as share of corresponding
gross demand)
[%]
40%
RES-electricity
35%
34,8%
RES-heat
30%
25%
26%
20%
19,6%
17,9%
15%
RES-transport
RES primary
(EUROSTAT)
10%
8,2%
RES primary
(SUBSTITUTION)
5%
Figure 12
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0%
Deployment of RES-E, RES-H, RES-T and RES in total as shares of corresponding gross demands up to 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)
4.1 Sector- & technology-specific deployment
RES deployment
(new plant (2006 to 2020))
- in terms of energy output
[Mtoe]
140
RES-T - imports
120
RES-T - 2nd generation
100
RES-T - 1st generation
RES-H - non grid
80
RES-H - district heat
60
RES-H - CHP
40
RES-E - CHP
20
RES-E - pure power
Figure 13
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0
Deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in terms of energy output
until 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)
The deployment of solely new RES plants (installed in the period 2006 to 2020) in the
20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case is shown in Figure 13 in terms of energy output11 by subsector. To meet the 20% target, large increases are required in all three sectors. The re-
11 According to the applied terminology energy output equals in case of heat and transport final en-
ergy demands, whilst for RES-E generation it refers to gross consumption.
19
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
sults show that a pro-active RES support will lead to a stimulation of RES-markets almost
equally among all sectors. Total generation from new RES installations in the period 2006
to 2020 achieves an impressive amount of 134.7 Mtoe by 2020 – representing two thirds
of total RES output by 2020 or almost a doubling of current RES-generation.
The highest contribution both in terms of energy output as well as primary energy is projected for RES-E, especially for pure power generation options such as wind energy (all together covering 38% of total energy output of new RES installations (2006 to 2020) by
2020), but also RES-CHP acts as a major contributor (18%).
Besides RES-E, the non-grid heat market for RES, comprising residential and industrial
biomass heating as well as solar thermal heating & hot water supply and heat pumps takes
off fast if well supported. Among all sub-sectors it achieves the second largest deployment
in absolute terms, holding a share of 19% on total energy output of cumulative new installations by 2020. This underpins that the cost-effective achievement of RES targets requires
an immediate strong growth of RES-H, which would need to be reflected by an appropriate
policy framework.
In terms of growth rates RES-T faces a huge increase, but in absolute terms it will become
an important contributor to achieve the 20% target especially in the later years when also
advanced conversion technologies such as lignocellulosic bioethanol are ready to enter the
market.
The following figures illustrate the projected EU-wide penetration of RES on technology
level for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case. Finally, Table 7 provides the corresponding
data in a detailed manner, indicating besides generation also technology-specific sectoral
shares as well as average growth rates. Please note that further details on the technologyas well as country-specific RES deployment according to this modelling exam are presented
in Annex A of this report.
RES-E - energy output
[TWh/year]
1,400
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tide & wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Geothermal electricity
Biowaste
Solid biomass
Biogas
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2006
Figure 14
2010
2015
2020
RES-E generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)
20
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
RES-H - energy output
[Mtoe/year]
120
Heat pumps
100
Solar thermal heat. &
water
80
Solid biomass (non-grid)
60
RES-H distr. heat
40
RES-H CHP
20
0
2006
Figure 15
2010
2015
2020
RES-H generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)
RES-T - energy output
[Mtoe/year]
35
30
25
Biofuel import
20
Advanced biofuels
15
Traditional biofuels
10
5
0
2006
Figure 16
2010
2015
2020
RES-T production and import up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)
21
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table 7
RES penetration in the period 2006 to 2020 at technology level
in the European Union (EU-27)
Electricity generation
RES-E
[Unit]
2006
2010
2015
2020
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
RES-E CHP
share on gross demand
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
[TWh]
17
57
14
7
301
46
2
0
0
90
4
28
121
24
8
314
58
6
2
2
155
16
52
178
30
8
319
61
13
7
4
222
80
88
217
34
9
321
63
26
11
8
257
195
[TWh]
539
733
975
1,228
61
108
152
187
16%
21%
28%
35%
RES-H
Heat generation
[TWh]
[%]
[Unit]
2006
2010
2015
2020
Biogas (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Solar therm. heat.
Heat pumps
RES-H total
RES-H CHP
RES-H distr. heat
RES-H non-grid
share on gross demand
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
1.5
5.3
2.4
0.8
49.6
0.8
0.8
1.6
10.0
3.8
0.8
54.8
1.7
1.0
1.8
14.2
4.7
0.8
60.0
4.2
1.6
1.9
17.2
5.2
0.9
64.5
7.7
3.0
[Mtoe]
61.2
73.5
87.2
100.5
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[%]
7.1
2.9
51.2
11.6
4.5
57.4
15.5
5.9
65.8
18.4
6.8
75.3
10%
12%
16%
20%
RES-T
Biofuel generation
[Unit]
2006 2010
Traditional biofuels
Advanced biofuels
Biofuel import
RES-T total
share on gross demand
Share of total
RES-E [%]
2010
2020
Average yearly growth [%]
10-15 15-20
06-20
06-10
4%
17%
3%
1%
43%
8%
1%
0%
0%
21%
2%
7%
18%
3%
1%
26%
5%
2%
1%
1%
21%
16%
8.0%
5.9%
4.7%
6.1%
15%
15% 15.2%
7.0%
4.3%
8.3%
Share of total
RES-H [%]
2010
2020
14.2% 12.7% 11.3%
20.7%
8.1%
4.0%
14.7%
4.9%
2.3%
4.4%
0.5%
1.2%
1.0%
0.3%
0.1%
5.5%
1.3%
0.4%
28.8% 16.3% 15.0%
68.1% 33.5% 10.4%
63.4% 16.5% 12.5%
14.4%
7.5%
2.9%
43.1% 37.7% 19.5%
12.6%
10.0%
6.6%
1.9%
0.5%
2.2%
19.2%
33.2%
26.8%
7.7%
32.4%
Average yearly growth [%]
10-15 15-20
06-20
06-10
2%
14%
5%
1%
74%
2%
1%
2%
2.0% 1.6% 1.7%
17% 16.9% 7.3% 4.0%
5% 12.2% 4.2% 2.0%
1%
0.1% 1.0% 1.9%
64%
2.5% 1.8% 1.5%
8% 20.3% 20.0% 13.0%
3%
4.0% 10.9% 13.4%
4.7%
3.5%
2.9%
3.6%
16%
6%
78%
18% 13.1%
7% 11.9%
75%
2.9%
5.9%
3.5%
5.5%
2.8%
2.8%
2.7%
7.0%
6.3%
2.8%
Share of total
RES-T [%]
1.8%
8.7%
5.6%
1.1%
1.9%
17.5%
9.7%
Average yearly growth [%]
2015
2020
2010
2020
15-20
06-20
4.1
0.8
2.5
5.5
7.4
4.4
4.4
16.3
8.7
55%
11%
34%
15%
4.3% 6.1% -4.1%
55%
- 54.7% 17.2%
29% 72.6% 12.1% 14.4%
1.8%
34.6%
27.7%
18.8% 18.4% 11.2%
15.9%
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
[Mtoe]
3.4
0.0
0.3
[Mtoe]
[%]
3.7
7.4
17.3
29.4
1%
2%
5%
8%
06-10
10-15
Some of the most prominent conclusions drawn from this table include:
•
The bulk of RES-E in 2020 will be produced by technologies that are currently already close to the market: Large-scale hydro (321 TWh/yr), solid biomass (217
TWh/yr), onshore wind (257 TWh/yr), offshore wind (195 TWh/yr), biogas (88
TWh/yr), small hydro (63 TWh/yr) and biowaste (34 TWh/yr) will contribute about
96% to RES-E production.
•
However, also novel RES-E options with huge future potentials such as PV (26
TWh/yr), solar thermal electricity (11 TWh/yr) or tidal & wave (8 TWh/yr) enter
the market and achieve a steadily growing share – if, as assumed, market stimulation is set in a proper manner.
22
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
•
futures-e
In the heat sector solar thermal heat and heat pumps achieve a strong deployment, steadily growing over the whole investigated period and finally account for
almost one quarter of RES-H generation by 2020.
•
Biomass plays a crucial role in meeting RES targets. In the 20%-RES-by-2020
main case cofiring of biomass refers to 58 TWh/yr in electricity production. Biomass will become even more important for the development of RES-H. In 2020
about 88% of total RES-H generation comprises biomass and biowaste. Besides
cofiring and CHP also modern small-scale biomass heating systems are a major
contributor.
•
In the 20%-RES-by-2020 main scenario 79% of the domestic potential of solid
biomass (187 Mtoe) is used and another 17 Mtoe is imported. Imports consist of
35%
30%
25%
Growth rates (2006 to 2020)
20%
15%
10%
5%
30
21.3%
in absolute terms
25
20
10
15%
11.7%
9.4%
10%
5.4%
4.7%
5
25%
20%
12.9% 12.2%
10.8%
15
in relative terms
1.4%
0.2%
2.3%
1.6% 1.1% 1.5%
0.7% 0.5%
0.3%
5%
2.0%
0.1%
RES-Electricity
Figure 17
Biofuels
Heat pumps
Solar therm. heat.
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biogas (grid)
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Tide & wave
Solar thermal electricity
Photovoltaics
Hydro small-scale
Hydro large-scale
Geothermal electricity
Biowaste
0%
Solid biomass
0
Share in total NEW RES deployment by 2020
[%]
0%
Biogas
Energy output of
NEW RES plant by 2020
[Mtoe/year]
Growth rates (comparing 2020
and 2006 generation in total)
[Mtoe/year]
8.3 Mtoe forestry products and residues and 8.7 Mtoe of biofuels.
RES-Heat
Technology-breakdown for new RES installations in the period 2006 to 2020
within the European Union (EU-27) – in absolute and relative terms (below) as
well as corresponding growth rates (above)
The required deployment of new RES installations within the investigated period 2006 to
2020 is illustrated in Figure 17 and discussed next:
•
In line with previous statements, the highest contribution is expected to come
from the bulk of renewable electricity technologies: In total 64 Mtoe (or 47.5% of
23
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
the new RES installations in total) appear as a lump sum for new RES-E installations in total. Both onshore and offshore wind energy are major contributors in
this respect, whereby a high growth (32% on average per year) is needed for offshore. Besides wind, biomass and biogas aim to gain similar emphasis with
slightly less contribution in absolute terms but facing a period of stable growth.
•
With regard to renewable heat both grid-connected and decentralised technologies are projected to deliver 42 Mtoe (corresponding to 31.2% of the total exploitation of new RES installations). In the case of grid-connected heat supply biomass CHP plants represent the largest contributors, whilst in the non-grid sector
modern small-scale biomass heating systems are of dominance. Besides this, solar thermal collectors for heat & hot water supply are also expected to face a period of high and stable growth.
•
Finally, biofuels are expected to expand their deployment by 29 Mtoe, corresponding to 21.3% of new RES in total.
4.2 Exploitation of biomass
Figure 18 provides a sectoral breakdown of total biomass exploitation in the period 2006-
2020 in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario. In the first years the dominant use of
biomass is in (residential) non-grid connected heat production. Slightly CHP takes over the
leading position, whilst holding a rather constant share of around 30% of total biomass exploitation throughout 2020. While small-scale (residential) heating systems increase slowly
in absolute terms, their share drops due to fast increasing exploitation in other subsectors. Notably the biofuel market increases strongly after 2010. Thereby, for advanced
2nd generation biofuels such as BtL, making use of modern forms of energy crops in the
years after 2010, a comparatively optimistic contribution is assumed due to strong R&D efforts taken at present. Pure power generation remains at a constant level (11-13% of total
200
180
RES-T - imports
160
RES-T - 2nd generation
140
RES-T - 1st generation
120
RES-H - non grid
100
80
RES-H - district heat
60
RES-E&H - CHP
40
RES-E - pure power
20
Figure 18
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
0
2006
Sectoral breakdown of biomass exploitation
(in terms of primary energy)
(2006 to 2020))
[Mtoe]
biomass exploitation).
Sectoral breakdown of the biomass exploitation in terms of primary energy for
the period 2006 to 2020
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
24
futures-e
4.3 Country-specific deployment
Current RES deployment as well as the potentials and the corresponding cost of future RES
options differ among EU Member States. In the modelling, an efficient and effective resource exploitation is assessed from the European perspective, where similar technologyspecific RES support is preconditioned for all countries. As a consequence from above, a
large variation in the country-specific contributions towards the overall target can be recognised, reflecting the national resource conditions and corresponding exploitation constraints. In this context, Figure 19 depicts the resulting country-specific deployment of RES
(in total) by 2020 expressed as share of final energy demand. Correspondingly, Figure 20
provides a similar depiction for the required new RES deployment (as installed in the period 2006 to 2020). Figure 21 offers a comparison of the scenario-specific RES deployment,
the proposed RES targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level
for the year 2020. Finally, Table 8 lists the development of the RES-shares in sectoral as
well as primary and final energy demands for all Member States until 2020.12
The model results show that in order to reach a 20% share of RES in the EU strong efforts
are needed in every Member State. As potentials and costs for additional RES deployment
differ across Member States, the contribution of individual Member States to an overall
share of 20% RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case does as well. The resulting
country-specific RES shares for 2020 differ from the recently proposed national 2020 RES
targets, with which the European Commission aimed to allocate the resulting burden in a
fair manner across Member States. Hence, this emphasises the need for intensified cooperation between Member States, where suitable accompanying flexibility mechanisms assist the achievement of national RES targets in an efficient and effective manner.
Please note that further details on the country-specific results with regard to the RES deployment and the potential exploitation according to this modelling exam are presented in
Annex A of this report.
12 Please note that in both graphical illustrations – i.e. Figure 19 to Figure 21 – with regard to biofuels
the country-specific 2020 minimum target (10%) is incorporated. Accordingly, biofuels are accounted in the country where they are consumed and not where they are produced. Complementary to this, Table 8 expresses the country-specific biofuel production as share in total transport
fuel consumption.
25
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Share on final demand [%]
70%
58.8%
60%
50%
40%
RES in total - Share in final consumption by 2020
EU27 average
46.3%
38.3%
35.8%
34.4%
33.3%
29.5%
27.7%
30%
23.8%
19.4%
15.6%
16.7%
14.2%
10.5%
7.4%
20%
9.3%
10%
21.1%
25.1%
13.9%
13.9%
12.7%
13.6%
25.0%
17.0% 15.7% 18.8%
11.1%
0%
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE
Figure 19
IT LU NL PT ES SE UK CY CZ EE HU LV LT MT PL SK SI BG RO
Country-specific deployment of RES (in total) by 2020 expressed as share on
final energy demand
Share on final demand [%]
20%
17.5%
18%
15.9%
16%
14%
12%
13.9%
13.7%
13.0%
12.7%
11.5%
13.2%
11.7%
10%
11.4%
9.2%
8.3%
10.5%
10.4%
10.9%
12.5%
10.8%
11.2%
8.7%
7.9%
6.5%
6.0%
6%
14.5%
11.9%
11.1%
9.1%
8%
RES in total - Share in final consumption by 2020
EU27 average
17.0%
4%
2%
0%
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE
Figure 20
IT LU NL PT ES SE UK CY CZ EE HU LV LT MT PL SK SI BG RO
Country-specific deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) by 2020
expressed as share on final energy demand
Scenario-specific RES exploitation
Proposed RES target
Realisable mid-term potential for RES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
EU27
RO
SI
BG
SK
PL
LT
MT
LV
HU
CZ
EE
CY
UK
SE
PT
ES
NL
LU
IT
IE
GR
DE
FI
Figure 21
FR
DK
BE
0%
AT
Share on final demand [%]
80%
Comparison of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment, the proposed RES
targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level –
expressed as share on final energy demand
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table 8
26
futures-e
Share of RES production in demand (primary (based on Eurostat convention),
electricity, heat, transport fuels and final energy) for EU-27 countries
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
EU 27
% RES-E
2010 2020
75%
79%
7%
14%
38%
65%
30%
45%
16%
33%
16%
31%
16%
30%
15%
37%
23%
30%
5%
8%
10%
27%
37%
52%
29%
41%
53%
70%
10%
35%
6%
20%
8%
17%
7%
17%
8%
19%
41%
51%
8%
20%
6%
17%
9%
22%
23%
26%
32%
43%
14%
23%
36%
42%
% RES-H
2010 2020
24%
32%
4%
7%
29%
41%
47%
62%
16%
28%
7%
14%
16%
24%
6%
11%
4%
10%
2%
5%
2%
5%
36%
44%
12%
21%
65%
81%
3%
6%
17%
22%
11%
15%
35%
44%
8%
13%
44%
48%
31%
38%
7%
21%
13%
19%
8%
13%
24%
34%
17%
24%
20%
24%
9.6% 17.9% 20.6% 34.8% 12.2% 19.6%
% RES-T
2010 2020
1%
4%
4%
10%
3%
8%
2%
17%
2%
8%
1%
7%
2%
8%
1%
11%
1%
5%
0%
2%
1%
5%
1%
7%
2%
5%
3%
11%
1%
7%
1%
2%
4%
9%
0%
16%
4%
20%
0%
21%
0%
27%
1%
2%
6%
20%
4%
12%
1%
2%
3%
17%
5%
22%
1.9%
8.2%
% RES-final
2020
2020*
34.6%
9.6%
34.6%
47.9%
23.8%
16.4%
19.2%
17.2%
13.1%
3.7%
9.9%
32.8%
20.0%
59.6%
13.5%
10.1%
13.8%
29.3%
16.2%
41.5%
30.6%
8.4%
19.7%
16.1%
27.2%
21.4%
27.5%
20.0%
* considering an equal biofuel 2020-target in size of 10% for
all Member States ("biofuel equalisation")
Country
breakdown
% RESprimary
2010 2020
28%
35%
4%
9%
20%
36%
30%
42%
8%
16%
7%
16%
9%
18%
6%
19%
9%
15%
2%
5%
4%
9%
20%
31%
12%
20%
32%
41%
4%
13%
4%
10%
6%
12%
14%
25%
7%
17%
32%
43%
13%
22%
2%
9%
9%
19%
9%
14%
15%
25%
9%
18%
16%
25%
35.8%
9.3%
34.4%
46.3%
23.8%
16.7%
19.4%
15.6%
14.2%
7.4%
10.5%
33.3%
21.1%
58.8%
13.9%
12.7%
13.9%
27.7%
13.6%
38.3%
25.1%
11.1%
17.0%
15.7%
29.5%
18.8%
25.0%
20.0%
27
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
5
Results on related policy issues
This section discusses the main calculation results in the light of the three main objectives of European energy supply:
•
Sustainability, specifically lowering the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions from energy production
•
Security of supply, particularly lowering the dependency on imports of fossil
fuels to the EU by promoting carbon-free or carbon-neutral diversification of
energy supplies.
•
Affordability of energy, for which the additional costs for meeting the 20%
RES target will be analysed.
5.1 Impact on CO2 emissions
The additional RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case reduces CO2 emissions by 209 Mt/yr in 2010, 467 Mt/yr in 2015 and 756 Mt/yr in 2020. The CO2 emission
reduction of 756 Mt in 2020 corresponds to 14% of total EU 27 GHG emissions in 199013,
whereas CO2 emission reductions due to total RES deployment in 2020 is 1,403 Mt, or 25%
of total EU 27 GHG emissions in 1990.
Figure 22 shows the development of avoided CO2 emissions over time in the sectors elec-
tricity, heat and biofuels.
Avoided CO2 emissions
(due to new RES plant
(2006 to 2020))
[Mt CO2]
800
700
RES-T - imports
600
RES-T - 2nd generation
500
RES-T - 1st generation
400
RES-H - non grid
RES-H - district heat
300
RES-E&H - CHP
200
RES-E - pure power
100
Figure 22
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0
Avoided CO2-emissions from new RES deployment (2006-2020)
13 GHG emissions in 1990, the base year of the Kyoto Protocol, were 5571 Mt CO2 equivalents in the
EU-27 according to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Greenhouse gas country profiles
1990–2006 (2008 EC GHG inventory).
28
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
futures-e
Note that 2nd generation biofuels are more efficiently produced than 1st generation biofuels
and thus avoid more CO2 per litre. For biofuel imports CO2 emissions during production are
not considered as they occur in the exporting countries.
Table 9 provides the exact figures of avoided CO2 emissions.
Table 9
Avoided CO2 emissions due to RES plant installed 2006-2020
(sub-sector specific)
Avoided CO2 emissions - due to NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)
RES-E - pure power
RES-E&H - CHP
RES-H - district heat
RES-H - non grid
RES-T - 1st generation
RES-T - 2nd generation
RES-T - imports
RES-total
[Unit]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
[Mt CO2]
2006
19.2
7.7
1.3
2.7
1.6
0.0
0.8
33.3
2010
124.6
42.3
6.8
20.5
6.3
2.5
6.5
209.4
2015
288.1
84.0
12.1
41.8
9.9
19.0
12.2
467.2
2020
487.9
115.9
14.6
63.5
8.0
41.1
24.8
755.9
2010
2020
59%
65%
20%
15%
3%
2%
10%
8%
3%
1%
1%
5%
3%
3%
5,614
5.2 Impact on security of supply
The increased RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case reduces fossil fuel
demand and therewith is an important element in improving the security of energy supply
in Europe. In 2020 the avoided oil consumption due to new RES capacities installed between 2006 and 2020 equals 8% of both total EU oil consumption and import needs. In the
case of gas, it equals 16% of total EU gas consumption in 2020 or 20% of default gas import needs, respectively. In monetary terms, even with the low energy prices as assumed
in this modelling exam, from 2020 on a total of 39 billion € per year can be saved on fossil
fuels due to additional RES deployment in the period 2006 to 2020. Table 10 below provides the results of the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case in terms of avoided fossil fuels
and the corresponding avoided fossil fuel expenses.
Table 10
Avoided fossil fuels due to new RES plant installed 2006-2020
(in energy units and monetary terms)
Avoided fossil fuels - due to NEW RES plant
… in energy units - by fuel
[Unit]
2006
by year
Avoided hard coal
[MtSKE]
4.5
Avoided lignite
[MtSKE]
1.5
Avoided oil
[Mtoe]
2.4
Avoided gas
[Bill.m3]
4.0
Avoided fossil fuels - total
[Mtoe]
9.7
(installed 2006 to 2020)
2010
28.3
9.5
15.1
31.5
65.4
2015
55.1
14.8
33.7
70.9
136.4
2020
80.0
22.2
51.5
111.7
207.7
… in monetary terms - in total
Avoided fossil fuels - total
[Bill.€]
[% of GDP]
… as share of GDP
2006
1.6
2010
10.7
2015
23.6
2020
39.0
0.02%
0.10%
0.19%
0.28%
Share of total [%]
2010
2020
30%
27%
10%
7%
23%
25%
37%
41%
1,633
2006-2020
cumulative
287
0.15%
29
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
With its large and increasing dependency on imported fossil fuels the EU is quite vulnerable
to price increases on the world market for fossil fuels. Renewables clearly can form an important element of reducing this vulnerability. This is illustrated by the large amounts of
fossil fuel expenses potentially saved from increased RES penetration. The amount of
avoided fossil fuels and related avoided fossil fuel expenses due to increased RES production are obviously very sensitive to the energy prices assumed in the scenario. Avoided
fossil fuel expenses could be used as a first indicator to the increase of financial support to
RES in the coming years, potentially increased with a risk avoidance premium to reflect
mitigation against further price increases.
5.3 Financial impact
Investment needs
The increased RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case will lead to investments of 538 billion €, almost evenly spread over the period 2006-20. Of this amount 339
billion € will be invested in pure RES-E (63%), 114 billion € in pure RES-H (21%), 58 billion € in RES-CHP (11%) and 27 billion € in RES-T (5%).
Table 11
Investment needs for new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in the European Union
(EU-27)
Capital expenditure in NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)
RES-E - pure power
RES-E&H - CHP
RES-H - district heat
RES-H - non grid
RES-T - 1st generation
RES-T - 2nd generation
RES-total
[Unit]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
06-10
87.2
26.3
2.0
26.0
2.6
1.8
146.0
11-15
106.1
18.1
1.5
36.5
1.7
9.2
173.2
16-20 2006-2020 cum.
145.5
338.9
63%
13.6
57.9
11%
1.0
4.6
1%
46.8
109.3
20%
0.5
4.8
1%
11.3
22.3
4%
218.7
537.9
Additional cost for meeting 20% RES by 2020
Table 12 provides an overview of yearly additional generation costs for the years 2006,
2010, 2015 and 2020. The cumulative additional generation costs for the period 20062020 amount 163.5 billion €. This means that on average the additional generation costs
are 10.9 billion € per year (i.e. corresponding to 0.08% of GDP) throughout this period.
30
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table 12
futures-e
Additional generation costs in absolute terms (2006 to 2020)
Additional generation cost for NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)
… in absolute terms (Bill.
by year
RES-E - pure power
RES-E&H - CHP
RES-H - district heat
RES-H - non grid
RES-T - 1st generation
RES-T - 2nd generation
RES-T - imports
RES-total
€)
[Unit]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
[Bill. €]
2006
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
1.4
2010
3.0
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.6
5.5
2015
8.4
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
2.0
1.1
14.1
2020
14.0
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.7
3.4
1.9
21.6
2006-2020
cumulative
98.7
60%
10.8
7%
0.1
0%
5.6
3%
12.9
8%
22.1
14%
13.3
8%
163.5
Note that data for the year 2006 are modelling results which do not necessarily match with actual data.
Generation costs of new RES plants expressed per unit of generation in the period 2006 to
2020 are provided in Table 13. The average additional generation costs over the period
2006 to 2020 are comparatively low (13.4 €/MWh), whilst additional costs of the marginal
RES options would be significantly higher.
Table 13
Additional generation costs per unit of RES generation (2006 to 2020)
Additional generation cost for NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)
… as premium per MWh RES-generation
by year
[Unit]
[€/MWh]
RES-E - pure power
RES-E&H - CHP
[€/MWh]
RES-H - district heat
[€/MWh]
RES-H - non grid
[€/MWh]
RES-T - 1st generation
[€/MWh]
RES-T - 2nd generation
[€/MWh]
RES-T - imports
[€/MWh]
RES-total
[€/MWh]
2005
21.2
8.5
5.3
42.7
19.1
n.a.
20.3
20.1
2010
17.7
3.1
0.0
2.5
21.1
47.2
22.8
11.6
2015
22.6
5.1
0.1
2.5
19.1
23.7
22.3
14.2
2006-2020
2020 average
23.1
20.5
4.7
4.2
0.0
0.5
0.8
6.0
14.9
19.4
18.2
25.4
20.1
21.8
13.8
13.4
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
6
31
Concluding remarks
This concise report illustrates a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy commitment of 20% RES by 2020. The effects of striving for this ambitious RES target
can be summarised as follows:
► RES as an important contribution to meeting EU GHG reduction targets
A strong expansion of renewable energies is an important element in Europe’s
Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy. The deployment of new RES installations in
the period 2006 to 2020 as projected in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case results in a total reduction of CO2-emissions by 756 Mt/yr in 2020, which corresponds to 14% of EU-27 GHG emissions in 1990.
► Increased RES deployment brings large benefits to EU’s supply security
The increased RES-deployment due to new RES installations in the 20%-RES-by2020 balanced case leads to a reduction in fossil fuel demand of yearly 208 Mtoe
by 2020. Oil imports can be reduced by 8%, gas imports by 20% and coal imports
even by 47%. This will significantly increase the EU’s security of supply. In 2020
39 billion € can be saved on fossil fuels, which corresponds to 0.28% of GDP. This
monetary expression is based on low energy prices as used for this modelling
exam. Given the high energy prices as currently observed in all markets saved expenses would increase largely. In that situation the 20% target could be achieved
at considerably lower cost, which illustrates the ability of RES to protect the EU
economy against rising fossil fuel prices. The financial support provided to increase
the support of RES in the coming years should reflect these benefits to EU’s supply
security.
► Increased penetration of RES does have a price...
The 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case requires additional generation cost of yearly
10.9 billion € on average in the period 2006 to 2020. As noted above, such costs
are strongly influenced by energy price assumptions. Whereas assumptions in the
20%-RES-by-2020 main case are much below current prices (e.g. an oil price of
48 $/boe in 2020), a recently conducted sensitivity analysis reflecting current
prices raises the expectation that additional costs would be more than halved.
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
32
futures-e
► … but the resulting electricity prices by 2020 may not rise largely
A significant part of additional generation costs and costs for grid extension and
system operations would be recovered by the reduction of wholesale electricity
prices obtained from increased RES-E generation.
These effects show the large impact of an accelerated RES deployment to steer our energy
system in the direction of sustainability and supply security. Necessary steps to let the
target of 20% RES by 2020 become reality include:
► RES policies should be supported by a strong energy efficiency policy
In the absence of strong energy efficiency policies energy demand is higher and
more RES is required in order to achieve the targeted share of 20%. Consequently,
in that case more expensive RES technologies have to be utilised and the average
yearly additional generation cost increase from 17.9 to 26.7 billion €. This underpins the importance of energy efficiency policy and RES policy to work as complementary tools for creating a more sustainable energy system in an economically
efficient way.
► Strong growth is needed in all three sectors
A 20% share of renewable energies in the year 2020 cannot be reached without
strong increases in all three sectors: renewable electricity, heat and biofuels. The
future policy framework should address this need for growth in all sectors. The
current policy framework does include an extensive set of supporting mechanisms
for RES-E and to some extent for biofuels, but the current limited and dispersed
support for RES-H needs to be addressed if renewable heating is to play its essential role as part of the renewable mix.
► A wide range of technologies has to be supported
Even a policy approach based on pure cost minimisation would still need to support a wide range of technologies: large-scale hydropower, solid biomass (for generation of both heat and power) and onshore wind power will be complemented by
large amounts of offshore wind power, biogas and small hydropower. Associated
costs vary largely between technologies and over time. Consequently, any future
policy framework has to address this sufficiently by providing technology-specific
support to the various RES options.
► The RES policy framework needs an integrated perspective on the use of
biomass
Biomass is a crucial element of RES policy, used in all three sectors (RES-E, RES-H
and RES-T). In the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case the larger part of domestic
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
33
biomass potential is used. Additional biomass imports contribute to keeping costs
low.
► Efforts are needed in all Member States
The model results show that in order to reach a 20% share of RES in the EU strong
efforts are needed in every Member State. As potentials and costs for additional
RES deployment differ across Member States, the contribution of individual Member States to an overall share of 20% RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case
does as well. The resulting country-specific RES shares for 2020 differ from the recently proposed national 2020 RES targets, with which the European Commission
aimed to allocate the resulting burden in a fair manner across Member States.
Hence, this emphasises the need for intensified cooperation between Member
States, where suitable accompanying flexibility mechanisms assist the achievement of national RES targets in an efficient and effective manner.
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
34
futures-e
ANNEX A: COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESULTS ON RES DEPLOYMENT AND POTENTIAL EXPLOITATION
The following tables illustrate the country-specific RES deployment according to the discussed 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario. Besides, they also depict the assessed realisable mid-term (2020) potentials for the various RES options and show, how much of them would
be needed to meet the proposed 2020 RES targets according to this modeling exam.
35
futures-e
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Traditional biofuels
Advanced biofuels
Biofuel import
RES-T total1
Share on diesel & gasoline demand1
RES-T total 2
Share on diesel & gasoline demand 2
Italy
RES Transport
Ireland
Biogas (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Solar thermal heat. & hot water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
Share on gross heat demand
Greece
RES Heat
Germany
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
RES-E CHP
Share on gross electricity demand
France
RES Electricity
Finland
energy [TWh/yr.]) Part 1: EU-15 countries
RES category
Denmark
Breakdown of 2020 RES
deployment by country & by
technology (expressed in terms of final
Belgium
Breakdown of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries
Austria
Table A. 1
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
ES
SE
UK
1.5
6.4
0.9
0.0
35.0
7.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
56.4
6.9
79.0%
2.5
4.1
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
3.6
3.2
14.9
2.9
14.2%
0.9
4.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
9.2
6.2
22.8
6.0
65.1%
0.6
16.9
0.3
0.0
13.5
1.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
6.4
1.5
40.9
16.9
44.5%
12.8
10.0
4.7
0.2
59.5
10.9
4.3
0.0
0.0
49.0
22.3
173.8
16.3
33.4%
15.3
30.1
5.8
0.0
13.3
9.6
4.9
0.0
0.0
42.7
73.2
195.0
30.8
31.3%
1.2
4.2
0.2
0.1
3.9
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.3
7.0
1.3
20.3
1.5
29.9%
1.9
2.2
0.3
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.8
2.8
3.5
12.5
1.4
37.3%
8.6
19.9
3.1
7.4
38.0
10.6
3.1
1.7
0.0
24.9
0.7
118.2
17.5
29.6%
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.1
8.3%
3.1
7.4
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
15.7
33.3
4.9
26.5%
1.3
7.8
0.4
0.2
12.7
1.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
6.2
0.4
32.5
3.0
52.2%
7.9
26.6
4.9
0.0
32.7
7.7
4.4
7.5
1.2
42.4
1.0
136.4
16.4
40.6%
1.3
14.2
0.9
0.0
66.7
5.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
8.4
5.0
102.6
14.9
69.9%
12.8
17.1
4.1
0.0
4.2
0.5
3.1
0.0
4.9
27.9
59.8
134.5
16.8
35.4%
0.3
7.9
1.7
0.3
36.9
1.7
1.5
50.3
31.6%
0.5
1.6
1.0
0.0
7.1
1.1
1.2
12.6
7.0%
1.8
9.2
6.5
0.4
10.6
1.0
1.6
31.2
40.9%
0.5
20.3
1.0
0.0
60.6
0.1
2.2
84.7
62.1%
1.9
18.5
11.6
1.5
143.9
13.3
6.0
196.8
28.3%
0.6
20.0
9.7
0.9
92.3
15.9
8.0
147.6
13.6%
0.1
1.1
0.3
0.1
15.8
4.7
0.9
23.1
24.0%
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.0
4.1
0.4
0.4
6.2
11.4%
0.7
10.1
4.2
2.0
33.8
22.1
0.5
73.4
9.9%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
4.6%
0.9
3.6
2.1
0.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
15.7
5.3%
0.1
2.8
0.2
0.1
31.9
3.8
0.4
39.2
43.8%
0.8
6.4
4.9
0.1
60.2
15.0
1.3
88.7
21.1%
0.4
37.4
3.1
0.0
66.9
0.2
5.8
113.8
81.3%
11.4
8.0
5.9
0.0
8.3
0.2
0.0
33.7
5.8%
0.0
1.5
2.1
3.6
4.1%
7.6
9.9%
0.0
2.9
7.2
10.1
9.5%
9.0
9.9%
0.0
3.6
1.4
5.0
8.5%
4.6
9.9%
0.0
7.6
1.2
8.8
16.9%
4.4
9.9%
18.2
21.4
5.6
45.1
8.4%
46.4
9.9%
6.0
18.1
21.8
46.0
7.0%
52.8
9.9%
0.8
4.1
3.0
7.8
7.6%
8.3
9.9%
0.2
5.2
1.9
7.3
11.5%
5.0
9.9%
2.4
9.9
12.9
25.2
4.9%
43.0
9.9%
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
2.2%
2.5
9.9%
0.2
3.3
5.0
8.6
5.3%
12.0
9.9%
0.0
3.6
2.4
6.0
7.0%
7.1
9.9%
0.0
18.0
9.5
27.5
5.4%
41.6
9.9%
0.0
7.9
2.8
10.8
11.4%
8.0
9.9%
4.0
18.2
15.1
37.3
6.6%
43.1
9.9%
110.3
34.6%
114.3
35.8%
34%
105%
37.6
9.6%
36.6
9.3%
13%
72%
59.0
34.6%
58.6
34.4%
30%
115%
134.4
47.9%
129.9
46.3%
38%
122%
415.6
23.8%
416.9
23.8%
23%
104%
388.5
16.4%
395.3
16.7%
18%
93%
51.2
19.2%
51.7
19.4%
18%
108%
26.0
17.2%
23.6
15.6%
16%
98%
216.8
13.1%
234.6
14.2%
17%
83%
1.8
3.7%
3.7
7.4%
11%
67%
57.6
9.9%
61.0
10.5%
14%
75%
77.6
32.8%
78.7
33.3%
31%
107%
252.6
20.0%
266.7
21.1%
20%
106%
227.1
59.6%
224.4
58.8%
49%
120%
205.5
13.5%
211.3
13.9%
15%
93%
RES in total
RES total1
Share on total final energy demand1
RES total 2
Share on total final energy demand 2
Proposed RES target for 2020 3
Corresponding national target fulfillment 2
Notes: 1 … biofuels accounted according to production / domestic resources, 2 … biofuels accounted according to consumption (10% target), 3 … according to the Commission proposal for the RES directive as
published on the 23 January 2008
36
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
European
Union
Traditional biofuels
Advanced biofuels
Biofuel import
RES-T total
Share on diesel & gasoline demand
RES-T total
Share on diesel & gasoline demand
Slovakia
RES Transport
Poland
Biogas (grid)
Solid biomass (grid)
Biowaste (grid)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solid biomass (non-grid)
Solar thermal heat. & water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
Share on gross heat demand
Malta
RES Heat
Lithuania
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
RES-E CHP
Share on gross electricity demand
Latvia
RES Electricity
Hungary
energy [TWh/yr.] Part 2: New MS & EU-27
RES category
Estonia
Breakdown of 2020 RES
deployment by country & by
technology (expressed in terms of final
Czech
Republic
Breakdown of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27
Cyprus
Table A. 2
futures-e
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LV
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI
BG
RO
EU27
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
1.0
0.1
19.6%
1.8
4.7
0.2
0.0
1.2
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
13.6
3.6
17.1%
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
1.8
0.4
16.8%
1.5
5.5
0.7
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
9.6
3.8
19.4%
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.1
5.2
0.7
51.1%
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
2.9
0.8
19.7%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.0
17.5%
6.6
19.5
1.5
0.0
1.4
1.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.5
38.3
12.5
22.2%
0.8
3.1
0.1
0.0
4.6
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
9.7
2.2
25.6%
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.0
5.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
7.7
0.8
43.4%
0.6
2.3
0.2
0.6
4.1
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.1
9.8
1.3
23.0%
3.1
7.0
0.8
0.0
20.3
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.1
33.6
5.0
41.8%
88.2
216.9
34.0
8.5
321.4
62.7
25.9
11.0
8.0
256.5
195.0
1228.2
187.4
34.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.9
21.9%
0.4
5.4
0.9
0.0
17.3
0.1
0.0
24.3
15.0%
0.0
1.9
0.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
0.1
8.3
43.6%
0.1
3.6
1.1
2.2
8.3
0.6
0.1
15.9
13.2%
0.1
3.1
0.0
0.0
14.2
0.0
0.0
17.5
48.2%
0.1
3.8
0.1
0.0
8.2
0.0
0.2
12.3
37.7%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
20.9%
0.8
22.9
2.7
0.1
55.1
0.8
2.2
84.6
18.7%
0.1
4.0
0.3
0.9
4.2
0.0
0.0
9.4
12.7%
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
7.1
0.6
0.1
9.0
33.8%
0.0
1.8
0.3
0.5
10.0
1.0
0.1
13.8
23.6%
0.2
5.4
1.4
0.8
42.4
3.2
1.2
54.7
24.0%
22.2
200.3
60.0
10.2
750.4
89.6
35.4
1168.2
19.6%
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
1.8%
0.8
9.9%
1.4
4.9
1.3
7.6
8.7%
7.8
9.9%
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.6
15.9%
1.0
9.9%
1.1
8.8
0.9
10.8
20.1%
4.9
9.9%
0.1
3.5
0.0
3.5
21.2%
1.5
9.9%
0.0
5.2
0.0
5.2
26.8%
1.6
9.9%
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.4%
0.3
9.9%
8.3
25.2
3.3
36.9
19.8%
14.9
9.9%
0.5
1.9
0.4
2.8
11.9%
2.2
9.9%
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
1.7%
1.8
9.9%
1.3
4.7
0.8
6.7
16.5%
3.1
9.9%
7.0
8.3
1.0
16.3
22.4%
6.8
9.9%
51.6
189.5
100.8
341.9
8.2%
341.9
9.9%
2.1
10.1%
2.7
12.7%
13%
98%
45.5
13.8%
45.6
13.9%
13%
107%
11.7
29.3%
11.0
27.7%
25%
111%
36.4
16.2%
30.4
13.6%
13%
105%
26.2
41.5%
24.2
38.3%
42%
91%
20.4
30.6%
16.8
25.1%
23%
109%
0.6
8.4%
0.8
11.1%
10%
111%
159.8
19.7%
137.9
17.0%
15%
113%
21.9
16.1%
21.4
15.7%
14%
112%
17.0
27.2%
18.5
29.5%
25%
118%
30.3
21.4%
26.6
18.8%
16%
118%
104.6
27.5%
95.0
25.0%
24%
104%
2738.3
20.0%
2738.3
20.0%
20%
100%
RES Transport
RES total1
Share on total final energy demand1
RES total 2
Share on total final energy demand 2
Proposed RES target for 2020 3
Corresponding national target fulfillment 2
Notes: 1 … biofuels accounted according to production / domestic resources, 2 … biofuels accounted according to consumption (10% target), 3 … according to the Commission proposal for the
RES directive as published on the 23 January 2008
37
futures-e
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Domestic biofuels
1
Biofuel import
Italy
RES Transport
Ireland
Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solar thermal heat. & hot water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
Greece
RES Heat
Germany
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
France
RES Electricity
Finland
(expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.])
Part 1: EU-15 MS
RES category
Denmark
Realisable mid-term potentials for
RES by country & by technology
Belgium
Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries
Austria
Table A. 3
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
ES
SE
UK
1.9
6.8
0.9
0.2
35.0
9.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
5.4
0.0
60.8
3.2
4.1
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.2
4.7
4.0
17.9
1.9
5.2
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.6
9.5
11.8
32.8
1.3
19.4
0.5
0.0
13.9
1.7
0.6
0.0
1.5
8.6
4.5
51.9
22.8
36.2
5.0
1.5
62.6
10.9
5.9
0.0
13.2
61.4
32.6
252.1
16.4
34.6
5.8
0.0
15.6
9.6
5.5
0.0
7.7
58.1
83.7
236.8
1.6
4.7
0.4
1.8
4.6
0.4
1.0
7.5
4.0
9.6
2.9
38.7
3.4
2.2
0.5
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.0
3.9
3.0
3.9
18.3
10.4
22.0
3.3
60.6
46.4
10.6
3.7
21.8
3.2
31.2
2.6
215.9
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.8
4.3
7.5
4.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.0
6.0
21.6
46.7
2.3
7.8
0.5
2.5
14.1
1.8
1.0
6.9
7.4
7.6
7.2
59.0
13.2
27.6
5.2
0.8
44.8
7.7
5.1
49.2
13.2
42.8
15.7
225.4
1.9
16.4
1.0
0.0
69.9
5.2
1.3
0.0
3.0
10.7
14.8
124.3
16.3
17.4
4.4
0.0
4.7
0.7
4.3
0.0
58.9
31.0
73.0
210.7
47.9
1.1
7.7
8.8
65.5
10.4
0.3
9.6
13.5
33.9
32.5
4.4
5.4
5.2
47.6
95.6
0.0
7.7
6.2
109.6
202.4
1.8
68.7
50.2
323.1
140.9
7.2
77.2
85.2
310.5
18.1
0.4
10.4
5.6
34.5
6.5
0.3
3.6
3.3
13.8
50.4
12.2
70.4
50.2
183.2
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.3
12.3
0.3
14.9
14.4
41.9
35.0
0.3
10.1
3.2
48.6
86.0
0.9
39.6
14.9
141.4
110.4
0.4
9.4
11.1
131.3
36.8
0.2
56.3
56.3
149.6
4.5
2.9
10.1
7.8
88.5
47.1
6.5
5.5
20.8
0.2
3.6
3.6
37.5
no country-specific potential applicable as only an EU-wide cap for biofuel imports was introduced
11.5
23.9
130.8
41%
133.0
54.7
14%
61.9
267.0
70%
269.8
384.2
25%
399.3
RES in total
RES total2
2
3
RES total as share in final energy demand
4
RES total (incl. biofuel import)
90.5
53%
91.9
169.2
60%
170.5
663.7
38%
669.3
594.4
25%
616.2
79.7
30%
82.7
37.5
25%
39.5
419.8
25%
432.7
2.4
5%
3.0
92.2
16%
97.2
111.2
47%
113.6
404.3
32%
413.8
Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad, 3 … final energy demand according to PRIMES efficiency case (2007), 4 … incl. scenario-specific
biofuel imports from abroad
38
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table A. 4
futures-e
Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for New Member States and
Slovakia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
European
Union
Domestic biofuels
Biofuel import1
Poland
RES Transport
Malta
Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solar thermal heat. & hot water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
Lithuania
RES Heat
Latvia
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
Hungary
RES Electricity
Estonia
(expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.])
Part 2: New MS & EU-27
RES category
Czech
Republic
Realisable mid-term potentials for
RES by country & by technology
Cyprus
total EU-27
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LV
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI
BG
RO
EU27
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.3
1.5
2.2
5.3
0.3
0.0
1.2
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
15.1
0.4
1.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.3
0.3
5.1
2.2
6.7
0.7
0.0
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
12.3
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.3
0.3
8.1
0.7
2.3
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.3
0.1
5.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
8.0
20.4
1.6
0.0
1.5
1.7
0.5
0.0
1.1
8.6
2.5
45.9
1.0
3.4
0.2
0.0
4.6
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
10.8
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.0
5.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
8.8
1.4
3.8
0.3
1.3
10.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.8
7.3
0.4
26.3
5.2
9.2
0.9
0.1
20.5
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.5
6.7
0.2
44.8
123.6
268.0
39.3
68.7
361.1
66.4
33.7
85.4
124.6
323.6
282.5
1776.8
0.4
0.0
1.2
0.2
1.7
24.4
0.3
4.8
5.3
34.7
13.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
14.4
17.2
2.9
5.0
5.2
30.3
18.5
0.0
1.1
1.2
20.8
13.8
0.0
1.9
2.0
17.7
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
81.8
0.9
20.6
20.1
123.5
9.7
1.5
2.5
2.8
16.5
10.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
13.0
17.2
1.3
4.2
1.4
24.1
55.4
2.2
13.9
11.7
83.1
1147.9
39.3
448.8
380.1
2015.9
0.3
10.2
2.9
15.2
6.2
10.7
0.0
52.1
3.8
0.7
12.0
32.3
no country-specific potential applicable as only an EU-wide cap for biofuel imports was introduced
420.4
RES in total
RES total2
2
3
RES total as share on final energy demand
RES total (incl. biofuel import) 4
3.5
17%
3.7
60.1
18%
61.4
22.4
56%
22.4
57.8
26%
58.7
35.2
56%
35.2
34.0
51%
34.0
0.8
11%
0.9
221.4
27%
224.8
31.1
23%
31.5
22.4
36%
22.7
62.5
44%
63.2
160.2
42%
161.3
4213.2
31%
4314.0
Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad, 3 … final energy demand according to PRIMES efficiency case (2007), 4 … incl.
scenario-specific biofuel imports from abroad
39
futures-e
Table A. 5
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Domestic biofuels
Biofuel import1
Greece
RES Transport
Germany
Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solar thermal heat. & hot water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
France
RES Heat
Finland
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
Denmark
RES Electricity
Belgium
RES deployment vs. potential - Scenariospecific exploitation of the realisable mid-term
potential for RES by country & by technology
(i.e. 2020 deployment as share on potential
[%]) Part 1: EU-15 MS
RES category
Austria
– for EU-15 countries
AT
BE
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
ES
SE
UK
78%
94%
92%
8%
100%
79%
86%
n.a.
n.a.
76%
n.a.
93%
79%
100%
93%
n.a.
100%
68%
72%
n.a.
0%
76%
81%
83%
49%
90%
98%
n.a.
n.a.
96%
75%
n.a.
5%
97%
53%
70%
45%
87%
59%
n.a.
97%
91%
58%
n.a.
0%
74%
33%
79%
56%
28%
95%
12%
95%
99%
72%
n.a.
0%
80%
68%
69%
94%
87%
100%
n.a.
86%
100%
90%
n.a.
0%
74%
87%
82%
74%
88%
59%
5%
85%
100%
77%
12%
7%
73%
44%
52%
55%
100%
59%
n.a.
83%
68%
69%
n.a.
22%
93%
88%
68%
82%
91%
95%
12%
82%
100%
83%
8%
1%
80%
26%
55%
81%
22%
92%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
85%
n.a.
n.a.
76%
n.a.
71%
72%
98%
43%
n.a.
99%
3%
82%
n.a.
0%
65%
73%
71%
58%
100%
71%
9%
90%
76%
67%
13%
8%
81%
5%
55%
60%
96%
94%
5%
73%
100%
85%
15%
9%
99%
6%
61%
70%
87%
98%
n.a.
95%
100%
58%
n.a.
0%
79%
34%
83%
79%
98%
95%
n.a.
90%
69%
72%
n.a.
8%
90%
82%
64%
98%
27%
23%
17%
77%
99%
11%
11%
9%
37%
87%
9%
19%
30%
66%
86%
n.a.
1%
36%
77%
87%
85%
19%
12%
61%
87%
12%
21%
9%
48%
96%
36%
45%
16%
67%
83%
2%
11%
11%
45%
97%
16%
31%
1%
40%
55%
n.a.
21%
10%
46%
91%
0%
20%
10%
37%
100%
37%
38%
12%
81%
84%
11%
38%
9%
63%
98%
9%
2%
52%
87%
91%
19%
0%
0%
23%
34%
100%
36%
98%
45%
51%
74%
98%
59%
0%
98%
100%
48%
no country-specific potential applicable as only an EU-wide cap for biofuel imports was introduced
69%
93%
83%
56%
84%
50%
RES in total
RES total2
64%
79%
62%
Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad
62%
60%
64%
49%
51%
57%
68%
60%
40
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
Table A. 6
futures-e
Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
European
Union
Domestic biofuels
Biofuel import1
Malta
RES Transport
Lithuania
Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste)
Geothermal heat (grid)
Solar thermal heat. & hot water
Heat pumps
RES-H total
Latvia
RES Heat
Hungary
Biogas
Solid biomass
Biowaste
Geothermal electricity
Hydro large-scale
Hydro small-scale
Photovoltaics
Solar thermal electricity
Tide & wave
Wind onshore
Wind offshore
RES-E total
Estonia
RES Electricity
Czech
Republic
RES deployment vs. potential - Scenariospecific exploitation of the realisable mid-term
potential for RES by country & by technology
(i.e. 2020 deployment as share on potential
[%]) Part 2: New MS & EU-27
RES category
Cyprus
– for New Member States and total EU-27
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LV
LT
MT
PL
SK
SI
BG
RO
EU27
59%
92%
83%
n.a.
n.a.
30%
49%
n.a.
0%
98%
55%
69%
84%
89%
74%
n.a.
100%
100%
43%
n.a.
n.a.
91%
n.a.
90%
56%
35%
84%
n.a.
n.a.
90%
42%
n.a.
0%
55%
41%
35%
66%
82%
91%
n.a.
64%
76%
42%
n.a.
n.a.
86%
n.a.
78%
70%
52%
85%
n.a.
78%
100%
42%
n.a.
0%
64%
41%
65%
61%
44%
58%
n.a.
68%
95%
42%
n.a.
0%
57%
55%
52%
65%
71%
0%
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
43%
n.a.
0%
99%
98%
75%
83%
96%
94%
n.a.
94%
100%
42%
n.a.
0%
80%
21%
84%
80%
89%
64%
n.a.
100%
76%
63%
n.a.
n.a.
71%
n.a.
90%
89%
54%
59%
n.a.
100%
88%
17%
n.a.
n.a.
86%
n.a.
88%
42%
61%
59%
45%
41%
100%
42%
n.a.
0%
14%
21%
37%
61%
76%
94%
34%
99%
69%
42%
n.a.
0%
18%
55%
75%
71%
81%
86%
12%
89%
94%
77%
13%
6%
79%
69%
69%
46%
n.a.
62%
13%
53%
99%
15%
3%
1%
70%
63%
n.a.
1%
11%
57%
76%
77%
11%
2%
53%
94%
n.a.
0%
4%
84%
88%
9%
0%
8%
70%
2%
n.a.
57%
9%
40%
100%
8%
4%
11%
69%
87%
62%
0%
0%
57%
82%
36%
37%
14%
69%
71%
36%
23%
11%
57%
89%
36%
23%
11%
66%
90%
26%
20%
9%
58%
62%
57%
66%
57%
49%
0%
64%
64%
0%
50%
47%
no country-specific potential applicable as only an EU-wide cap for biofuel imports was introduced
57%
73%
63%
0%
RES in total
RES total2
55%
52%
61%
75%
Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad
60%
63%
71%
69%
75%
47%
65%
futures-e
Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020
41
ANNEX B: SHORT CHARACTERISATION OF THE Green-X MODEL
The Green-X model was developed by EEG within the research project “Green-X – Deriving optimal promotion strategies for increasing the share of RES-E in a dynamic European
electricity market”, a joint European research project funded within the 5th framework
program of the European Commission, DG Research (Contract No. ENG2-CT-2002-00607).
It allows performing a detailed quantitative assessment of the RES deployment until 2030
in a real-world policy context. This tool has been successfully applied at the European level
within several tenders and research projects on renewable energies and corresponding energy policies, e.g. FORRES 2020, OPTRES, PROGRESS and has been used in the discussion
process on “20% RES by 2020” for the European Commission. Besides, also several studies
have been conducted at the national level to assess RES policy options in a brief manner. It
fulfils all requirements to explore the prospects of renewable energy technologies:
•
It currently covers geographically the EU-27 (all sectors) as well as Croatia, Switzerland, Norway (limited to RES-electricity) and can easily be extended to other
countries or regions.
•
It allows investigating the future deployment of RES as well as accompanying generation costs and transfer payments (due to the promotion of RES) within each
energy sector (electricity, heat and transport) on country- and technology-level on
a yearly basis up to a time-horizon of 2020 / 2030.
•
The modelling approach to describe supply-side generation technologies is to derive dynamic cost-resource curves by RES option, allowing besides the formal description of potentials and costs a suitable representation of dynamic aspects such
as technological learning and technology diffusion.
•
It is perfectly suitable to investigate the impact of applying different energy policy
instruments (e.g. quota obligations based on tradable green certificates, feed-in
tariffs, tax incentives, investment subsidies) and non-economic diffusion barriers.
•
Its global pendant, the WorldRES model is periodically applied by the International
Energy Agency to assess the future deployment of renewable energy technologies
at the global scale in the context of the “World Energy Outlook” series. It covers
21 world regions and allows forecasts in the 2030 timeframe.