GREEN ENERGY SCENARIOS FOR HUNGARY RESULTS OF ENERGIAKLUB & WUPPERTAL INSTITUT S ENERGY MODELLING

Transcription

1 GREEN ENERGY SCENARIOS FOR HUNGARY RESULTS OF ENERGIAKLUB & WUPPERTAL INSTITUT S ENERGY MODELLING Orsolya Fülöp and Fanni Sáfián, ENERGIAKLUB

2 Wuppertal Institut Prof. Dr. Stefan Lechtenböhmer Magdolna Prantner Clemens Schneider Energiaklub Orsolya Fülöp Fanni Sáfián executive-summary (ENG) 2

3 ENERGY POLICY IN HUNGARY 3

4 ENERGY MIX Energy dependency: 62% Electricity import 5% Geothermal 1% Wind 0% Hydro 0% (Gas: 98%) Biomass & waste 8% Share of renewables in gross final energy consumption: Coal 10% Natural gas 30% HU: 9,5% EU: 16% Nuclear 18% Oil 28% Data: MEKH 2016, Eurostat 2016 Primary energy consumption 2014

5 RENEWABLE ENERGY USE Data: Hungarian Statistical Office

6 ENERGY POLICY OF THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT 6

7 Hungarian power capacities (2030, MW) Fig.: Hungarian Energy Strategy 2011; MAVIR

8 ABOUT OUR RESEARCH 8

9 METHODOLOGY Combination of different bottom-up models: Final energy consumption of the industry and tertiary sectors: WI s WISEE model Residential heat demand: Energiaklub s NegaJoule model Transportation sector: model of Energiaklub & the Technical University of Budapest Electricity and heat, balance of production and consumption: EnergyPLAN Analyzes the entire energy system in hourly resolution for a year (balance of dem. and supply) Weather dependence of renewables appears 9

10 ENERGYPLAN SOFTWARE Lund (1999-)

11 SCENARIOS 4 scenarios: NUCLEAR, GREEN, INTER-A, INTER-B The same socio-economic parameters, e.g.: Population: 9,7 (2030) and 9,17 (2050) million GDP: 127 (2030) and 152 (2050) billion EUR Different assumptions regarding energy efficiency, renewable energy use and trends in transportation New NPP only the nuclear scenario 11

12 NUCLEAR SCENARIO business-as-usual Based on the EU Reference Scenario (EC 2013) & the National Energy Strategy Paks II Nuclear Power Plant 12

13 NUCLEAR SCENARIO Demand / final energy use is increasing No significant improvement in efficiency RES in power generation: 13% (2030), 24% (2050) MW Natural gas; 4678 PV; 712 Wind; 1236 Wind; 1485 Nuclear; 4400 Natural gas; 3130 PV; 1215 Nuclear; 2400 Natural gas; Hydro Geothermal PV Wind Biomass and waste Nuclear Natural gas Oil Coal 13

14 GREEN SCENARIO No new NPP Focus on energy efficiency and renewable power production Decrease of energy consumption in all sectors 14

15 GREEN SCENARIO Building refurbishment: households/year MW Solar; Hydro Geothermal Solar Wind Moderate increase in the number of cars to 3 million & 15% decrease in consumption Electric transport: 50% of cars (2050) Nuclear; 2000 Solar; 1972 Wind; 3500 Wind; 9200 Natural gas; Biomass and 4678 waste; 800 Biogas; 1500 Biomass and Natural gas; 700 waste; 1600 Natural gas; Biogas Biomass and waste Coal-biomassngas Coal-biomass Nuclear Natural gas Oil Coal 15

16 INTER-A SCENARIO Consumption level as in the Nuclear scenario Renewables instead of nuclear energy 16

17 INTER-B SCENARIO Renewables instead of nuclear energy + energy efficiency Decrease in consumption in all sectors A moderate improvement in energy efficiency compared to the GREEN scenario 17

18 ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION NOV 3, MW MW rd November 2050 (hours) nuclear conventional PP CHP geothermal hydro wind PV import rd November 2050 (hours) import biomass CHP biomass, natural gas, biogas PV wind 18 geothermal

19 PRIMES NUCLEAR INTER-A INTER-B GREEN NUCLEAR INTER-A INTER-B GREEN TOTAL PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION TWh 2010 level +12% -6% -30% -42% electricity import/export solar, wind, other RES biomass and waste 150 nuclear natural gas 0 oil coal

20 RENEWABLE SHARES 90% 80% 41,7 TWh 70% 60% 50% 40% 13,68 TWh 30% 20% 10% 0% PRIMES NUCLEAR GREEN INTER-A INTER-B NUCLEAR GREEN INTER-A INTER-B RES from TPES (%) RES from power production (%) 20

21 PRIMES NUCLEAR GREEN INTER-A INTER-B NUCLEAR GREEN INTER-A INTER-B Mt CO2-SAVINGS 70 CO 2 emission level in % -35% -56% 20-77%

22 in M Euro per year (average ) COSTS Transmission and distribution lines CO2 emission costs Fuel costs (incl. net el. imp.) O&M costs low high low high low high low high NUCLEAR GREEN INTER-A INTER-B System investment costs 22

23 CONCLUSIONS Hungarian energy system is working even without Paks II Technologically possible: it is a matter of political decision Further research: network development, social benefits, cost-efficiency 23

24 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Orsolya Fülöp, Fanni Sáfián ENERGIAKLUB 24

25 EU GOALS

26 COMPARISON SHARE OF RES 60% RES from final energy demand 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EU target by 2030 Nuclear Green 26

27 COMPARISON ENERGY SAVINGS 20% Energy savings compared to BAU /2010/ 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% EU target by Nuclear Green 27

28 COMPARISON CO2 SAVINGS 0% -10% -20% -30% CO2 emission savings compared to 1990 level EU target by Nuclear Green -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% 28

29 TWh power RENEWABLE POTENTIALS 140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 Realizable potential (latest developments taken into account) Sustainable potential according to "This way ahead" Study Governmental potential study (PYLON NCST-C 2010) Potential used in GREEN scenario 0,0 Wind PV/Solar Biomass Geothermal