Transcript www.itr.si
Increased share of renewable energy and conservation of biodiversity in Slovenia indeed a “mission impossible” ? Andrej Klemenc Slovenski E-forum Dimičeva ulica 12, 1113 Ljubljana [email protected] www.se-f.si NGO seminar on Slovene EU presidency – environmental issues Ljubljana, 7. – 8. junij 2007 City Hotel, Dalmatinova 15 SLOVENSKI E-FORUM Society for Energy Economics & Environment Expert based environmental citizen’s organization established in 1993 by former activists of youth environmental movements and green party. Mission: support to development of energy services that will enable bettered quality of life of actual and future generations while reducing negative impacts on the environment Goals: better energy services and better environment, increased awareness on energy and enviornment/climate, enhanced public participation in design and implementation of energy and related policies. 80 members: experts and activists from the field of energy policy, integrated energy planning, energy economics, energy conservation, renewable energy, climate change, (market instruments of) environmental protection, environmental sociology, public participation etc. Amount and structure of Total Primary Enegy Supply in Slovenia from 2006 Source: Annual energy outlook of RS 2005, IJS-CEU Letna stopnja rasti oskrbe z energijo za obdobje 2000-2005 je višja, kot je bila predvidena po ReNEP (predvidena 2,0 % , dosežena 2,9 % ). Višja rast je posledica višje rasti porabe v termoenergetskih objektih ter višje rasti porabe končne energije, kjer izstopata hitra rast porabe električne energije (zlasti v industriji) ter hitra rast porabe tekočih goriv v prometu. Slika 1: Oskr ba z energijo za zadnjih šest let 1 350 325 266 PJ (6,4 Mtoe) 283 PJ (6,8 Mtoe) 287 PJ 290 PJ 298 PJ 307 PJ (6,9 Mtoe) (6,9 Mtoe) (7,1 Mtoe) (7,3 Mtoe) 300 17,3 Primary energy consumtion EU25 (1750 Mtoe) in 2005 Tertiary 9% Non-Energy Uses 6% Transport 19% Industry 17% 15,4 20,2 13,6 11,9 10,6 57,4 60,3 56,8 39,5 38,1 42,2 99,3 96,4 56,9 60,3 2000 2001 13,2 Oskrba z energijo [PJ] Households 16% Transformation losses 33% 12,5 275 1 Ostalo*: ostali obnovljivi viri energije in uvoz električne energije 250 14,7 13,8 225 59,5 19,2 12,5 64,2 52,0 200 175 41,8 43,2 97,7 100,7 103,4 64,8 62,6 64,4 64,1 2002 2003 2004 2005 34,5 150 125 100 95,8 75 50 25 0 Ostalo* Vodna energija Jedrska energija Zemeljski plin Nafta in derivati Trdna goriva Structure of TPES in Slovenia and EU 25 and amount and structure of final energy in Slovenia Source: Annual energy outlook of RS 2005, IJS-CEU 14,7% EU 25, 2003 39,4% 18,2% SLO, 2005 37,4% 20,9% SLO, 2004 14,1% 33,7% 21,4% 15,3% 23,6% 33,7% 21,6% SLO, 2000 24,2% 36,0% 14,6% 20,9% 14,0% 19,9% 13,0% 6,1% 19,5% 6,0% 10,7% 11,7% 11,9% 10% Letne rasti končne porabe energije [%] EU 15, 2003 8% 7,2% 6,9% 6% 4,8% 5,4% 4% 2% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 3,8% 3,2% 3,1% 2,2% 1,5% 2,2% 2,1% 1,6% 2,2% 2,0% 1,0% 0% 0% 0% 1,2% 1,1% 1,5% 3,9% 3,2% 1,6% 0% 1,4% 2,3% 0,7% 2,1% 2,2% -1,6% -2% -2,3% -4% -6% -6,1% -8% -10% Tekoča goriva Zemeljski plin 0% 4,1% 3,9% 3,8% 2,6% 2001 2002 Električna energija 2003 2004 Toplota 2005 Obnovljivi viri energije SKUPAJ Povp. 2005/00 Struktura oskrbe z energijo [%] Trdna goriva Zemeljski plin Obnovljivi viri Nafta in derivati Jedrska energija Slika 3: Struktura končne porabe energije v letu1 Vir: SURS 2000 in 2005 Energy intensity of Slovenije 0, 7 Vi ri: - Annual Energy revi ew 2001, jan 2002 - SLEG, letna publi kac ija, tabele Energets ka Bilanca, Potr ošnja el. ener g. po skupi nah potroš nikov El/ 10 0, 6 [GWh/mio EUR95] 0, 5 0, 4 Elctricity-intensity of Slovenia 0, 3 0, 2 0, 1 199 0 500 energetska intenzivnost [toe/1000 €95] 199 5 a* ij a Da ns ka Ne m cij ka Av str Ir s zo ze m sk a Fr an cij a Ni Ita lij a EU * Be lg ij a Lu ks em bu rg Šp an ij a Ve l ik aB r it an ij a G rc ij a Po r tu ga ls k a Šv ed sk a ka Fi ns Sl ov en ij a 0, 0 199 9 450 400 predlog NVO NEP -3,5% letno od l. 2000 350 300 250 200 150 US EU15 Portugal Italy Finland Slovenia 100 50 Japan Austria Germany Greece Sweden France 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 leto 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Energy intensity of USA, Slovenia and EU 15 Content The origins of the present conflict between biodiversity and RES State of the art of the energy sector in Slovenia and present trends Lack of the concept of “energy services” in the dominant discourse Policy of energy pricing and the lack of environmental budget reform Absence of energy efficiency lobby Advantages and limits of local energy systems Alternative ways of provision of energy services How to reduce tensions between RES and biodiversity? How to achieve better conflict management in the field? The origins of the present conflict between biodiversity and RES Large biodiversity on small area Geo-morfology ( increasing concentration of human settlements and activities on relatively scarce flat land) and “transit” nature of Slovenia as the area of trans European corridors for transport and energy Origins within “nature conservation paradigm”: Dominance “either – or ” mind pattern Protection of the nature “against humans” instead of “with humans for the humans”; Conservationist attitude of protection of biodiversity, natural values and traditional landscape together with weak capacities for assessment the relation between short term loses against long term gains (for example opposition to any human intervention in river bed although this might reduce the forthcoming down stream habitat risks due to more frequent and extensive droughts as a consequence of the climate change) Weak capacities of nature protection, state of law and sanction capacities and consequently dominance of “better not allow any human activity as to be in position not being able to sanction and abolish its eventual non-desired consequences The origins of the present conflict between biodiversity and RES “The nature” of RES: local origin, (additional) intervention in nature, low “energy density” as compared to fossil fuels and uranium The origins within “energy sector”: Dominance of centralised supply side fossil fuel based model and central large scale economy of scale subjected power plants Political economy of power sector: maintainance and development of state owned companies depends on central-plan of distribution of resources thus modernisation of capacities can only be achieved by expansion of the whole power system Integration of “renewable energy sources” into economy of scale dominated supply side institutional designs and corporative state and para-state coalitions of actors Values, imagination and expectations of the majority of consumers (cheap energy as prerequsite of development and progress, centralised state owned system as inavitabe determinant of reliable and affordable energy supply) Sate of the art and present trends in energy sector Domination of supply side and electric power driven supply Only formal separation of generation from trade and transmission with central power supply system (CPSS) and continuity of “agreement economy” of the dominant “coalition of growth” Large share of trans-border electric power trading and following demands to expand transmission grids State ownership of CPPS and para-state control over large energy utilities Expansion conditioned (environmental) modernisation of CPPS: plans for new power plants at Šoštanj ( TEŠ 600 MW-coal), Krško (1000 MW- nuclear), Middle Sava Region (200 – 500 MW, coal, gas, wastes), Hdyro power plants chains at lower Sava river (180 MW- in construction), Mura and midle Sava ( , Storege power plant Avče (200 MW- in construction) and Kozjak (400 MW - in planing), gas PP Kidričevo (2 x 400 MW) ,wind farm at Primorska (200 MW), transmission grid Krško – Beričevo, Cirkovce Hungarian border and Kraj – Udine (Italy) Relatively high share of RES and RES-E however on the basis of low technology diversity (predomintely hydro PP and oldfashioned biomass facilites) Weak and dis-organised actors out of central state owned supply system State of the art in Slovenia High energy intensity of the country Per capita electric power consumption in Slovenia is well above EU 15 average Relatively high security of energy supply, however for a price of low competitiveness and high environmental impacts (low quality domestic coal) The share of RES ( arround 10%) and RES-E (30%) is above EU 25 average High growth of primary energy supply and at very first of electric power Average electric power consumption was in the preriod 2002 – 2005 higher then GDP growth. • • PE growth 2,8 %/y respectively 15% (2000-2005) Increased consumption of natural gas of 25%, nuclear energy 24%, solid fuels 13%, RES 13%, liquid fuels 8%, Hydro -10%, RES + Hydro 3% 8000 7000 Primarna energija (1000 toe) 6000 Obnovljivi viri in odpadki Hidro energija Nuklearna energija Zemeljski plin Tekoča goriva Trdna goriva 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Trends in energy sector in Slovenia Fast growth of energy consumption at weak support to RES and RUE is not enabling achievement of neither Kyoto nor National Energy Program targets and is putting under question EU 2020 Action plan targets. At the recent growth (since 2000) in electricity consumption the capacities for “covering” domestic demand must be doubled till 2020! Since 2005 the improvement of feed in tariff for RES E and high efficient natural gas base CHP has boosted investment in biogas and PV, however administrative barriers are preventing most of the small scale private investments. Electricity from large hydro PP is RECS certificated, the cerificates are sold on EU market and domestic sells are increasing . “Green electricity trading” is in its initial stage (trade marks of Zelena elektrika, Zelena energija and Modra energija) and “pooling” of qualified RES-E producers has started (Istabenz-Gorenje) Due to higher market price and weak Slovene wood manufacturing industry more and more high quality wood biomass is exported thus the conflict between material and energy use of wood biomass in the country is escalating. National Energy Program RUE and RES targets Till 2010: • RUE in all sectors: energy efficiency (EE) increase of 10% • RUE in pubic sector: EE increase of 15 % co-generation: doubling of energy generation • RES in primary energy: increase of share from 8% to 12% * RES - heat: increase from 22% to 25% * RES- Electric power: increase from 32,0% to 33,6% * RES - transport: 2 % share of biofuels in 2005 Assessed support needed: 580 mio € + 400 mio € Except maybe CHP target non of the targets will be achieved! Lack of concept of “energy services” in the dominant discourse on energy Energy policy documents are speaking at very first on “security of supply with energy”, somehow less on competitiveness and environmental friendliness of energy supply and very rear on sustainable energy services. Analysis of discourse shows contradiction between market-liberal rethorics and corporativist concepts. The role of consumer is in best case limited to choose of the best energy supplier. Contrary to this the concept of energy services demands from consumer to optimise his/hers energy services with his/hers values by combining different actions, technologies and suppliers to achieve best performance according to the different criteria (price, quality, comfort, environmental impacts etc.) ENERGY SERVICES (examples): Corresponding room temperature for work/leisure Corresponding illumination of rooms Providing capacities for mobility and communication Operation of machines and appliances STRATEGIC CLASH OF ENERGY POLICY OF EU AND SLOVENIA “Most of the strategic goals of Slovenia is more or less in line with those of EU, however there are also some evident misconceptions: whereas EC Green book on energy speaks about mastering and reducing energy demand in households and transport the Slovene documents are only speaking about supply of energy for growing demand” Preparation of analytical and strategic baselines for National development program 2007- 2013 from the perspective of sustainable development and .... Oikos d.o.o., November 2005, page 16 & 17 Commission assesses progress with reform to boost growth and jobs in Slovenia In addition, according to the Commission, it will be important for Slovenia to focus on: setting concrete and realistic targets for investment in R&D; improving the effectiveness of the new Office for Growth and of the Slovenian Technology Agency …. better promotion of environmental technologies and energy efficiency; shortening start-up times for businesses and reducing related costs; integrating young people in the labour market…. europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1728&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLangu age=en http:// The policy of energy pricing and lack of environmental budget reform Large industrial consumers and households (captured customers) are paying considerably lower prices compared to EU 25 average, that are in some case below the production price – while this is not the case for most of industry Energy (at very first electric power) pricing is the instrument for: Energy and energy carriers in Slovenia are subjected to low taxation: Maintenance of the consensus that cheap energy is precondition for development and quality of live; Maintenance of the dominant role of centralised energy supply systems and large energy utilities, Achievement of anti-inflation and EU monetary convergency goals Excise duties on liquid fuels are on the lowest allowed EU margine Slovenia applied transition period in implementing minimal (and very low) excise duty on electric power Use of domestic coal is exempted from CO2 tax CO2 tax is not recycled to support RES and RUE investments in spite of decision of Parliament from March 2004 (approval of National energy program) Budget support remains at 40 mio EUR/y, Parliament voted for increase to 500 mio/y Strucutral weakness of bio-divesity friendly actors and corporativist nature of policy process Energy conservation and energy efficiency lobby at the EU level is weak compared to coal, nuclear and even RES lobby, however in Slovenia is not organised whereas most of the RES intiatives are trapped into expansion plans of existing fossil fuel based and/or old large hydro utilities. Actors from the fields of RUE, energy conservation and distributed power in Slovenia are dispersed, not organised and not capable to articulate and present their (common) interests. Decision making process, design of policy arenas and policy style are not in favour of decentralised, small scale and participatory development patterns but are in favour of large scale (state and para state) actors and large supply side options. The policy making process is exclusive to the experts and NGOs that are not supporting in advanced the project that has been tailored according to the narrow interests of investors Within this framework most of the RES projects are in conflict with protection of bio-diversty, landscape protection and principles of Aarhus convention. Consensus on support to RES can be acchieved in building sector Energy retrofitting of old buildings plus energy efficient/passive/energy plus new buildings Reduced demand on energy No demand on new (rural) space Integration of local RES Increased added value: Increased (local) employment Increased quality of energy services Reduced long term energy spendings Development of SMEs Industrial development Increased export potential How to reduce conflict potential between RES and biodiverstiy in Slovenia? Conceptual shift from energy supply to provision of (sustainable) energy services is needed, Strategic shift from central toward local supply chains and systems is needed, too. Investment risks should be also in energy sector taken by private investors (privatisation) while the competences and capacities of independent regulatory and sanction bodies should be strengthened. Gradual internalisation of external social and environmental costs of energy use and environmental budget reform could be supportive to reduction of the conflict potential Better awareness raising on global environmental footprint of fossil fuels and impacts of extraction of fossil fuels for the people in third world Shift in values, role of consumers and capacities to imagine alternative ways of providing energy services Creation of national “golden standards” for RES and RES-E (or adaptation of international standards to national circumstances) by participation of nature and landscape protection NGOs. Reduction of administrative barriers for RES but stregnthened monitoring control and sanction capacities in the field of heath, environmental and nature protection. How to improve conflict management? Retreat of fundamentalist discourses (a-priory negative statements towards RES sources and/or technologies) De-construction of the Other (capability to see the opponent not as it was constructed from our perspective to fight with him, i.e. Not as “an enemy”) Integration of “effected” already in the phase of definition of the issue and consensus building on the issue. Integration of “effected” in preparatory, decision making, implementation and evaluation proceedures. Improvement of transparency, access to information and access to independent expertise Better control and sanction capacities in the field of environmental/nature protection Changes of the concept and strategy of nature protection in the country? Changes of energy and transport policies: “(environmental) modernisation of central supply system (in energy) and personal car transport systems without their expansion, development of local energy, energy services market and inter-modality (in transport sector) Respecting subsidiarity principle in conflit solving. Conlusions Conflict is not always bad – it could be a starting point for better solutions. Except in integration of RES in energy services in buildings and integration of RES in energy generation in urban settlements the conflict between RES and biodiversity will be in most cases present. Thus the primary sector of RES should be in buildings and in local energy supply. RES can have a significant impact on reduction of GHG emissions thus they can also contribute to preservation of bio-diversty on the global level. This global positive effect can however not justify loosing of nature protection standards or their violation. Actual cultural and institutional set up in Slovenia together with both energy and nature protection policy is leading toward escalation of conflicts between RES and biodiversity in the country. Contrary to strategy of increasing environmental and nature protection administrative bariers in order to prevent potentially biodiversity harmful projects the administrative barriers for investors should be reduced and investments encuraged by positive spatial planning policy (RES “zones” and zones with “case sensitive nature protection regimes”) whereas at the same time public participation, monitoring, control and sanction capacities should be stranghtened.