Transcript Our Inefficient Energy System in Europe

Making an inefficient
energy system in Europe
more efficient
Sven Werner, professor
Halmstad University, Sweden
Partly based on the IEE Ecoheatcool
project findings, 2005-2006
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
1
Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Inefficient energy system in Europe
Heat recycling can increase the system
efficiency
Expansion of current district heating
systems and the available resources
Two time horizons: 2020 and 2050
Barriers for expansion of district heating
systems
Some concluding proposals
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
2
1. Input-output analysis in 4 steps
European Union - 27 during 2006
EJ
Total Primary Energy Supply = 76,3 EJ
90
80
Heat losses, central conversion
(energy sector)
Heat losses, local conversion
(consumers)
Heat losses, end use inefficiency
Combustible renewables and
waste
Solar/wind/other
70
60
Geothermal
50
Hydro
Nuclear
40
Natural gas
30
Petroleum products
20
Coal and coal products
10
Transportation
0
Total Primary
Total Final
Energy Supply (IEA Consumption (IEA
statistics)
statistics)
Total End Use
(estimated)
Total Efficient End
Use (estimated with
30% inefficiency)
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
Electricity
Heat
3
1. Some activities are more inefficient
than others
Input-Output analysis for various parts of the energy system
EU27 in 2006
EJ
40
35
Output: Consumer end use of energy
30
Input: Total primary energy supply
25
20
15
10
5
0
Electricity
District heat
Fuel for heat Industrial
Brussels,
Dec 1, 2009
sector
Fuel for heat Other sectors
(buildings)
Fuel for
transportation
4
1. Some activities are more inefficient
than others
Input-Output analysis for various parts of the energy system
EU27 in 2006
EJ
40
Heat losses
35
Output: Consumer end use of energy
30
Input: Total primary energy supply
25
20
15
10
5
0
Electricity
District heat
Fuel for heat Industrial
Brussels,
Dec 1, 2009
sector
Fuel for heat Other sectors
(buildings)
Fuel for
transportation
5
1. Some activities are more inefficient
than others
Input-Output analysis for various parts of the energy system
EU27 in 2006
EJ
40
Heat losses
35
Output: Consumer end use of energy
30
Input: Total primary energy supply
25
Recycling of
heat losses
20
15
10
5
0
Electricity
District heat
Fuel for heat Industrial
Brussels,
Dec 1, 2009
sector
Fuel for heat Other sectors
(buildings)
Fuel for
transportation
6
1. Inefficiency conclusions



The EU27 energy system generates large
amounts of conversion heat losses (60 % of
the input) due to energy inefficiency.
Inefficient parts dominate the energy system.
The most efficient part is small: The 5000+
district heating systems recycle only 2 EJ.
Hereby, the total conversion heat losses are
reduced from 48 to 46 EJ.
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
7
2. Heat recycling and renewable resources
today in European district heating systems

Thermal power plants, also called Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) or Cogeneration, using 8% of total available heat
resources

Waste incineration in Waste-to-Energy plants, using 7% of
total available non-recycled waste

Industrial processes having useful waste heat flows, using
less than 3% of total available heat resources

Biomass, using 1% of the current potential

Geothermal, using 80 ppm of the current potential
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
8
2. The fundamental idea
Heat recycled
from combined
heat and
power, waste
incineration,
and industrial
surplus heat
Renewables as
geothermal heat
and biomass
Fossil fuels
The fundamental idea
of district heating
Heat delivered for
low temperature
heat demands
District
Heating
System
Heat losses
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
9
2. Heat supply composition
PJ/year
EU27 - Heat sources for district heating etc
100%
Fossil fuels, direct
use
80%
Renewables, direct
use (geothermal,
biomass, and waste)
60%
Recycled heat,
renewable CHP
(waste and biomass)
40%
20%
0%
Recycled heat, fossil
CHP and industries
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
10
3. Expansion possibilities





Current district heat market share is less
than 10% in EU27
Doubling market share and improving the
energy supply will give substantial benefits:
Lower carbon dioxide emissions, 400 million
tons per year
Lower import dependence, 4.5 EJ
Lower primary energy supply, 2.1 EJ
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
11
Heat flows in EJ during 2003 for the target
area of 32 countries
3. District
heating: The five
strategic heat
flows
Residual heat from all
thermal power generation
Potential for direct use of
geothermal heat
19,2
370
1,8
Industrial CHP
1,6
0,03
Biomass potential
2,3
District heat generated
0,17
0,03
1,1
0,14
13-18
Surplus
heat from
industries
Waste incinerated
0,5
12
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
2,0
Non-recycled waste
3. Expansion
possibility –
geothermal
resources
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
13
3. Use of combustible renewables vs forest growth
Total Primary Energy Supply of
Combustible Renewables, GJ/capita
100
Blue line for 100%
of net annual
increment
Finland
Sweden
Green line
for 20% of net
annual increment
Latvia
Estonia
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
10
Norway
Slovenia
Lithuania
France
Spain
Poland
Greece
Czech republic
Croatia
Belgium
Slovak Republic
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Ireland
United
Kingdom
1
0,1
Italy
1,0
10,0
100,0
Net annual increment of the forest growing stock, m3 ob/capita
Figure 18. National per capita combinations of total primary energy supply of combustible renewables
(excluding the biomass part in municipal waste) and the net annual increment of the forest growing stock.
Reference lines added for 20% and 100% fuel use of the net annual increment, assuming a net calorific value
of 7,3 GJ/m3 ob.
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
14
3. Expansion potential

Half of the short term expansion
potential in EU27 can be found in
Germany, France and United
Kingdom. The corresponding
residential market shares for district
heating are currently 13 %, 5 %,
and 1%, respectively.
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
15
4. Two time horizons


2020, short term mitigation time
horizon: Most changes must be
fulfilled within the existing energy
system with a low share of new
technology
2050, long term mitigation time
horizon: Possibility to create a
completely new energy system with
a high share of new technology
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
16
4. Short term example: Fast extensive natural gas
substitution by heat recycled from a large pulp mill
The extension of the district heating system in
Varberg has increased the district heat market
share from 6% to 45%. The corresponding carbon
dioxide emissions have decreased with 40%.
Varberg, Sweden
Annual sales,
TJ/year
600
500
400
300
200
Natural gas
District Heat, mainly based on
recycled industrial waste heat
100
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Brussels,
Dec 1,2004
2009
2006
2008
2010
17
4. Long term example: Everything is
possible in 40 years
Market share
The Swedish heat market for buildings
in the residential and service sectors
90%
District heat
80%
70%
Electric heating
incl heat
pumps
60%
50%
40%
Others as
firewood and
natural gas
30%
20%
Fuel oil
10%
0%
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
18
5. The main barriers for higher energy efficiency





Low cost fossil fuels
Our legislations relate mostly to use of
fossil fuels and do not recognise energy
efficiency
Carbon taxes and carbon dioxide trading
are in general not strong enough
City mitigation projects requires often
local actors, not always present today
Short term investment horizons in energy
companies
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
19
6. Some concluding proposals


Redesign all legislation to consider energy efficiency
Do not allow large heat losses without heat recycling
in new power or industrial plants, according to the
best available technology (BAT) principle in the IPPC
directive

Redesign all international energy statistics to
consider energy efficiency and distributed generation

Use only Joule (J) as energy unit, giving a more
transparent energy market
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
20
The End
Thank you for your attention!
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
21
Some back-up slides
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
22
Final consumption by customers
before local conversion losses
EJ
European Union - 27 during 2006
Total Final Consumption = 53,9 EJ
Combustible renewables
and waste
25
Solar/wind/other
20
Geothermal
Natural gas
15
Petroleum products
10
Coal and coal products
5
Electricity
0
Heat
Total Industry Sector
Total Transport Sector
Total
Other Sectors
Brussels, Dec
1, 2009
23
Our common history
Crude oil, import price to Europe until August 2009
USD/barrel
140
real 2008 USD
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
jan-60
jan-65
jan-70
jan-75
jan-80Brussels,
jan-85
Dec 1,jan-90
2009
jan-95
jan-00
jan-05
jan-10
jan-15
24
Electricity och gas dominates in Europe (2003)
EJ heat
Final end use of net heat and electricity
for EU25 + ACC4 + EFTA3 with origin of supply
14
Solar/Wind/Other
12
Combustible Renewables
and Waste
10
Coal and Coal Products
Petroleum Products
8
Natural Gas
6
Electricity
4
Geothermal
2
Heat
0
Industrial sector
Residential sector
Service sector
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
25
2003: Residential electricity och heat demands
Residential end use of
net heat and
electricity, MJ/m2
1200
ACC4
1000
Luxembourg
Finland
EFTA3
Latvia
EU15
800
Belgium
Slovenia
United Kingdom
NMS10
EU15 average line
Austria
Hungary Germany
Poland
Czech republic
Estonia
Sweden
Norway
France
600
Lithuania
Greece
Denmark
Italy
Croatia
Romania
400
Turkey
Cyprus
200
Bulgaria
Spain
Portugal
Malta
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
European heating index for the capital in each country, °C
%
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
26
0%
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
27
Wuppertal
Wiesbaden
Weimar
Trier
Schwerin
Saarbrucken
Regensburg
Potsdam
Nürnberg
Mönchengladbach
München
Mülheim a.d.Ruhr
Mainz
Magdeburg
Leipzig
Köln
Koblenz
Kiel
Karlsruhe
Hannover
Hamburg
Halle an der Saale
Göttingen
Freiburg im Breisgau
Frankfurt am Main
Frankfurt (Oder)
Essen
Erfurt
Düsseldorf
Dresden
Dortmund
Darmstadt
Bremen
Bonn
Bochum
Bielefeld
Berlin
Augsburg
German cities
District heat share of city heat demands in some German cities
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
Saint-Etienne
Saint Denis
Rouen
Rennes
Reims
Poitiers
Pointe-a-Pitre
Paris
Orleans
Nice
Nantes
Nancy
Montpellier
Metz
Marseille
Lyon
Limoges
Lille
Le Havre
Grenoble
Fort-de-France
Dijon
Clermont-Ferrand
Cayenne
Caen
Bordeaux
Besancon
Amiens
Ajaccio
28
Toulouse
Strasbourg
French cities
District heat share of city heat demands in some French cities
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Dutch cities
District heat share of city heat demands in some Dutch cities
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Utrecht
Tilburg
s' Gravenhage
Brussels, Dec 1, 2009
Rotterdam
Heerlen
Groningen
Enschede
Eindhoven
Arnhem
0%
Amsterdam
10%
29