Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Energy Transition in Belgium – Choices and Costs

76 views

Published on

Energy Transition in Belgium – Choices and Costs

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Energy Transition in Belgium – Choices and Costs

  1. 1. Energy Transition in Belgium – Choices and Costs Larissa P. N. de Oliveira, Frank Meinke-Hubeny, Pieter Lodewijks, Jan Duerinck ETSAP Workshop – 17/06/2018 Gothenburg, Sweden
  2. 2. 2 Agenda Introduction Times Belgium Exercises Results Power capacity & generation Power system costs Conclusions Energy Transition Modeling
  3. 3. 3 Introduction - Current Context in Belgium Nuclear Phase-out: 6 GW planned to be phased-out by 2025 ‘Energy Union’ – EU GHG and RES targets for 2020 & 2030 Belgium ‘Energie Pact’: Clear long-term integrated vision Energy Dependency: Strategical position of Belgium as a hub for transmission in EU; Reliance on electricity and natural gas. Electrification of Belgium’s Energy System: Source: www.modernpowersystems.com
  4. 4. 4 Introduction - Timeline 2017 2018 “Experts’ views on possible energy scenarios for Belgium till 2030 including their implications on energy security and energy system costs.” “Assessing the impact of different levels of natural gas capacity in for electricity generation. Showing the relevance of natural gas to keep the electric system safe and affordable.” “Assessing impacts on costs, power capacity and generation towards new scenarios for the power sector. Better depiction of the role of nuclear, offshore wind and natural gas power technologies.”
  5. 5. 5 Impact
  6. 6. 6 Energy system model – TIMES Building and using a TIMES model The EnergyVille TIMES model for Belgium Belgium as geographic region with interconnections to neighbouring countries Energy Statistics from 2014 (corrected for 2016 data where available) as the base for the model Reporting years from 2016 to 2040 (varied among studies) Key sectors: Power + Heat Industry Commercial Residential Agriculture Transport To capture variations in balancing demand and supply a 2-hourly time resolution is used for 10 representative days (‘timeslice tool’). Technology assumptions aligned with EU and BE literature (JRC, 2013; Meuris et al, 2017, …)
  7. 7. 7 Times Belgium Scenarios & Updates 2016, 2020, 2030 o Step-wise approach for EE import price. 2016, 2020, 2026, 2030 o + EE import price with annual volatility; o Detailing NG power plants (stock + life); o NG CHP constraint; 2016, 2020, 2030, 2040 o Updated NG prices; o Improved nuclear AF; o 2.2 GW offshore in 2020. Base + 4 scenarios:  Central/Base  10% Import Restriction  Nuclear Extension 2GW  Low Fossil Fuel Price  High Fossil Fuel Price EnergyVille (2017a) EnergyVille (2017b) EnergyVille (2018) Base + 2 scenarios:  Central/Base  High NG Power Cap.  Low NG Power Cap. Base + 1 scenarios:  Central/Base  Nuclear Extension 2GW
  8. 8. 8 Electricity Trade Import Price Approach 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 S01Q01 S01Q08 S02Q03 S02Q10 S03Q05 S03Q12 S04Q07 S05Q02 S05Q09 S06Q04 S06Q11 S07Q06 S08Q01 S08Q08 S09Q03 S09Q10 S10Q05 S10Q12 S01Q07 S02Q02 S02Q09 S03Q04 S03Q11 S04Q06 S05Q01 S05Q08 S06Q03 S06Q10 S07Q05 S07Q12 S08Q07 S09Q02 S09Q09 S10Q04 S10Q11 S01Q06 S02Q01 S02Q08 S03Q03 S03Q10 S04Q05 S04Q12 S05Q07 S06Q02 S06Q09 S07Q04 S07Q11 S08Q06 S09Q01 S09Q08 S10Q03 S10Q10 2016 2020 2030 Euro/MWh 1st GW Utilized 2nd GW Utilized 3rd GW Utilized 4th GW Utilized 5th GW Utilized 6th GW Utilized Import price increases the more capacity is utilized for import flows within Belgium; Price variation within one period is based on the base year (for calibration) profile (2014); Price increase in the long term follows fossil fuel prices trend.
  9. 9. 9 Nuclear generation with 2 reactors EnergyVille (2018) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nuclear Annual Availability in 2030 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nuclear Annual Availability in 2020 EnergyVille (2017a) – 80% average: EnergyVille (2018) – 80% average:
  10. 10. Results From EnergyVille (2017a) & EnergyVille (2018)
  11. 11. 11 Results Central scenario – EV (2017a) Power Sector - 2016 to 2030: Fossil-fuel generation growth by 2030 50% of Belgian generation originates from renewable sources in 2030 Fossil-fuel generation capacity close to stable (mostly natural gas) Nuclear phases out Renewable capacity grows triples (x3)
  12. 12. 12 Results, Scenario Comparison – EV (2017a) Power Generation, 2020 & 2030 Nuclear extension reduces NG generation and imports; NG generation covers import restrictions; Fossil fuel prices impact import levels; 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Base NuEX Tr10% HighP LowP Base NuEX Tr10% HighP LowP 2020 2030 TWh Total Generation - TWh Nuclear Natural Gas Other Fossil Biomass & Other Ren. Hydro Solar PV Wind Onshore Wind Offshore Net Imports
  13. 13. 13 High and low fuel price scenarios result in the lowest and highest total energy generation systems costs Nuclear extension scenario (= partial delay in system transition) results in 11-12% lower system cost compared to central scenario in 2030 Annual electricity supply costs (2030) High Fuel Costs €6,430 Mi Low Fuel Costs €4,818 Mi Central Scenario €6,179 Mi 10% Import Restriction €6,190 Mi Nuclear Extension €5,571 Mi
  14. 14. 14 Results, Scenario Comparison – EV (2018) Power System Costs Lower gas prices: lead to cost reductions; Nuclear extension lead to a 4% cost reduction in 2030: Main driver of costs is fuel price Same cost level in 2040; 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 EV2017 UP18 UP18-Nuc EV2017 UP18 UP18-Nuc EV2017 UP18 UP18-Nuc EV2017 UP18 UP18-Nuc 2016 2020 2030 2040 MillionEuro Annual Power System Cost Evolution (only CAPEXfor new investments are shown) Inv. O&M Fuel Trade Total
  15. 15. 15 Conclusions For the energy transition in Belgium: RES expansion is key to the energy transition and must happen due to increased electricity demand; Natural gas PPs have an important role on flexibility and energy dependency: Annual power system costs are more sensitive to fuel prices than import prices and investment cots; Extension of 2 GW of nuclear capacity does not provide a long-term cost advantage to the power system; Nuclear extension would delay investments in natural gas power plants;
  16. 16. 16 Conclusions For modeling exercise: National energy systems models are a good basis to provide facts and figures regarding technology options and associated costs for the energy transition; Stakeholder engagement lead to legitimacy of the work; Transparency on assumptions and limitations of the exercise to stakeholders and broader audience; Further work: Better depiction of interconnections and electricity import availability; Enhance grid requirements detailing for large amounts of RES in the system; Improve of representation of power costs and total costs;
  17. 17. 17 Thank you! Larissa P. N. de Oliveira larissa.oliveira@energyville.be
  18. 18. CONNECTING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION TO DECISION MAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY SEE YOU IN BRUSSELS!! November 28-30

×