Presentatie over de vertaling van de Duitse Energiewende naar Nederland met gebruikmaking van de zgn Energy Spider van Harry Lehmann. Auteur: Tammo Oegema (coop-arc.nl/tammotoko)

1. Nederland en de Energiewende
Meeting Pakhuis De Zwijger
May 13th 2016

2. Do we have time?
The current emission pledges from the
US, EU, China, and India leave little room
for other countries to emit in a 2°C
emission budget (66% chance)
# years industry can emit CO2 at 2014 levels
before the Carbon Budget is used up.
i.e. It takes 9.8 years to empty the carbon budget in
order to stay below 1.5o (50% chance),
or 20.9 years to stay below 2o with 66% chance
2

3. • 2013 Energy agreement settled in Socio Economic Board
• = de facto Energy plan of NL up to 2020 (-’23)
• 1,5 % per year energy savings (final energy demand)
• minus 100Pj energy usage in 2020
• 14% renewable energy in 2020,16% in 2023
NB: NO goals for CO2
2015 Court Ruling:
Dutch Government should aim at 25% less emission in 2020 vs 1990
• 2016 Energy report on figures, (im)possibilities, potentials
• (Only) ambition now: CO2-neutral in 2050
• Energy discussion now
• no upfront Coal- of Nuclear Exit, every option is open
• Government: Energy policy results from energy discussion
• …and elections (2017)
Dutch situation 2016
3

4. Dutch situation
1990 … 1995 … 2000 … 2005 … 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*
CO2 mln Tonne 179,2 195,4 201,3 208,8 216,7 204,4 202,9 201,4 194,4
N2O mln kg 59,3 59,9 53,2 47,2 27,1 26,8 26,3 26,9 27
CH4 mln kg 1318,3 1235,3 1021,3 819,8 807,7 786,7 770,1 769,6 754,1
Greenhouse
Warming Potential Mton CO2 eq 238,3 254,2 249,6 245,6 248 234,9 232,6 231,2 223,7
• CO2 went up, except in economic decline
• Preliminary 2015 figures on Q1 – Q3 shows growth of CO2 emissions
• Kyoto promises are met nevertheless, because of decline in N2O and CH4
• CH4 emissions still are declining, N2O decline stopped
*2014 preliminary figures
N2O has Greenhouse Warming Potential of 25 x CO2
CH4 has GWP of 298 x CO2
Greenhouse gas emissions in The Netherlands [source: CBS Statline]
4

5. 5
Energy Spider
Aim 2050:
100%
CO2 Free
1. Coal +Nuclear exit
2. Oil
3. Networks
4. Heat markets
5. Advantages and
disadvantages
Big users
6. Finance
8. Decentralization
Households
7. Public Acceptance
16. Biomass
17. Natural gas
+ LNG
14. CCS
13. Climate
10. Resources
Raw materials
9. Renewables
11. Feed-in Tarifs
15. P 2 Gas
12. Subsidies
5

6. 1. Nuclear and Coal exit
Nuclear:
1 Power Plant running: Borssele, capacity 485 Mw
2006: Agreement Nuclear Plant Borssele (Government + owners):
• Borssele will stay open until 2033 and shut down in 2033
• Closing Borssele before 2033 requires high (and agreed upon) fines
2016: Theoretical exercise for new plant following British guarantee model : € 119 / MWh*
CO2-reduction: 5 Mton/yr, Effectiveness 109 €/ton
* 2016 Dubai 800 Mw PV plant bids for < € 30 / MWh (Famous Faktor 4?)
6

7. 1. Nuclear and Coal exit
Coal:
• 2013 Energy Agreement: Closing oldest coal plants, and
• exemption of coal tax for new coal plants
• 2014 Dutch Competition Authority hinders closing down of old coal plants
• 2014 Minister of economic affairs ’repairs’ agreement by tightening environmental standards
for electricity plants
• 2015 Agreement on ‘clean biomass’ eligible for subsidies
• 2015 Paris agreement
• Parliament requires research for closing all coal plants
• 2015 Opening Coal plant at Eemshaven 1560 Mw (Essent/RWE)
• 2015 Opening Coal plant at Rotterdam Maasvlakte 1070 Mw (E.On/Uniper)
7

8. 1. Nuclear and Coal exit
Coal Issues:
• Closing down newest plants
• Parliamentary majority in favour
• Costs billions
• Prohibits CCS pilot i.e. chance on access to SINKS of CO2 diminishes, with big potential
• Forces revision of biomass policy - not enough capacity to burn agreed biomass volumes
• Public perception: Why all those troubles? Coal with coal tax exemption, Biomass
with extra subsidies, CCS requiring subsidies
PBL 2016:
• Closing down old coal plants from before 1990: effect 0,7 Mton/y, costs € 25/tCO2
• Preliminary calculations on Closing down all coal plants before 2020:
• Biggest CO2 direct effect in NL of all measures: 8,5 Mton/y. But EU waterbed effect.
• Costs? Claims? NL Renewable goals still within reach? Other secondary effects?
8

9. 1. Nuclear and Coal exit
Producer Plant Location Unit Fuel(s) MW Opening
Uniper Centrale Maasvlakte Rotterdam MPP3 Coal / biomass 1.070 2016
Essent Eemshavencentrale Eemshaven Coal 1.560 2015
Engie Centrale Maasvlakte Rotterdam Coal / biomass 800 2015
Nuon Centrale Hemweg Amsterdam Hemweg-8 Coal 630 1995
Essent Amercentrale
Geertruiden-
berg
Amer-9
Coal / biomass /
wood gas/
natural gas
600 1994
E.ON Centrale Maasvlakte Rotterdam MPP1 Coal / biomass 520 1989
E.ON Centrale Maasvlakte Rotterdam MPP2 Coal / biomass 520 1988
Engie Centrale Gelderland Nijmegen CG13 Coal / biomass 602 1982
Essent Amercentrale
Geertruiden-
berg
Amer-8
Coal / biomass /
natural gas
645 1981
Last four: scheduled for closing, Borssele Coal already closed down
Amercentrale 9 + Nuon Hemweg in consideration for closing
9

10. 2. Oil
• Port of Rotterdam in transition but still highly dependent on oil and oil products
• No own car industry; very progressive CO2-tax on new cars (up to €478/grCO2)
• CO2- (a.o.) reduction sea transport: Environmental Shipping Index, pull system for voluntary reductions,
reward is less port taxes.
PBL 2016: (ranging from high savings/ton CO2 to high costs/ton CO2)
1. Obligation for Energy saving tyres is very cost effective € 200- 300 / tCO2 SAVED
2. IF car industry can deliver max 95 grCO2/km is efficient but limited effect
3. Freight transport: autonomous efficiency improvement of 1,1% per year
4. Tax exemptions on zero emission cars: high costs, hardly any effect
5. Higher share of renewable energy in transport – mostly biofuels, is rather expensive: €200/tCO2
6. Lower maximum speed: very low effect
7. General Km levy road transport (15ct/km): effect 0,5 Mton/y, high costs € 315/tCO2
8. General Km levy personal cars (7 ct/km): effect up to 2 Mton/y, very high costs € 460/tCO2
10

11. 3. Networks and interconnection capacity
• Energy agreement: boost in High- and medium volt networks
• Smart grids encouraged on limited spatial scale
• Large scale Electricity storage capacities at Port of Rotterdam
• Experimenting with electric cars as storage for electricity
• HIGH COSTS for getting Off shore electricity on shore – from North Sea
• Power to Gas might be a solution current status in the Netherlands uncertain
• Already a lock-in situation due to current plans with off-shore wind?
• Waiting for ‘Markets’ and ‘Innovation’ to provide cheap(er) solutions
11

12. 4. Low and High temperature Heat
Low temperature applications
• Heating
• Sun boilers
• Earth heat storage + heat pump – only useful when properly isolated
PBL: Isolation is effective, long way to go, several initiatives possible
High temperature applications
• Importance and potential recognized in the Energy report
• Modern greenhouses use them
• High infrastructural costs and efforts (densely populated/built areas)
12

13. 5. Big users & 6. Finance
Tariffs energy tax 2016 (VAT excluded)
Gas per m3 Tariff 2016Sust. Energy markup Totals Factor
< 170.000m3 * € 0,25168 € 0,0113 € 0,26298
170.000 - 1 mln m3 € 0,06954 € 0,0042 € 0,07374 28%
Electricity per kWh
< 10.000 kWh € 0,10070 € 0,0056 € 0,1063
10.000 - 50.000 kWh € 0,04996 € 0,0070 € 0,05696 54%
50.000 - 10 mln kWh € 0,01331 € 0,0019 € 0,01521 14%
Above shows imbalance in taxation system with regard to CO2 emissions
ETS: big users pay € 5-10 / tCO2 day price may 2016 9th for 1 tonne CO2 : € 5,86
Energy report 2016: Difficult perspective for big users, only way to stay in EU is innovation
PBL 2016: higher prices do hardly have any CO2 effect for big users
13

14. 6. Finance Let markets do their work: ETS ?
14
European Emission
Trading System fails
to generate
substantial impulse
and will fail as long
as Governments
don’t buy unused
Allowances

15. 7. Acceptance and perceptions
• Windmills: not in my backyard - 140 NIMBY action groups
• National conductor is lacking
• In general: not fond of subsidies and taxations
15

16. 8. Decentralizing Households
• No real PLAN
• private / local / community initiatives are to
be supported by G’ments
16
Urgenda shows: For many households,
investing in making their house climate
neutral is more profitable that putting
money on the bank

17. bold:
in 2012 already
achieved 2020
commitments
Netherlands
Germany
Netherlands Germany unit
% RE 2012 5 12 %
% RE 2020 14 18 %
% CO2 2050 0 0 %
RE/ cap 8,3 16 Gj/cap
RE/ GDP 165 363 kj/$
RE/ km2 3,7 3,7 Gj/km2
Wind high high Potential
Solar medium medium
Hydro low high
Biomass medium high
Geotherm medium high
Ocean medium medium
9. Renewables
17

18. German Electricity production
previous week
18

19. 9. Renewables
Is All energy use (2.200 PJ/y) with Wind + PV in the Netherlands possible in 2050?
50% solar PV => 400.000 Mw or about 1.000.000.000 solar panels (1 billion)
50% Wind => 110.000 Mw (Off shore)
Current goals 2023:
Solar PV about 10.000 Mw - Factor 40 needed up to 2050
Wind 10.000 Mw - Factor 11 needed up to 2050
Physical space potential for solar PV in the Netherlands is estimated at 66.000 Mw,
delivering 180 Pj of the needed 1.100 Pj
Thus need for enormous ‘outplacement’ of Solar PV + Interconnection capacity.
Impossible? 2016 Dubai 800 Mw PV plant bids for € 0,03 / kWh
19

20. 10. Raw Materials
• Raw Materials Initiatives under Dutch Presidency not impressive
• German initiatives with regard to much needed ‘Rare Earths’ seem
stronger
20

21. 11. Feed-in Tariffs
• Netting Agreement for consumers
• Feed-in tariffs varying from € 0,07 – 0,11 per Kwh:
• depending on electricity provider
• depending on kind of subscription Nuon, green
• with varying volume maxima
• Postal Codes spider (Postcoderoos) agreement: Sharing PV capacity,
costs and revenues with ‘neighbours’
21

22. 12. Subsidies
SDE +: effects, cost effectiveness, long term
SDE+ effect in Mton/yr 2020 2030 costs €/tCO2* long term
• Wind on shore 3,7 7,4 73/20 limited
• Wind off shore 3,6 7,2 116/65 big
• Large scale PV 0,9 2,7 159/89 big
• Netting agr. small scale PV 0,7 0,9 269/232
• Biomass in coal plants 4,3 3,5 53/18 big **
* these are costs in 2020 / 2030 of specific plans, not general technology costs
** use of biomass is not limited to coal plants; first step using coal plant as point sources convenient
22

23. 13. Climate
• Reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions in NL will not have measureable influence on
Global Climate Change 0,44%
• Taking ‘our fair share’ in CO2 reductions seems difficult
• other scales possble
• Plans for Climate Change mitigation are in place for Sea level rise and drinking water
supply & (river) flooding risks
• Other sectors soon to follow
23

24. 14. Carbon Capture and Storage
• Plans with Pilot ROAD = Rotterdam Opslag en Afvang Demonstratieproject
• Short Sea field, storage of Uniper plant CO2 emissions !!!!
• Regarded a promising technology, needed for achieving negative emissions
• Business-model of current project based on high innovation premium and learning curve
• Currently only possible with Point-CO2 em. from coal plant (1070 Mw Rotterdam)
• CCS coal plants still have positive emissions, levels will reach/surpass modern gas plants
• Coal plant Eemshaven (2015) is also CO2 capture ready
• Cost-effectiveness a.o. dependent on working of ETS
• Merit order problems compatible with current Gas plants?
• CO2 capture costs energy, thus reduced efficiency of plant
PBL 2016: Effect ROAD 1,2 Mton/y, costs about € 60 /tCO2, big potential in long run
24

25. 15. Power to Gas – P2G
Promising prospects:
• for Dutch gas-based Infrastructures (gas-based)
• Reduction of Transport costs of Electricity from North Sea ?
• Reuse of old oil- and gas platforms
• Solves part of electricity storage problems
• makes transition for Port of Rotterdam more easy
• limited research and innovation in the Netherlands
• Game changer
25

26. 16. Biomass
• Agreement on biomass definition eligible for subsidies (2015)
(probably not publicly known)
• 2016: Strategic Biomass Vision for the Netherlands towards 2030
• Societal resistance growing: why not subsidise solar PV for households instead?
• Explanation by Government is mostly lacking
26

27. 17. Natural Gas and LNG
• natural gas connection for 98% households
• NOGEPA: Gas remains the transition fuel for NL
• Our stocks will be exhausted before 2050
• Fading out gas starts now - at low pace
• i.e. New houses and buildings without obligatory gas connection
• lower g’ments / network organisations should consider NOT renewing old gas infrastructure
27

28. 22-24 september 2016
Terschelling
www.springtij.nu