futures-e - 20% RES by 2020 - a balanced scenario to meet€¦ · futures-e 1 Scenario of reaching...

20% RES by 2020 – a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy target

Authors: Gustav Resch, Thomas Faber, Mario Ragwitz, Anne Held, Christian Panzer, Reinhard Haas Vienna University of Technology, Energy Economics Group, Austria

in cooperation with Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany

February 2008

Within the scope of the project futures-e

Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE), ALTENER

Contract no. EIE/06/143/SI2.444285

The futures-e project

Year of implementation: December 2006 – November 2008

Client: European Commission, DG TREN; Intelligent Energy for Europe - Programme, Contract No. EIE/06/143/SI2.444285

Partners:

EEG - Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics, Energy Economics Group, Austria (Project co-ordinator)

Fh ISI - Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Re-search, Germany

Ecofys BV, The Netherlands

Risoe – Risoe National Laboratory, Denmark

LEI – Lithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuania

Ambiente Italia srl Istituto di Ricerche (AMBIT), Italy

Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg Austria GmbH (EGL), Austria

Centralne Laboratorium Naftowe (EC BREC/CLN), Poland

ApE – Agencija za prestrukturiranje energetike d.o.o., Slovenia

Web: http://www.futures-e.org

Imprint:

Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics,

Energy Economics Group (EEG)

Printed in Austria – 2008

Deriving a future European Policy for Renewable Electricity

The core objective of this project is to better involve Member State stakeholders in the debate on policy optimisation & coordination for renewable electricity (RES-E) and the process of post 2010 target discussion. This will pave the way for a success-ful and in the long-term stable deployment of RES-E in Europe.

The work is based on outcomes of previous activities (OPTRES, Green-X) and in-cludes to discuss consequences of possible policy decisions on the future of RES-E support schemes from a national viewpoint and to elaborate on best practices of the main instruments.

The expected major achievements and results of the project comprise

► Facilitate establishing a common European vision on the long-term future of re-newable energy as proposed in a top down manner by setting bottom-up ac-tivities at national level.

► Assess national costs and benefits of RES-E and to derive a methodology to share them under a future coordinated European policy.

► Establish a lively information exchange among the major market actors on ex-periences gained at national level.

► Discuss consequences of possible policy decisions with respect to the future of support schemes for RES-E from a national viewpoint.

► Elaborate on best practices of the main policy instruments, i.e. feed-in tariffs, premium systems, quota obligations based on tradable green certificates – suit-able for policy coordination between Member States or even coordination at European level.

Contact details:

<< Lead author of this report >>

Gustav Resch

Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics, Energy Economics Group (EEG)

Address: Gusshausstrasse 25 / 373-2, A-1040 Vienna, Austria

Phone: +43(0)1/58801-37354

Fax: +43(0)1/58801-37397

Email: [email protected]

This report presents a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s re-newable energy commitment. It provides an assessment on the ef-fects of a 20% RES target in terms of final energy demand in the year 2020 within the European Union (EU27). Embedded in the real-world policy context it aims to demonstrate the practicability and consequences of facing the energy challenge. The application of effective & efficient RES support instruments all over Europe, which set necessary incentives on technology level, aims to identify a feasible sectoral allocation of the overall target and provides the depiction of a corresponding technology-portfolio.

Please note that a comprehensive scenario elaboration discussing various policy

options for renewable electricity to meet Europe’s 2020 RES commitment will

follow within the futures-e project later on this year.

Authors of this report:

Gustav Resch, Thomas Faber, Christian Panzer, Reinhard Haas – EEG

Mario Ragwitz, Anne Held – Fraunhofer-ISI

Acknowledgement:

The authors and the whole project consortium gratefully acknowledge the financial and intellec-

tual support of this work provided by the Intelligent Energy for Europe – Programme. In particu-

lar, special thanks go to the project officers Ulrike Nuscheler, Beatriz Yordi and Tom Howes.

with the support of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Energy and Transport,

Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation

Intelligent Energy for Europe

Legal Notice:

Neither the European Commission, nor the Intelligent Energy Executive Agency, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission or Agency is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this publication. The views expressed in this publication have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission or the Agency and should not be re-lied upon as a statement of the Commission’s views.

futures-e Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020

i

Table of Contents

Page

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1

2 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS .................................................3

2.1 Green-X model.............................................................................................. 3

2.2 Modelling approach........................................................................................ 4

3 SCENARIO PARAMETERS ..........................................................5

3.1 Scenario description: The 20% RES-by-2020 balanced case................................. 5

3.2 Overview on key parameters........................................................................... 5

3.3 Energy demand............................................................................................. 6

3.4 Conventional supply portfolio .......................................................................... 6

3.5 Fossil fuel and reference energy prices ............................................................. 8

3.6 CO2 prices .................................................................................................... 9

3.7 RES potential ................................................................................................ 9

3.8 RES cost .....................................................................................................13

4 RESULTING DEPLOYMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES .....16

4.1 Sector- & technology-specific deployment ........................................................18

4.2 Exploitation of biomass..................................................................................23

4.3 Country-specific deployment ..........................................................................24

5 RESULTS ON RELATED POLICY ISSUES .................................... 27

5.2 Impact on security of supply ..........................................................................28

5.3 Financial impact ...........................................................................................29

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS......................................................... 31

ANNEX A: COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESULTS ON RES DEPLOYMENT AND POTENTIAL EXPLOITATION........................................................... 34

ANNEX B: SHORT CHARACTERISATION OF THE GREEN-X MODEL ...... 41

Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020 futures-e

ii

List of figures

Page

Figure 1 Overview of the computer model Green-X (electricity sector) .........................3 Figure 2 Country-specific average conversion efficiencies of conventional (fossil-based)

electricity and grid-connected heat production in the EU25. (source: PRIMES scenarios) ........................................................................................................7

Figure 3 Country-specific average sectoral CO2 intensities of the conventional (fossil-based) energy system in the EU25. (source: PRIMES scenarios)..............................8

Figure 4 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from RES in the EU-15 – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right) .............................10

Figure 5 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from RES in NMS countries – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right) .......................11

Figure 6 Biomass potentials in terms of primary energy in the European Union (EU-27) for the years 2010, 2020..................................................................................13

Figure 7 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-E options in EU countries.....................................................................................14

Figure 8 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-H options in EU countries.....................................................................................14

Figure 9 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006) for various RES-T options in EU countries.....................................................................................14

Figure 10 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of primary energy (based on Eurostat convention) within the European Union (EU-27).......................16

Figure 11 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of final energy within the European Union (EU-27)....................................................................17

Figure 12 Deployment of RES-E, RES-H, RES-T and RES in total as shares of corresponding gross demands up to 2020 within the European Union (EU-27).........18

Figure 13 Deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in terms of energy output until 2020 within the European Union (EU-27).....................................................18

Figure 14 RES-E generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ......................19 Figure 15 RES-H generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ......................20 Figure 16 RES-T production and import up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27) ......20 Figure 17 Technology-breakdown for new RES installations in the period 2006 to 2020

within the European Union (EU-27) – in absolute and relative terms (below) as well as corresponding growth rates (above) ..................................................................22

Figure 18 Sectoral breakdown of the biomass exploitation in terms of primary energy for the period 2006 to 2020...................................................................................23

Figure 19 Country-specific deployment of RES (in total) by 2020 expressed as share on final energy demand ........................................................................................25

Figure 20 Country-specific deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) by 2020 expressed as share on final energy demand........................................................25

Figure 21 Comparison of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment, the proposed RES targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level – expressed as share on final energy demand .......................................................................25


iii

Figure 22 Avoided CO2-emissions from new RES deployment (2006-2020) ..................27


iv

List of tables

Page

Table 1 Main input sources for scenario parameters ..................................................5 Table 2 Energy consumption parameters (in TWh) ....................................................6 Table 3 Primary energy price assumptions in US$2005/boe (source: PRIMES scenario) .8 Table 4 Reference prices for electricity, heat and transport fuels.................................9 Table 5 Breakdown of fuel cost and corresponding primary potentials by fuel category

for the European Union (EU-27) ........................................................................12 Table 6 Share of renewable energies in electricity, heat and transport fuel demand.....17 Table 7 RES penetration in the period 2006 to 2020 at technology level in the European

Union (EU-27).................................................................................................21 Table 8 Share of RES production in demand (primary (based on Eurostat convention),

electricity, heat, transport fuels and final energy) for EU-27 countries....................26 Table 9 Avoided CO2 emissions due to RES plant installed 2006-2020 (sub-sector

specific) .........................................................................................................28 Table 10 Avoided fossil fuels due to new RES plant installed 2006-2020 (in energy units

and monetary terms) .......................................................................................28 Table 11 Investment needs for new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in the European Union

(EU-27)..........................................................................................................29 Table 12 Additional generation costs in absolute terms (2006 to 2020) .......................30 Table 13 Additional generation costs per unit of RES generation (2006 to 2020) ..........30

Annex A

Table A. 1 Breakdown of the 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries ..............................................................................................35

Table A. 2 Breakdown of the 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27..................................................................36

Table A. 3 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries ..................................................................37

Table A. 4 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27.....................................38

Table A. 5 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries.....................................39

Table A. 6 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27 ........40


1

1 Introduction

The year 2007 was a year of important policy decisions for the future of renewable ener-

gies in Europe. Of highlight in this respect - the agreement of the Council of the European

Union on a binding 2020 target of 20% of renewable energy sources (RES) as set on 9

March 2007. With this decision the European Commission’s view was confirmed as ex-

pressed in the Renewable Energy Road Map (COM (2006) 848 final)1 as published some

weeks ahead on 10 January 2007, insisting on the importance to assure the long term per-

spective for renewable energies with a view to forming a more sustainable future. In this

context, also an agreement on a minimum target of 10% for 2020 regarding the share of

biofuels in diesel and gasoline demand was taken. Following this endorsement, the overall

20% target for RES had to be broken down into national RES targets, which emphasised

the need for further sound, quantitative analyses.

This study presents a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy

commitment. It provides an assessment on the effects of a 20% RES target in

terms of final energy demand in the year 2020 within the European Union

(EU27). Embedded in the real-world policy context it aims to demonstrate the

practicability and consequences of facing the energy challenge. The application

of effective & efficient RES support instruments all over Europe, which set nec-

essary incentives on technology level, aims to identify a feasible sectoral alloca-

tion of the overall target and provides the depiction of a corresponding technol-

ogy-portfolio.

The objective of this analysis is to facilitate informed decision making on how to meet fu-

ture RES targets. This is done by developing a cost-effective RES portfolio suitable for

practical policy implementation by analysing (cost) implications of key policy choices. This

assessment represents an update of previous modelling activities. In line with recent policy

decisions, an update of the Green-X ‘balanced scenario’ as presented in the European

Commission‘s Renewable Energy Roadmap (COM (2006) 848 final) was undertaken

throughout 2007. In more detail this comprised:

• an extension of the geographical scope (i.e. EU-27 instead of EU-25);

• the incorporation of the agreed minimum target of 10% for biofuels; and

• the consideration of the modified definition of the overall RES target (i.e. 20% in

terms final instead of primary energy demand).

1 The Renewable Energy Road Map (COM (2006) 848 final) was published on the 10th of January 2007 as part of the integrated energy and climate change package “Energy for a changing world”. This proposed comprehensive package of measures aimed to establish a new Energy Policy for Europe to combat climate change and boost the EU's energy security and competitiveness. The package of proposals set a series of ambitious targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy and aimed to create a true internal market for energy and strengthen effective regulation.


2

Besides this, updates of the input data with regard to the achieved RES deployment (i.e.

2005 instead of 2004) and energy demand developments (i.e. PRIMES energy efficiency

scenario of 2007 instead of 2006) were undertaken, accompanied by intensive feasibility

cross-checks at the European and national level – in order to provide a most recent and re-

liable depiction of the required future RES deployment.

Results are reliable as well as fully comparable to other work conducted in this topical area

– i.e. DG Environment’s study “Economic analysis of reaching a 20% share of renewable

energy sources in 2020 (RES 2020 – Least cost)” (EC, DG Environment,

ENV.C.2/SER/2005/0080r) as well as recent PRIMES modelling as illustrated in “Scenarios

on energy efficiency and renewables” (EC, DG TREN, 2006), conducted by NTUA.

In order to optimally support policy making, it was explicitly decided to not develop a com-

plete new scenario approach, but to base modelling on the well known Green-X model and

to use widely accepted data from PRIMES and FORRES 20202 as applied in the “RES 2020

– Least cost” study as major input.

The research, involving all sectors of renewable energies (i.e. electricity, heat and trans-

port) within the European Union, concentrates on the following:

• Identification of the technology-portfolio of a 20% RES target for the sectors elec-

tricity, heat and transport - meeting criteria such as cost-effectiveness and future

perspectives

• Determining the additional generation costs of 20% renewable energy

• Determining the avoided (costs of) fossil fuel use and benefits in terms of security

of supply

• Calculating the avoided CO2 emissions

• Identifying the country-specific RES deployment

Please note that a comprehensive scenario elaboration discussing various policy options for

renewable electricity to meet Europe’s 2020 commitment will follow within the futures-e

project later on this year.

2 Analysis of the Renewable Energy Sources’ evolution up to 2020, project conducted by Fraunhofer Isi, EEG, Ecofys, REC and KEMA, Tender No. TREN/D2/10-2002.


3

2 Methodology for analysis

2.1 Green-X model

The quantitative analysis is centred around the well known Green-X model3. The model al-

lows a comparative, quantitative analysis of interactions between RES, conventional energy

and combined heat and power (CHP) generation, demand-side management (DSM) activi-

ties and CO2-reduction, both within the EU as a whole, as well as for individual Member

States. The model forecasts the deployment of RES under various scenarios regarding sup-

porting policy instruments, the availability of resources and generation technologies as well

as energy, technology and resource price developments.

The Green-X model matches demand and supply of energy sources. Demand is based on

the EU energy outlook. Supply is described by means of a cost-resource curve build up in

two parts:

• A static cost resource curve that describes the relationship between technical

available potentials and the corresponding costs of utilisation of this potential

• A dynamic cost resource curve, which is based on the static cost resource curve

including dynamic parameters as technological change (using the concept of ex-

perience curves or expert judgment) and the dynamic barriers for the implementa-

tion, determining the yearly available RES potential. The dynamic curve is endoge-

nous to the model and determined annually.

Base input information

Scenario Information

Power generation

(Access Database)

Policy strategies selection

Social behaviourInvestor/consumer

Externalities

Framework Conditions

(Access Database)

Results Costs and Benefits on a yearly basis (2005-2020 )

Country selection

Electricity demand reduction (Access Database)

Technology selection

Economicmarket and policy

assessmentpotential, costs,

offer prices

Simulation of market interactionsRES-E, CHP, DSM power market, EUAs

Base input information

Scenario Information

Power generation

(Access Database)

Policy strategies selection

Social behaviourInvestor/consumer

Externalities

Framework Conditions

(Access Database)

Results Costs and Benefits on a yearly basis (2005-2020 )

Country selection

Electricity demand reduction (Access Database)

Technology selection

Economicmarket and policy

assessmentpotential, costs,

offer prices

Simulation of market interactionsRES-E, CHP, DSM power market, EUAs

Figure 1 Overview of the computer model Green-X (electricity sector)

3 The Green-X model is originally developed under Microsoft Windows by EEG in the EC-funded pro-ject Green-X (5th FWP – DG Research, Contract No: ENG2-CT-2002-00607). For more details see Annex B of this report or visit http://www.green-x.at.


4

Figure 1 provides an overview of the Green-X model. For a detailed description of the

Green-X model see Annex B of this report or visit www.green-x.at .

2.2 Modelling approach

The key approach in the modelling calculations which are conducted by the application of

the Green-X model is that all Member States apply immediately (i.e. from 2008 on) effi-

cient & effective support policies for RES, setting incentives on technology level, accompa-

nied by strong energy efficiency measures to reduce the overall growth of energy demand

as projected by NTUA (i.e. the PRIMES efficiency case as of 2007).

Results with regard to the overall cost for meeting 20% RES by 2020 are presented in

terms of additional generation costs, that is, the total costs of generation per energy out-

put minus the reference cost of energy production per unit of energy output. To avoid un-

derestimation of the resulting cost with regard to an enhanced RES-deployment, negative

additional costs appearing on technology level by country are not counted – i.e. set to

zero.4

This approach differs to the study “Economic analysis of reaching a 20% share of renew-

able energy sources in 2020” (EC, DG Environment, ENV.C.2/SER/2005/0080r), where

a purified least-cost portfolio of renewable energies has been identified for meeting 20%

RES by 2020. In contrast to that, this analysis explicitly builds on the currently imple-

mented policy framework. Embedded in the real-world policy context it aims to demon-

strate the practicability and consequences of facing the challenge of 20% RES by 2020.

The application of effective & efficient support instruments for RES, which set necessary in-

centives on technology level, aims to identify an optimal sectoral allocation of the overall

target and provides the depiction of a corresponding technology-portfolio.

This analysis explicitly builds on the outcomes of the FORRES 2020 study as well as on

PRIMES modelling. Note that a detailed depiction of all key input parameters is provided in

the following chapter.

4 Negative additional cost appearing within one sector may compensate the additional cost in another, which leads to a misinterpretation of the overall associated societal transfer cost. Moreover, nega-tive cost of conventional supply options are also not taken into account as conventional reference prices reflect the marginal cost and not the average. Consequently, to come up with a fair com-parison it has been finally decided to neglect such cost.


5

3 Scenario parameters

3.1 Scenario description: The 20% RES-by-2020 balanced case

As mentioned in Section 2 this so-called 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case describes a sce-

nario of the future deployment of renewable energies in the European Union based on pro-

active energy policy support. The key modelling approach is that all Member States apply

immediately (i.e. from 2007 on) efficient & effective support policies for RES, setting incen-

tives on technology level in all energy sectors (i.e. electricity, heat and transport), accom-

panied by strong energy efficiency measures to reduce the overall growth of energy de-

mand. The finally presented main scenario represents the outcome of an extended scenario

analysis, where a large variation of applied technology and country-specific support policy

settings led to a variety of scenarios which were evaluated on criteria such as cost effec-

tiveness or practical implementation. It depicts the outcome of this extended evaluation

process. With regard to the overall development of energy demands clear reference is

given to PRIMES modelling, where the recently conducted PRIMES efficiency case (as of

August 2007) forms the base of this investigation.

Sections 3.2 to 3.8 below describe the parameters used for the scenario runs. In general it

has to be stated that a conservative approach has been taken in terms of assumptions e.g.

with respect to technology learning of RES technologies.

3.2 Overview on key parameters

In order to ensure maximum consistency with existing EU scenarios and projections the

key input parameters of the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario are derived from PRIMES

modelling and from (updates of) the FORRES 2020 study – similar to the approach as used

in the “RES 2020 – Least cost”-study. Table 1 shows which parameters are based on

PRIMES and which have been defined for this study. More precisely the PRIMES scenario

used is:

• The European Energy and Transport Trends by 2030 / 2007 / Efficiency Case

(a reduction of gross consumption by 15% in 2020 compared to baseline)

Table 1 Main input sources for scenario parameters

Based on PRIMES Defined for this study

Sectoral energy demand 20% target Primary energy prices Reference electricity prices Conventional supply portfolio and conversion efficiencies

RES cost (FORRES, incl. biomass)

CO2 intensity of sectors RES potential (FORRES) Biomass import restrictions Technology diffusion Learning rates


6

3.3 Energy demand

The energy consumption data for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case are based on the

PRIMES energy efficiency scenario, which assumes a 15% increase in energy efficiency

compared to the PRIMES baseline scenario. In this context, Table 2 provides the energy

consumption parameters for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case.

Table 2 Energy consumption parameters (in TWh)

Parameter 2005 2010 2020

Gross electricity demand 3,287 3,563 3,527

Transport fuel demand 4,133 4,461 4,159

Heat demand 6,830 7,007 5,975

Total final energy demand 14,250 15,031 13,661

Primary energy demand 21,067 21,596 19,761

Diesel and Gasoline 3,484 3,699 3,448

Note: Data for primary energy consumption (expressed according to the EUROSTAT convention) was initially taken from PRIMES, but had to be endogenously corrected within Green-X due to the differ-ing RES penetration. Expressed figures refer to the output of the Green-X 20%-RES-by-2020 bal-anced case.

Please note that Heat demand as expressed in Table 2 summarises the final residual de-

mand for energy of all relevant economic activities, i.e. comprising the sectors of industry,

service and agriculture as well as the residential sector. Residual in that sense as it ex-

cludes consumption of electricity, transport fuels and, besides district heat supply, inputs

to other transformation processes as well as non-energetic uses.5

3.4 Conventional supply portfolio

The conventional supply portfolio, i.e. the share of the different conversion technologies in

each sector, has been based on the PRIMES forecasts on a country specific basis. These

projections on the portfolio of conventional technologies have an impact in particular on

the calculations done within this study on the avoidance of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.

As it is at least out of the scope of this study to analyse in detail which conventional power

plant would actually be replaced by for instance a wind farm installed in the year 2014 in a

certain country (i.e. either a less efficient existing coal-fired plant or a possibly new high-

efficient combined cycle gas turbine), the following assumptions are taken:

• Keeping in mind that, besides renewable energies, fossil energy represents the

marginal generation option that determines the prices on energy markets, it was

decided to stick on country level to the sector-specific conventional supply portfolio

projections as provided by PRIMES. Sector- as well as country-specific conversion

efficiencies, as derived on a yearly base, are used to get a sound proxy to calcu-

5 Electricity and transport fuel consumption was excluded to avoid double counting.


7

late from derived renewable generation figures back to the amount of avoided

primary energy. Assuming that the fuel mix stays unaffected, avoidance can be

expressed in units of coal or gas replaced.

• A similar approach is chosen with regard to the avoidance of CO2 emissions, where

yearly changing average country- as well as sector-specific CO2 intensities of the

fossil-based conventional supply portfolio forms the basis.

In the following the derived data on aggregate conventional conversion efficiencies and the

CO2 intensities characterising the conventional reference system is presented.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ran

ges

of a

vera

ge c

onve

ntio

nal

conv

ersi

on e

ffici

enci

es [%

] heat (grid)baseline

heat (grid)efficiency

electricitybaseline

electricityefficiency

Bandwith of average efficiencies due to differing country-specific circumstances

Average on EU-25 level

Figure 2 Country-specific average conversion efficiencies of conventional (fossil-based)

electricity and grid-connected heat production in the EU25.

(source: PRIMES scenarios)

Figure 2 shows the dynamic development of average conversion efficiencies as projected by

PRIMES for conventional electricity generation as well as for grid-connected heat produc-

tion. Thereby, conversion efficiencies are shown for both the PRIMES baseline and PRIMES

efficiency case. Error bars indicate the range in country-specific average efficiencies be-

tween EU member states. For the transport sector, where efficiencies are not explicitly ex-

pressed in PRIMES results, the average efficiency of the refinery process to derive fossil

diesel and gasoline was assumed to be 95%.

The corresponding data on country- as well as sector-specific CO2 intensities of the conven-

tional energy conversion system are shown in Figure 3. Error bars again illustrate the varia-

tion over countries.


8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Ran

ges

of a

vera

ge C

O2

inte

nsiti

es o

f co

nven

tiona

l con

vers

ion

[t C

O2

/ MW

h-ou

tput

]electricityefficiency

electricitybaseline

heat (grid)efficiency

heat (grid)baseline

Average on EU-25 level

Bandwith of average intensities due to differing country-specific circumstances

Figure 3 Country-specific average sectoral CO2 intensities of the conventional

(fossil-based) energy system in the EU25. (source: PRIMES scenarios)

Note: The differences between the PRIMES efficiency and baseline case for non-grid heat and trans-port are very small and therefore not shown

3.5 Fossil fuel and reference energy prices

National reference energy prices used in this analysis are based on the primary energy

price assumptions as used in the EU energy outlook (as of 2006). Compared to current en-

ergy prices the price assumptions in the PRIMES energy efficiency and baseline scenario

are low for the later years up to 2020. The reference oil price for instance goes up to 48 $

per barrel while actual world market prices in the last year have fluctuated between 55 and

78 $ per barrel. Table 3 provides the development of energy prices assumed.

Table 3 Primary energy price assumptions in US$2005/boe (source: PRIMES scenario)

Baseline 2005 2010 2015 2020

Oil 54 44.59 44.95 48.08

Gas 30.31 33.86 34.22 36.99

Coal 13.32 12.53 13.38 14.1

Reference prices for the electricity sector are taken from the Green-X model. Based on the

primary energy prices, the CO2-price and the country-specific power sector, the Green-X

model determines country-specific reference electricity prices for each year in the period

2006-2020. Reference prices for the heat and transport sector are based on primary en-

ergy prices and the typical country-specific conventional conversion portfolio. All reference

prices are provided in Table 4. Note that heat prices in case of grid-connected heat supply

from district heating and CHP-plant do not include the cost of distribution – i.e. they repre-

sent the price directly at defined hand over point.


9

Table 4 Reference prices for electricity, heat and transport fuels

in €/MWh output 2005 2010 2015 2020

Electricity price 52.1 54.9 49.6 48.6

Heat price (grid) 28.3 29.3 30.3 30.6

Heat price (non-grid) 50.5 51.2 51.6 53

Transport fuel price 42 40.1 37.8 41

3.6 CO2 prices

The CO2-price in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case is exogenously set at 20 €/t, again

similar to corresponding EU scenarios. Actual market prices (for 2006 EU Allowances) have

fluctuated between 7 and 30 €/t in the period January-July 2006, with averages fluctuating

roughly between 15 and 20 €/t. In the model, it is assumed that CO2-prices are directly

passed through to electricity prices. This is done fuel-specific based on the PRIMES CO2-

emission factors.

Increased RES-deployment can have a CO2-price reducing effect as it reduces the demand

for CO2-reductions. As RES-deployment should be anticipated in the EU Emission Trading

System and the CO2-price in the Green-X scenario is exogenously set, this effect is not in-

cluded, which represents a rather conservative approach.

3.7 RES potential

A broad set of different renewable energy technologies exists today. Obviously, for a com-

prehensive investigation of the future development of RES it is of crucial importance to

provide a detailed investigation of the country-specific situation – e.g. with respect to the

potential of the certain RES in general as well as their regional distribution and the corre-

sponding generation cost. Major efforts have been recently taken within the FORRES 2020

study to assess Europe’s RES resource base in a comprehensive manner. Consequently,

this project directly builds on these consolidated outcomes as presented in the Commis-

sion’s Communication ‘The share of renewable energy’.

Within the model Green-X, supply potentials for all main technologies for RES-E, RES-H

and RES-T are described in detail.

• RES-E technologies include biogas, biomass, biowaste, onshore wind, offshore

wind, small-scale hydropower, large-scale hydropower, solar thermal electricity,

photovoltaics, tidal & wave energy, and geothermal electricity

• RES-H technologies include heat from biomass – subdivided into log wood, wood

chips, pellets, and district heating -, geothermal heat and solar heat

• RES-T options include traditional biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol, ad-

vanced biofuels as well as the impact of biofuel imports

The potential supply of energy from each technology is described for each country analysed

by means of dynamic cost-resource curves. Dynamic cost curves are characterised by the


10

fact that the costs as well as the potential for electricity generation / demand reduction can

change each year. The magnitude of these changes is given endogenously in the model,

i.e. the difference in the values compared to the previous year depends on the outcome of

this year and the (policy) framework conditions set for the simulation year.

Realisable mid-term potentials form the base for the overall approach. This potential de-

scribes the maximal achievable potential assuming that all existing barriers can be over-

come and all driving forces are active. Thereby, general parameters as e.g. market growth

rates, planning constraints are taken into account. It is important to mention that this po-

tential term must be seen in a dynamic context – i.e. the realisable potential has to refer to

a certain year where within the purpose of this study 2020 has been chosen.

The following figures illustrate – exemplarily for the electricity sector – the potential contri-

bution of RES in the electricity sector within the EU-27 up to the year 2020 by considering

specific resource conditions in each country. Thereby, in accordance with the general mod-

elling approach, a clear distinction is made between existing RES plants (installed up to the

end of 2005 – i.e. the achieved potential in 2005) and future RES options – the additional

mid-term potential. More precisely, Figure 4 depicts the achieved and additional mid-term

potential for RES-E in the EU-15 by country (left) as well as by RES-E category (right). A

similar picture is shown for the new member states (NMS) in Figure 5. It is notable that in

both figures the future potential as indicated for biomass represents only an approxima-

tion, as its allocation to the sectors of electricity, heat or transport is not explicitly prede-

termined in the applied modelling approach.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

AT

BE

DK FI FR DE

GR IE IT LU NL

PT

ES

SE

UK

RES

-E -

Elec

tric

ity

gene

ratio

n po

tent

ial [

TWh/

yr.]

Additional potential 2020Achieved potential 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Biog

as

(Sol

id) B

iom

ass

Biow

aste

Geo

ther

mal

ele

ctric

ity

Hyd

ro la

rge-

scal

e

Hyd

ro s

mal

l-sca

le

Phot

ovol

taic

s

Sol

ar th

erm

al e

lect

ricity

Tide

& W

ave

Win

d on

shor

e

Win

d of

fsho

re

Figure 4 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from

RES in the EU-15 – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right)


11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CY

CZ

EE

HU LA LT MT PL

SK SI

BG

RO

RES

-E -

Elec

tric

ity

gene

ratio

n po

tent

ial [

TWh/

yr.]

Additional potential 2020Achieved potential 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Biog

as

(Sol

id) B

iom

ass

Biow

aste

Geo

ther

mal

ele

ctric

ity

Hyd

ro la

rge-

scal

e

Hyd

ro s

mal

l-sca

le

Phot

ovol

taic

s

Sol

ar th

erm

al e

lect

ricity

Tide

& W

ave

Win

d on

shor

e

Win

d of

fsho

re

Figure 5 Achieved (2005) and additional mid-term potential 2020 for electricity from

RES in NMS countries – by country (left) and by RES-E category (right)

The availability of biomass and the allocation of biomass resources across sectors are cru-

cial as this energy is faced with high expectations with regard to its future potentials. The

total domestic availability of solid biomass was set at 221 Mtoe/yr. Biomass data has been

cross-checked with DG TREN, EEA and the GEMIS database.6 In the 20%-RES-by-2020

main case we assume that biomass can be imported to the European market. Specifically:

• Solid biomass in the form of wood products and wood residues can be imported to

a maximum of 30% of the total additional primary input of forestry biomass, which

represents about.

• Liquid biofuel in the form of ethanol and biodiesel products can be imported to a

maximum of 30% corresponding to a default case based on solely domestic biofuel

supply.

In this context, Figure 6 indicates the dynamic evolution of the identified biomass primary

potentials on EU27-level, whilst Table 5 shows a detailed breakdown of corresponding fuel

costs for the considered biomass options, incl. agricultural products / energy crops (e.g.

rape seed & sunflower, miscanthus), agricultural residues (straw), forestry products (e.g.

wood chips), forestry residues and biowaste.

6 For example the recent EEA report "How much bio-energy can Europe produce without harming the environment?" gives 235 MtOE in 2020 for total biomass under the assumption of significant eco-logical constraints on biomass use.


12

Table 5 Breakdown of fuel cost and corresponding primary potentials by fuel category

for the European Union (EU-27)

Fuel cost ranges (2006)Realisable mid-term potential for 2020 in terms of primary energy Minimum Maximum

Weighted average

Solid biomass - Primary potentials & corresponding fuel cost by 2020

[Mtoe/yr.] [€/MWh-p] [€/MWh-p] [€/MWh-p]

AP1 - rape & sunflower 32.3 40.4 33.2AP2 - maize, wheat (corn) 26.6 33.2 29.4AP3 - maize, wheat (whole plant) 29.8 29.8 0.0AP4 - SRC willow.. 27.4 32.9 21.8AP5 - miscanthus 27.1 34.1 21.4AP6 - switch grass 17.9 31.9 16.6AP7 - sweet sorghum 31.0 40.9 40.9

Agricultural procucts - TOTAL

82.5

17.9 40.9 28.7AR1 - straw 12.2 14.7 12.4AR2 - other agricultural residues 12.2 14.7 12.7

Agricultural residues - TOTAL 30.0

12.2 14.7 12.4FP1 - forestry products (current use (wood chips, log wood)) 17.8 22.3 18.6FP2 - forestry products (complementary fellings (moderate)) 19.1 23.8 21.0FP3 - forestry products (complementary fellings (expensive)) 25.8 32.3 28.4

Forestry products - TOTAL

69.7

17.8 32.3 20.4FR1 - black liquor 5.6 7.7 6.1FR2 - forestry residues (current use) 6.3 8.6 7.2FR3 - forestry residues (additional) 12.5 17.1 12.9FR4 - demolition wood, industrial residues 5.0 6.8 5.6FR5 - additional wood processing residues (sawmill, bark) 6.3 8.6 6.7

Forestry residues - TOTAL

35.8

5.0 17.1 6.7BW1 - biodegradable fraction of municipal waste -3.8 -3.8 -3.7

Biowaste - TOTAL 17.9

-3.8 -3.8 -3.7FR6 - forestry imports from abroad 8.5 16.0 16.8 16.7

Solid biomass - TOTAL 244.3 -3.8 40.9 16.1 … of which domestic biomass 235.8 -3.8 40.9 16.4


13

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2020

Solid

bio

mas

s - p

oten

tial i

n te

rms

of p

rimar

y en

ergy

[Mto

e/ye

ar]

Forestry imports

Biodegradable waste

Forestry residues

Forestry products

Agricultural residues

Agricultural products

Figure 6 Biomass potentials in terms of primary energy in the European Union (EU-27)

for the years 2010, 2020

3.8 RES cost

Parameters on long-term cost developments of RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 main case

are based on the FORRES 2020 project. Costs are adapted endogenously on the basis of

technology-specific learning rates. Exceptions to this rule are the cost developments speci-

fied for novel RES options such as solar thermal, tidal and wave energy, for which expert

cost forecasts are used.

Note that the analysis uses a quite detailed level of specifying costs and potentials. The

analysis is not based on average costs per technology. For each technology a detailed cost-

curve is specified for each year, based on so-called cost-bands. These cost-bands summa-

rise a range of production sites that can be described by similar cost factors. For each

technology a minimum of 6 to 10 cost bands is specified by country. For biomass at least

50 cost bands are specified for each year in each country.

Economic conditions of the various RES technologies are based on both economic and

technical specifications, varying across the EU countries.7 Figure 7 depicts the typical cur-

rent bandwidth of long-run marginal generation costs8 per technology for the electricity

sector. A corresponding depiction is shown in Figure 8 for the heat sector, whilst Figure 9

indicates the cost of biofuels. In this context, for the calculation of the capital recovery fac-

tor a default setting is applied with respect to payback time (15 years) and weighted aver-

age cost of capital (6.5%):

7 Note that in the model Green-X the calculation of generation costs for the various generation op-tions is done by a rather complex mechanism, internalized within the overall set of modelling pro-cedures. Thereby, band-specific data (e.g. investment costs, efficiencies, full load-hours, etc.) is linked to general model parameters as interest rate and depreciation time.

8 Long-run marginal costs are relevant for the economic decision whether to build a new plant or not.


14

The broad range of costs for several RES technologies reflects variations in resource- (e.g.

for photovoltaics or wind energy) or demand-specific conditions (e.g. full load hours in case

of heating systems) within and between countries as well as variations in technological op-

tions such as variations in plant sizes and/or conversion technologies.

0 50 100 150 200

Biogas

(Solid) Biomass co-firing

(Solid) Biomass

Biowaste

Geothermal electricity

Hydro large-scale

Hydro small-scale

Photovoltaics

Solar thermal electricity

Tide & Wave

Wind onshore

Wind offshore

Costs of electricity (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]

cost range (LRMC)

PV: 430 to 1640 €/MWh

Cur

rent

mar

ket p

rice

Figure 7 Long-run marginal generation costs (for the year 2006)

for various RES-E options in EU countries.

0 50 100 150 200

Biomass - district heat

Geothermal - district heat

Biomass (non-grid) - log wood

Biomass (non-grid) - wood chips

Biomass (non-grid) - pellets

Heat pumps

Solar thermal heat & hot water

Costs of heat (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]

Cur

rent

mar

ket p

rice

(non

-grid

)

Cur

rent

mar

ket p

rice

(grid

-hea

t)


for various RES-H options in EU countries.

0 50 100 150 200

Biodiesel

Bioethanol

*Lignocellulosic bioethanol

*Biomass-to-Liquid

Costs of transport fuels (LRMC - Payback time: 15 years) [€/MWh]

Cur

rent

m

arke

t pric

e


for various RES-T options in EU countries.


15

The data illustrated refers to new RES plants and are in accordance with the additional re-

alisable mid-term potentials as specified in Section 3.7. For hydropower (large- and small-

scale) and wind onshore non-harmonised cost settings are applied, i.e. country-specific

data on investment costs and where suitable also O&M-costs are used. For all other RES-E

options harmonised cost settings are applied across the EU. The ranges expressed for eco-

nomic and technical parameters in these instances refer to differences in plant sizes

(small- to large-scale) and/or conversion technologies applied. All data on investment

costs, O&M-costs and efficiencies refer to the default start year of the simulations, i.e.

2006, and are expressed in €2006.

Prices for imported biomass are set exogenously:

• The price of imported wood is set country specific, indicating trade constraints and

transport premiums. On European average a figure of 18 €/MWh is assumed.

• The price of imported biofuels is assumed to equal a European average of

62 €/MWh.


16

4 Resulting deployment of renewable energy sources

This section presents the key results obtained from the modelling calculation for the

20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case.

Figure 10 illustrates the sectoral contribution of renewable energy in terms of primary en-

ergy on EU25 level for the period 2006 to 2020. Note that all data as presented therein is

based on the Eurostat convention, referring to the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case. Fac-

ing this challenge means to achieve a tripling of current RES-deployment to about 305

Mtoe9 by 2020. Looking at the sectoral breakdown it is notable that RES-electricity and

RES-heat contribute in large terms, where electricity represents the largest contributor

with a share of 48% on total RES deployment by 2020. But also biofuels have to accelerate

deployment largely – the goal of 14% by 2020 represents a huge challenge compared to

the current situation.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

RES

dep

loym

ent

- in

term

s of

prim

ary

ener

gy[M

toe]

RES-transportRES-heatRES-electricity

RES primary consumptionby 2020

- sectoral breakdown

RES-E48%

RES-H38%

RES-T14%

Figure 10 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of primary energy

(based on Eurostat convention) within the European Union (EU-27)

Figure 11 (next page) indicates the corresponding data in terms of final energy. As indi-

cated therein, from at present about 105 Mtoe a rise to 235.5 Mtoe by 2020 has to be

achieved. As a consequence of lower conversion efficiencies in case of biomass electricity

generation or biofuel conversion compared to heating, electricity (45%) and biofuels (12%)

end up with a lower contribution compared to their primary shares, whilst RES-heating

comprises a larger share in size of 43%.

9 The corresponding figure based on the substitution principle is 480 Mtoe.


17

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

RES

dep

loym

ent

- in

term

s of

ene

rgy

outp

ut[M

toe]

RES-transportRES-heatRES-electricity

RES energy outputby 2020

- sectoral breakdown

RES-T12%

RES-E45%

RES-H43%

Figure 11 Evolution of renewable energy sources up to 2020 in terms of final energy

within the European Union (EU-27)

The projected sectoral contribution can be analysed best by depicting deployment on sec-

toral level in relative terms – i.e. by indicating the deployment of RES-E, RES-H and RES-T

as shares of corresponding gross demands. In this context, Table 6 gives an overview on

results for 2010 and 2020. Although the share of renewable electricity stays below projec-

tions of the “RES 2020 – Least cost” study (42% by 2020), it can still be observed that

RES-E shall contribute largely (35% of corresponding gross demand) to the achievement of

the 20% RES target. The share of biofuels in transport fuel demand remains comparatively

low in the first years, but reaches 8% in 2020.10 Figure 12 illustrates the development in

the share of RES over time. Results on the sector-, technology- and country-specific RES-

deployment and technology-specific costs are provided in the next sections.

Table 6 Share of renewable energies in electricity, heat and transport fuel demand

European Union 272006 2010 2020

Share of RES-E on electricity demand 16% 21% 35%Share of RES-H on heat demand 10% 12% 20%

Share of RES-T on transport fuel demand 1% 2% 8%Share of RES on final demand 9% 11% 20%Share of RES on primary demand 7% 10% 18% (Eurostat convention)

11% 13% 26% (Substitution principle)

% deployment

10 This study compares biofuel production to the total transport fuel demand (excluding electricity), while the target setting in the biofuels directive is based on the demand for diesel and gasoline. In 2020 diesel and gasoline consumption makes up 83% of total transport fuel demand according to the PRIMES efficiency scenario. Hence, 8% of total transport fuel demand would correspond to 10% of the demand for diesel and gasoline.


18

34,8%

19,6%

8,2%

17,9%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

RES

-dep

loym

ent -

in re

lativ

e te

rms

(i.e

. as

shar

e of

cor

resp

ondi

ng

gros

s de

man

d) [%

]

RES-electricity

RES-heat

RES-transport

RES primary(EUROSTAT)

RES primary(SUBSTITUTION)

Figure 12 Deployment of RES-E, RES-H, RES-T and RES in total as shares of corre-

sponding gross demands up to 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)

4.1 Sector- & technology-specific deployment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

RES

dep

loym

ent

(new

pla

nt (2

006

to 2

020)

) - i

n te

rms

of e

nerg

y ou

tput

[Mto

e]

RES-T - imports

RES-T - 2nd generation

RES-T - 1st generation

RES-H - non grid

RES-H - district heat

RES-H - CHP

RES-E - CHP

RES-E - pure power

Figure 13 Deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in terms of energy output

until 2020 within the European Union (EU-27)

The deployment of solely new RES plants (installed in the period 2006 to 2020) in the

20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case is shown in Figure 13 in terms of energy output11 by sub-

sector. To meet the 20% target, large increases are required in all three sectors. The re-

11 According to the applied terminology energy output equals in case of heat and transport final en-ergy demands, whilst for RES-E generation it refers to gross consumption.


19

sults show that a pro-active RES support will lead to a stimulation of RES-markets almost

equally among all sectors. Total generation from new RES installations in the period 2006

to 2020 achieves an impressive amount of 134.7 Mtoe by 2020 – representing two thirds

of total RES output by 2020 or almost a doubling of current RES-generation.

The highest contribution both in terms of energy output as well as primary energy is pro-

jected for RES-E, especially for pure power generation options such as wind energy (all to-

gether covering 38% of total energy output of new RES installations (2006 to 2020) by

2020), but also RES-CHP acts as a major contributor (18%).

Besides RES-E, the non-grid heat market for RES, comprising residential and industrial

biomass heating as well as solar thermal heating & hot water supply and heat pumps takes

off fast if well supported. Among all sub-sectors it achieves the second largest deployment

in absolute terms, holding a share of 19% on total energy output of cumulative new instal-

lations by 2020. This underpins that the cost-effective achievement of RES targets requires

an immediate strong growth of RES-H, which would need to be reflected by an appropriate

policy framework.

In terms of growth rates RES-T faces a huge increase, but in absolute terms it will become

an important contributor to achieve the 20% target especially in the later years when also

advanced conversion technologies such as lignocellulosic bioethanol are ready to enter the

market.

The following figures illustrate the projected EU-wide penetration of RES on technology

level for the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case. Finally, Table 7 provides the corresponding

data in a detailed manner, indicating besides generation also technology-specific sectoral

shares as well as average growth rates. Please note that further details on the technology-

as well as country-specific RES deployment according to this modelling exam are presented

in Annex A of this report.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2006 2010 2015 2020

RES

-E -

ener

gy o

utpu

t [T

Wh/

year

]

Wind offshoreWind onshoreTide & waveSolar thermal electricityPhotovoltaicsHydro large-scaleHydro small-scaleGeothermal electricityBiowasteSolid biomassBiogas

Figure 14 RES-E generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)


20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006 2010 2015 2020

RES

-H -

ener

gy o

utpu

t [M

toe/

year

]

Heat pumps

Solar thermal heat. &waterSolid biomass (non-grid)

RES-H distr. heat

RES-H CHP

Figure 15 RES-H generation up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2010 2015 2020

RES

-T -

ener

gy o

utpu

t [M

toe/

year

] Biofuel import

Advanced biofuels

Traditional biofuels

Figure 16 RES-T production and import up to 2020 in the European Union (EU-27)


21

Table 7 RES penetration in the period 2006 to 2020 at technology level

in the European Union (EU-27)

[Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2020 06-10 10-15 15-20 06-20

Biogas [TWh] 17 28 52 88 4% 7% 14.2% 12.7% 11.3% 12.6%Solid biomass [TWh] 57 121 178 217 17% 18% 20.7% 8.1% 4.0% 10.0%Biowaste [TWh] 14 24 30 34 3% 3% 14.7% 4.9% 2.3% 6.6%Geothermal electricity [TWh] 7 8 8 9 1% 1% 4.4% 0.5% 1.2% 1.9%Hydro large-scale [TWh] 301 314 319 321 43% 26% 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%Hydro small-scale [TWh] 46 58 61 63 8% 5% 5.5% 1.3% 0.4% 2.2%Photovoltaics [TWh] 2 6 13 26 1% 2% 28.8% 16.3% 15.0% 19.2%Solar thermal electricity [TWh] 0 2 7 11 0% 1% 68.1% 33.5% 10.4% 33.2%Tide & wave [TWh] 0 2 4 8 0% 1% 63.4% 16.5% 12.5% 26.8%Wind onshore [TWh] 90 155 222 257 21% 21% 14.4% 7.5% 2.9% 7.7%Wind offshore [TWh] 4 16 80 195 2% 16% 43.1% 37.7% 19.5% 32.4%

RES-E total [TWh] 539 733 975 1,228 8.0% 5.9% 4.7% 6.1%

RES-E CHP [TWh] 61 108 152 187 15% 15% 15.2% 7.0% 4.3% 8.3%share on gross demand [%] 16% 21% 28% 35%

[Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2020 06-10 10-15 15-20 06-20

Biogas (grid) [Mtoe] 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2% 2% 2.0% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8%Solid biomass (grid) [Mtoe] 5.3 10.0 14.2 17.2 14% 17% 16.9% 7.3% 4.0% 8.7%Biowaste (grid) [Mtoe] 2.4 3.8 4.7 5.2 5% 5% 12.2% 4.2% 2.0% 5.6%Geothermal heat (grid) [Mtoe] 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1% 1% 0.1% 1.0% 1.9% 1.1%Solid biomass (non-grid) [Mtoe] 49.6 54.8 60.0 64.5 74% 64% 2.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.9%Solar therm. heat. [Mtoe] 0.8 1.7 4.2 7.7 2% 8% 20.3% 20.0% 13.0% 17.5%Heat pumps [Mtoe] 0.8 1.0 1.6 3.0 1% 3% 4.0% 10.9% 13.4% 9.7%

RES-H total [Mtoe] 61.2 73.5 87.2 100.5 4.7% 3.5% 2.9% 3.6%

RES-H CHP [Mtoe] 7.1 11.6 15.5 18.4 16% 18% 13.1% 5.9% 3.5% 7.0%RES-H distr. heat [Mtoe] 2.9 4.5 5.9 6.8 6% 7% 11.9% 5.5% 2.8% 6.3%RES-H non-grid [Mtoe] 51.2 57.4 65.8 75.3 78% 75% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.8%

share on gross demand [%] 10% 12% 16% 20%

[Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2020 06-10 10-15 15-20 06-20

Traditional biofuels [Mtoe] 3.4 4.1 5.5 4.4 55% 15% 4.3% 6.1% -4.1% 1.8%Advanced biofuels [Mtoe] 0.0 0.8 7.4 16.3 11% 55% - 54.7% 17.2% 34.6%Biofuel import [Mtoe] 0.3 2.5 4.4 8.7 34% 29% 72.6% 12.1% 14.4% 27.7%

RES-T total [Mtoe] 3.7 7.4 17.3 29.4 18.8% 18.4% 11.2% 15.9%share on gross demand [%] 1% 2% 5% 8%

RES-E Electricity generationShare of total

RES-E [%] Average yearly growth [%]

Average yearly growth [%]

RES-H Heat generationShare of total

RES-H [%] Average yearly growth [%]

RES-TBiofuel generation

Share of total RES-T [%]

Some of the most prominent conclusions drawn from this table include:

• The bulk of RES-E in 2020 will be produced by technologies that are currently al-

ready close to the market: Large-scale hydro (321 TWh/yr), solid biomass (217

TWh/yr), onshore wind (257 TWh/yr), offshore wind (195 TWh/yr), biogas (88

TWh/yr), small hydro (63 TWh/yr) and biowaste (34 TWh/yr) will contribute about

96% to RES-E production.

• However, also novel RES-E options with huge future potentials such as PV (26

TWh/yr), solar thermal electricity (11 TWh/yr) or tidal & wave (8 TWh/yr) enter

the market and achieve a steadily growing share – if, as assumed, market stimula-

tion is set in a proper manner.


22

• In the heat sector solar thermal heat and heat pumps achieve a strong deploy-

ment, steadily growing over the whole investigated period and finally account for

almost one quarter of RES-H generation by 2020.

• Biomass plays a crucial role in meeting RES targets. In the 20%-RES-by-2020

main case cofiring of biomass refers to 58 TWh/yr in electricity production. Bio-

mass will become even more important for the development of RES-H. In 2020

about 88% of total RES-H generation comprises biomass and biowaste. Besides

cofiring and CHP also modern small-scale biomass heating systems are a major

contributor.

• In the 20%-RES-by-2020 main scenario 79% of the domestic potential of solid

biomass (187 Mtoe) is used and another 17 Mtoe is imported. Imports consist of

8.3 Mtoe forestry products and residues and 8.7 Mtoe of biofuels.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

Gro

wth

rate

s (c

ompa

ring

2020

an

d 20

06 g

ener

atio

n in

tota

l) [M

toe/

year

] Growth rates (2006 to 2020)

4.7%

10.8%

1.4%0.2%

1.6% 1.1% 1.5% 0.7% 0.5%

12.9%12.2%

0.3%

9.4%

2.3%0.1%

11.7%

5.4%

2.0%

21.3%

05

1015202530

Biog

as

Solid

bio

mas

s

Biow

aste

Geo

ther

mal

ele

ctric

ity

Hyd

ro la

rge-

scal

e

Hyd

ro s

mal

l-sca

le

Phot

ovol

taic

s

Sol

ar th

erm

al e

lect

ricity

Tide

& w

ave

Win

d on

shor

e

Win

d of

fsho

re

Biog

as (g

rid)

Solid

bio

mas

s (g

rid)

Biow

aste

(grid

)

Geo

ther

mal

hea

t (gr

id)

Solid

bio

mas

s (n

on-g

rid)

Sola

r the

rm. h

eat.

Hea

t pum

ps

Biof

uels

Ener

gy o

utpu

t of

NEW

RES

pla

nt b

y 20

20

[Mto

e/ye

ar]

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Shar

e in

tota

l NEW

RES

dep

loym

ent b

y 20

20

[%]

in absolute terms in relative terms

RES-Electricity RES-Heat

Figure 17 Technology-breakdown for new RES installations in the period 2006 to 2020

within the European Union (EU-27) – in absolute and relative terms (below) as

well as corresponding growth rates (above)

The required deployment of new RES installations within the investigated period 2006 to

2020 is illustrated in Figure 17 and discussed next:

• In line with previous statements, the highest contribution is expected to come

from the bulk of renewable electricity technologies: In total 64 Mtoe (or 47.5% of


23

the new RES installations in total) appear as a lump sum for new RES-E installa-

tions in total. Both onshore and offshore wind energy are major contributors in

this respect, whereby a high growth (32% on average per year) is needed for off-

shore. Besides wind, biomass and biogas aim to gain similar emphasis with

slightly less contribution in absolute terms but facing a period of stable growth.

• With regard to renewable heat both grid-connected and decentralised technolo-

gies are projected to deliver 42 Mtoe (corresponding to 31.2% of the total exploi-

tation of new RES installations). In the case of grid-connected heat supply bio-

mass CHP plants represent the largest contributors, whilst in the non-grid sector

modern small-scale biomass heating systems are of dominance. Besides this, so-

lar thermal collectors for heat & hot water supply are also expected to face a pe-

riod of high and stable growth.

• Finally, biofuels are expected to expand their deployment by 29 Mtoe, corre-

sponding to 21.3% of new RES in total.

4.2 Exploitation of biomass

Figure 18 provides a sectoral breakdown of total biomass exploitation in the period 2006-

2020 in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario. In the first years the dominant use of

biomass is in (residential) non-grid connected heat production. Slightly CHP takes over the

leading position, whilst holding a rather constant share of around 30% of total biomass ex-

ploitation throughout 2020. While small-scale (residential) heating systems increase slowly

in absolute terms, their share drops due to fast increasing exploitation in other sub-

sectors. Notably the biofuel market increases strongly after 2010. Thereby, for advanced

2nd generation biofuels such as BtL, making use of modern forms of energy crops in the

years after 2010, a comparatively optimistic contribution is assumed due to strong R&D ef-

forts taken at present. Pure power generation remains at a constant level (11-13% of total

biomass exploitation).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Sect

oral

bre

akdo

wn

of b

iom

ass

expl

oita

tion

(in

term

s of

prim

ary

ener

gy)

(200

6 to

202

0))

[Mto

e]

RES-T - imports



RES-H - non grid


RES-E&H - CHP

RES-E - pure power

Figure 18 Sectoral breakdown of the biomass exploitation in terms of primary energy for

the period 2006 to 2020


24

4.3 Country-specific deployment

Current RES deployment as well as the potentials and the corresponding cost of future RES

options differ among EU Member States. In the modelling, an efficient and effective re-

source exploitation is assessed from the European perspective, where similar technology-

specific RES support is preconditioned for all countries. As a consequence from above, a

large variation in the country-specific contributions towards the overall target can be rec-

ognised, reflecting the national resource conditions and corresponding exploitation con-

straints. In this context, Figure 19 depicts the resulting country-specific deployment of RES

(in total) by 2020 expressed as share of final energy demand. Correspondingly, Figure 20

provides a similar depiction for the required new RES deployment (as installed in the pe-

riod 2006 to 2020). Figure 21 offers a comparison of the scenario-specific RES deployment,

the proposed RES targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level

for the year 2020. Finally, Table 8 lists the development of the RES-shares in sectoral as

well as primary and final energy demands for all Member States until 2020.12

The model results show that in order to reach a 20% share of RES in the EU strong efforts

are needed in every Member State. As potentials and costs for additional RES deployment

differ across Member States, the contribution of individual Member States to an overall

share of 20% RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case does as well. The resulting

country-specific RES shares for 2020 differ from the recently proposed national 2020 RES

targets, with which the European Commission aimed to allocate the resulting burden in a

fair manner across Member States. Hence, this emphasises the need for intensified coop-

eration between Member States, where suitable accompanying flexibility mechanisms as-

sist the achievement of national RES targets in an efficient and effective manner.

Please note that further details on the country-specific results with regard to the RES de-

ployment and the potential exploitation according to this modelling exam are presented in

Annex A of this report.

12 Please note that in both graphical illustrations – i.e. Figure 19 to Figure 21 – with regard to biofuels the country-specific 2020 minimum target (10%) is incorporated. Accordingly, biofuels are ac-counted in the country where they are consumed and not where they are produced. Complemen-tary to this, Table 8 expresses the country-specific biofuel production as share in total transport fuel consumption.


25

9.3%

34.4%

46.3%

23.8%

7.4%10.5%

33.3%

21.1%

58.8%

12.7%

27.7%

38.3%

25.1%

11.1%

29.5%

18.8%25.0%

13.6%14.2%15.6%16.7%

19.4%

35.8%

15.7%17.0%13.9%13.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK CY CZ EE HU LV LT MT PL SK SI BG RO

Shar

e on

fina

l dem

and

[%]

RES in total - Share in final consumption by 2020EU27 average

Figure 19 Country-specific deployment of RES (in total) by 2020 expressed as share on

final energy demand

6.0%

17.5%15.9%

13.2%11.5%

9.1%

6.5%8.3%

13.7%

17.0%

11.1%

7.9%

11.4%

9.2%

11.2%12.5%

8.7%

14.5%13.0%

12.7% 11.9%

13.9%

11.7%10.5%

10.4%10.8%10.9%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK CY CZ EE HU LV LT MT PL SK SI BG RO

Shar

e on

fina

l dem

and

[%]

RES in total - Share in final consumption by 2020EU27 average

Figure 20 Country-specific deployment of new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) by 2020

expressed as share on final energy demand

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

AT

BE

DK FI FR DE

GR IE IT LU NL

PT

ES

SE

UK

CY

CZ

EE

HU LV LT MT PL

SK SI

BG

RO

EU

27

Shar

e on

fina

l dem

and

[%]

Scenario-specific RES exploitationProposed RES targetRealisable mid-term potential for RES

Figure 21 Comparison of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment, the proposed RES

targets and the realisable mid-term potentials for RES at country level –

expressed as share on final energy demand


26

Table 8 Share of RES production in demand (primary (based on Eurostat convention),

electricity, heat, transport fuels and final energy) for EU-27 countries

2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020Austria 28% 35% 75% 79% 24% 32% 1% 4%Belgium 4% 9% 7% 14% 4% 7% 4% 10%Denmark 20% 36% 38% 65% 29% 41% 3% 8%Finland 30% 42% 30% 45% 47% 62% 2% 17%France 8% 16% 16% 33% 16% 28% 2% 8%Germany 7% 16% 16% 31% 7% 14% 1% 7%Greece 9% 18% 16% 30% 16% 24% 2% 8%Ireland 6% 19% 15% 37% 6% 11% 1% 11%Italy 9% 15% 23% 30% 4% 10% 1% 5%Luxembourg 2% 5% 5% 8% 2% 5% 0% 2%Netherlands 4% 9% 10% 27% 2% 5% 1% 5%Portugal 20% 31% 37% 52% 36% 44% 1% 7%Spain 12% 20% 29% 41% 12% 21% 2% 5%Sweden 32% 41% 53% 70% 65% 81% 3% 11%United Kingdom 4% 13% 10% 35% 3% 6% 1% 7%Cyprus 4% 10% 6% 20% 17% 22% 1% 2%Czech Republic 6% 12% 8% 17% 11% 15% 4% 9%Estonia 14% 25% 7% 17% 35% 44% 0% 16%Hungary 7% 17% 8% 19% 8% 13% 4% 20%Latvia 32% 43% 41% 51% 44% 48% 0% 21%Lithuania 13% 22% 8% 20% 31% 38% 0% 27%Malta 2% 9% 6% 17% 7% 21% 1% 2%Poland 9% 19% 9% 22% 13% 19% 6% 20%Slovakia 9% 14% 23% 26% 8% 13% 4% 12%Slovenia 15% 25% 32% 43% 24% 34% 1% 2%Bulgaria 9% 18% 14% 23% 17% 24% 3% 17%Romania 16% 25% 36% 42% 20% 24% 5% 22%EU 27 9.6% 17.9% 20.6% 34.8% 12.2% 19.6% 1.9% 8.2%

% RES-E % RES-H % RES-T% RES-primary

Country breakdown 2020 2020*

34.6% 35.8%9.6% 9.3%

34.6% 34.4%47.9% 46.3%23.8% 23.8%16.4% 16.7%19.2% 19.4%17.2% 15.6%13.1% 14.2%3.7% 7.4%9.9% 10.5%

32.8% 33.3%20.0% 21.1%59.6% 58.8%13.5% 13.9%10.1% 12.7%13.8% 13.9%29.3% 27.7%16.2% 13.6%41.5% 38.3%30.6% 25.1%8.4% 11.1%

19.7% 17.0%16.1% 15.7%27.2% 29.5%21.4% 18.8%27.5% 25.0%20.0% 20.0%

* c

onsi

der

ing a

n e

qual

bio

fuel

2020-t

arget

in s

ize

of

10%

for

al

l M

ember

Sta

tes

("bio

fuel

equal

isat

ion")

% RES-final


27

5 Results on related policy issues

This section discusses the main calculation results in the light of the three main objec-

tives of European energy supply:

• Sustainability, specifically lowering the total amount of greenhouse gas emis-

sions from energy production

• Security of supply, particularly lowering the dependency on imports of fossil

fuels to the EU by promoting carbon-free or carbon-neutral diversification of

energy supplies.

• Affordability of energy, for which the additional costs for meeting the 20%

RES target will be analysed.

5.1 Impact on CO2 emissions

The additional RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case reduces CO2 emis-

sions by 209 Mt/yr in 2010, 467 Mt/yr in 2015 and 756 Mt/yr in 2020. The CO2 emission

reduction of 756 Mt in 2020 corresponds to 14% of total EU 27 GHG emissions in 199013,

whereas CO2 emission reductions due to total RES deployment in 2020 is 1,403 Mt, or 25%

of total EU 27 GHG emissions in 1990.

Figure 22 shows the development of avoided CO2 emissions over time in the sectors elec-

tricity, heat and biofuels.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Avo

ided

CO

2 em

issi

ons

(due

to n

ew R

ES p

lant

(2

006

to 2

020)

) [M

t CO

2]

RES-T - imports



RES-H - non grid


RES-E&H - CHP

RES-E - pure power

Figure 22 Avoided CO2-emissions from new RES deployment (2006-2020)

13 GHG emissions in 1990, the base year of the Kyoto Protocol, were 5571 Mt CO2 equivalents in the EU-27 according to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Greenhouse gas country profiles 1990–2006 (2008 EC GHG inventory).


28

Note that 2nd generation biofuels are more efficiently produced than 1st generation biofuels

and thus avoid more CO2 per litre. For biofuel imports CO2 emissions during production are

not considered as they occur in the exporting countries.

Table 9 provides the exact figures of avoided CO2 emissions.

Table 9 Avoided CO2 emissions due to RES plant installed 2006-2020

(sub-sector specific)

[Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2020RES-E - pure power [Mt CO2] 19.2 124.6 288.1 487.9 59% 65%RES-E&H - CHP [Mt CO2] 7.7 42.3 84.0 115.9 20% 15%RES-H - district heat [Mt CO2] 1.3 6.8 12.1 14.6 3% 2%RES-H - non grid [Mt CO2] 2.7 20.5 41.8 63.5 10% 8%RES-T - 1st generation [Mt CO2] 1.6 6.3 9.9 8.0 3% 1%RES-T - 2nd generation [Mt CO2] 0.0 2.5 19.0 41.1 1% 5%RES-T - imports [Mt CO2] 0.8 6.5 12.2 24.8 3% 3%RES-total [Mt CO2] 33.3 209.4 467.2 755.9

Avoided CO2 emissions - due to NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)

5,614

5.2 Impact on security of supply

The increased RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case reduces fossil fuel

demand and therewith is an important element in improving the security of energy supply

in Europe. In 2020 the avoided oil consumption due to new RES capacities installed be-

tween 2006 and 2020 equals 8% of both total EU oil consumption and import needs. In the

case of gas, it equals 16% of total EU gas consumption in 2020 or 20% of default gas im-

port needs, respectively. In monetary terms, even with the low energy prices as assumed

in this modelling exam, from 2020 on a total of 39 billion € per year can be saved on fossil

fuels due to additional RES deployment in the period 2006 to 2020. Table 10 below pro-

vides the results of the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case in terms of avoided fossil fuels

and the corresponding avoided fossil fuel expenses.

Table 10 Avoided fossil fuels due to new RES plant installed 2006-2020

(in energy units and monetary terms)

Avoided fossil fuels - due to NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)… in energy units - by fuel

by year [Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020 2010 2020

Avoided hard coal [MtSKE] 4.5 28.3 55.1 80.0 30% 27%

Avoided lignite [MtSKE] 1.5 9.5 14.8 22.2 10% 7%

Avoided oil [Mtoe] 2.4 15.1 33.7 51.5 23% 25%

Avoided gas [Bill.m3] 4.0 31.5 70.9 111.7 37% 41%

Avoided fossil fuels - total [Mtoe] 9.7 65.4 136.4 207.7

… in monetary terms - in total 2006 2010 2015 2020Avoided fossil fuels - total [Bill.€] 1.6 10.7 23.6 39.0… as share of GDP [% of GDP] 0.02% 0.10% 0.19% 0.28%

Share of total [%]

2006-2020 cumulative

2870.15%

1,633


29

With its large and increasing dependency on imported fossil fuels the EU is quite vulnerable

to price increases on the world market for fossil fuels. Renewables clearly can form an im-

portant element of reducing this vulnerability. This is illustrated by the large amounts of

fossil fuel expenses potentially saved from increased RES penetration. The amount of

avoided fossil fuels and related avoided fossil fuel expenses due to increased RES produc-

tion are obviously very sensitive to the energy prices assumed in the scenario. Avoided

fossil fuel expenses could be used as a first indicator to the increase of financial support to

RES in the coming years, potentially increased with a risk avoidance premium to reflect

mitigation against further price increases.

5.3 Financial impact

Investment needs

The increased RES deployment in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case will lead to invest-

ments of 538 billion €, almost evenly spread over the period 2006-20. Of this amount 339

billion € will be invested in pure RES-E (63%), 114 billion € in pure RES-H (21%), 58 bil-

lion € in RES-CHP (11%) and 27 billion € in RES-T (5%).

Table 11 Investment needs for new RES (installed 2006 to 2020) in the European Union

(EU-27)

Capital expenditure in NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)[Unit] 06-10 11-15 16-20

RES-E - pure power [Bill. €] 87.2 106.1 145.5 338.9 63%RES-E&H - CHP [Bill. €] 26.3 18.1 13.6 57.9 11%RES-H - district heat [Bill. €] 2.0 1.5 1.0 4.6 1%RES-H - non grid [Bill. €] 26.0 36.5 46.8 109.3 20%RES-T - 1st generation [Bill. €] 2.6 1.7 0.5 4.8 1%RES-T - 2nd generation [Bill. €] 1.8 9.2 11.3 22.3 4%RES-total [Bill. €] 146.0 173.2 218.7 537.9

2006-2020 cum.

Additional cost for meeting 20% RES by 2020

Table 12 provides an overview of yearly additional generation costs for the years 2006,

2010, 2015 and 2020. The cumulative additional generation costs for the period 2006-

2020 amount 163.5 billion €. This means that on average the additional generation costs

are 10.9 billion € per year (i.e. corresponding to 0.08% of GDP) throughout this period.


30

Table 12 Additional generation costs in absolute terms (2006 to 2020)

… in absolute terms (Bill. €) by year [Unit] 2006 2010 2015 2020

RES-E - pure power [Bill. €] 0.5 3.0 8.4 14.0 98.7 60%RES-E&H - CHP [Bill. €] 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 10.8 7%RES-H - district heat [Bill. €] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0%RES-H - non grid [Bill. €] 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 5.6 3%RES-T - 1st generation [Bill. €] 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.7 12.9 8%RES-T - 2nd generation [Bill. €] 0.0 0.5 2.0 3.4 22.1 14%RES-T - imports [Bill. €] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.9 13.3 8%RES-total [Bill. €] 1.4 5.5 14.1 21.6 163.5

Additional generation cost for NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)2006-2020 cumulative

Note that data for the year 2006 are modelling results which do not necessarily match with actual data.

Generation costs of new RES plants expressed per unit of generation in the period 2006 to

2020 are provided in Table 13. The average additional generation costs over the period

2006 to 2020 are comparatively low (13.4 €/MWh), whilst additional costs of the marginal

RES options would be significantly higher.

Table 13 Additional generation costs per unit of RES generation (2006 to 2020)

… as premium per MWh RES-generation

by year [Unit] 2005 2010 2015 2020RES-E - pure power [€/MWh] 21.2 17.7 22.6 23.1 20.5RES-E&H - CHP [€/MWh] 8.5 3.1 5.1 4.7 4.2RES-H - district heat [€/MWh] 5.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5RES-H - non grid [€/MWh] 42.7 2.5 2.5 0.8 6.0RES-T - 1st generation [€/MWh] 19.1 21.1 19.1 14.9 19.4RES-T - 2nd generation [€/MWh] n.a. 47.2 23.7 18.2 25.4RES-T - imports [€/MWh] 20.3 22.8 22.3 20.1 21.8RES-total [€/MWh] 20.1 11.6 14.2 13.8 13.4

2006-2020 average

Additional generation cost for NEW RES plant (installed 2006 to 2020)


31

6 Concluding remarks

This concise report illustrates a balanced scenario to meet Europe’s renewable energy com-

mitment of 20% RES by 2020. The effects of striving for this ambitious RES target

can be summarised as follows:

► RES as an important contribution to meeting EU GHG reduction targets

A strong expansion of renewable energies is an important element in Europe’s

Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy. The deployment of new RES installations in

the period 2006 to 2020 as projected in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case re-

sults in a total reduction of CO2-emissions by 756 Mt/yr in 2020, which corre-

sponds to 14% of EU-27 GHG emissions in 1990.

► Increased RES deployment brings large benefits to EU’s supply security

The increased RES-deployment due to new RES installations in the 20%-RES-by-

2020 balanced case leads to a reduction in fossil fuel demand of yearly 208 Mtoe

by 2020. Oil imports can be reduced by 8%, gas imports by 20% and coal imports

even by 47%. This will significantly increase the EU’s security of supply. In 2020

39 billion € can be saved on fossil fuels, which corresponds to 0.28% of GDP. This

monetary expression is based on low energy prices as used for this modelling

exam. Given the high energy prices as currently observed in all markets saved ex-

penses would increase largely. In that situation the 20% target could be achieved

at considerably lower cost, which illustrates the ability of RES to protect the EU

economy against rising fossil fuel prices. The financial support provided to increase

the support of RES in the coming years should reflect these benefits to EU’s supply

security.

► Increased penetration of RES does have a price...

The 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case requires additional generation cost of yearly

10.9 billion € on average in the period 2006 to 2020. As noted above, such costs

are strongly influenced by energy price assumptions. Whereas assumptions in the

20%-RES-by-2020 main case are much below current prices (e.g. an oil price of

48 $/boe in 2020), a recently conducted sensitivity analysis reflecting current

prices raises the expectation that additional costs would be more than halved.


32

► … but the resulting electricity prices by 2020 may not rise largely

A significant part of additional generation costs and costs for grid extension and

system operations would be recovered by the reduction of wholesale electricity

prices obtained from increased RES-E generation.

These effects show the large impact of an accelerated RES deployment to steer our energy

system in the direction of sustainability and supply security. Necessary steps to let the

target of 20% RES by 2020 become reality include:

► RES policies should be supported by a strong energy efficiency policy

In the absence of strong energy efficiency policies energy demand is higher and

more RES is required in order to achieve the targeted share of 20%. Consequently,

in that case more expensive RES technologies have to be utilised and the average

yearly additional generation cost increase from 17.9 to 26.7 billion €. This under-

pins the importance of energy efficiency policy and RES policy to work as comple-

mentary tools for creating a more sustainable energy system in an economically

efficient way.

► Strong growth is needed in all three sectors

A 20% share of renewable energies in the year 2020 cannot be reached without

strong increases in all three sectors: renewable electricity, heat and biofuels. The

future policy framework should address this need for growth in all sectors. The

current policy framework does include an extensive set of supporting mechanisms

for RES-E and to some extent for biofuels, but the current limited and dispersed

support for RES-H needs to be addressed if renewable heating is to play its essen-

tial role as part of the renewable mix.

► A wide range of technologies has to be supported

Even a policy approach based on pure cost minimisation would still need to sup-

port a wide range of technologies: large-scale hydropower, solid biomass (for gen-

eration of both heat and power) and onshore wind power will be complemented by

large amounts of offshore wind power, biogas and small hydropower. Associated

costs vary largely between technologies and over time. Consequently, any future

policy framework has to address this sufficiently by providing technology-specific

support to the various RES options.

► The RES policy framework needs an integrated perspective on the use of

biomass

Biomass is a crucial element of RES policy, used in all three sectors (RES-E, RES-H

and RES-T). In the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case the larger part of domestic


33

biomass potential is used. Additional biomass imports contribute to keeping costs

low.

► Efforts are needed in all Member States

The model results show that in order to reach a 20% share of RES in the EU strong

efforts are needed in every Member State. As potentials and costs for additional

RES deployment differ across Member States, the contribution of individual Mem-

ber States to an overall share of 20% RES in the 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced case

does as well. The resulting country-specific RES shares for 2020 differ from the re-

cently proposed national 2020 RES targets, with which the European Commission

aimed to allocate the resulting burden in a fair manner across Member States.

Hence, this emphasises the need for intensified cooperation between Member

States, where suitable accompanying flexibility mechanisms assist the achieve-

ment of national RES targets in an efficient and effective manner.


34

ANNEX A: COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RESULTS ON RES DEPLOYMENT AND POTENTIAL EXPLOITATION

The following tables illustrate the country-specific RES deployment according to the discussed 20%-RES-by-2020 balanced scenario. Be-

sides, they also depict the assessed realisable mid-term (2020) potentials for the various RES options and show, how much of them would

be needed to meet the proposed 2020 RES targets according to this modeling exam.

futures-e Scenario of reaching 20% RES by 2020 35

Table A. 1 Breakdown of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries

Breakdown of 2020 RES deployment by country & by technology (expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.]) Part 1: EU-15 countries A

ust

ria

Bel

giu

m

Den

mark

Finla

nd

Fran

ce

Ger

many

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Italy

Luxe

mbou

rg

Net

her

lands

Port

ugal

Spai

n

Sw

eden

United

Kin

gdom

RES category AT BE DK FI FR DE GR IE IT LU NL PT ES SE UK

RES ElectricityBiogas 1.5 2.5 0.9 0.6 12.8 15.3 1.2 1.9 8.6 0.1 3.1 1.3 7.9 1.3 12.8Solid biomass 6.4 4.1 4.6 16.9 10.0 30.1 4.2 2.2 19.9 0.1 7.4 7.8 26.6 14.2 17.1Biowaste 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.3 4.7 5.8 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.0 2.1 0.4 4.9 0.9 4.1Geothermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Hydro large-scale 35.0 0.2 0.0 13.5 59.5 13.3 3.9 0.7 38.0 0.0 0.1 12.7 32.7 66.7 4.2Hydro small-scale 7.6 0.2 0.0 1.5 10.9 9.6 0.4 0.1 10.6 0.1 0.0 1.4 7.7 5.2 0.5Photovoltaics 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 4.3 4.9 0.8 0.2 3.1 0.1 1.0 0.6 4.4 0.7 3.1Solar thermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 7.5 0.0 0.0Tide & wave 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 4.9Wind onshore 4.1 3.6 9.2 6.4 49.0 42.7 7.0 2.8 24.9 0.1 3.9 6.2 42.4 8.4 27.9Wind offshore 0.0 3.2 6.2 1.5 22.3 73.2 1.3 3.5 0.7 0.0 15.7 0.4 1.0 5.0 59.8

RES-E total 56.4 14.9 22.8 40.9 173.8 195.0 20.3 12.5 118.2 0.6 33.3 32.5 136.4 102.6 134.5RES-E CHP 6.9 2.9 6.0 16.9 16.3 30.8 1.5 1.4 17.5 0.1 4.9 3.0 16.4 14.9 16.8

Share on gross electricity demand 79.0% 14.2% 65.1% 44.5% 33.4% 31.3% 29.9% 37.3% 29.6% 8.3% 26.5% 52.2% 40.6% 69.9% 35.4%

RES HeatBiogas (grid) 0.3 0.5 1.8 0.5 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.4 11.4Solid biomass (grid) 7.9 1.6 9.2 20.3 18.5 20.0 1.1 0.7 10.1 0.0 3.6 2.8 6.4 37.4 8.0Biowaste (grid) 1.7 1.0 6.5 1.0 11.6 9.7 0.3 0.5 4.2 0.0 2.1 0.2 4.9 3.1 5.9Geothermal heat (grid) 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0Solid biomass (non-grid) 36.9 7.1 10.6 60.6 143.9 92.3 15.8 4.1 33.8 0.5 4.5 31.9 60.2 66.9 8.3Solar thermal heat. & hot water 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.1 13.3 15.9 4.7 0.4 22.1 0.0 3.0 3.8 15.0 0.2 0.2Heat pumps 1.5 1.2 1.6 2.2 6.0 8.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4 1.3 5.8 0.0

RES-H total 50.3 12.6 31.2 84.7 196.8 147.6 23.1 6.2 73.4 0.6 15.7 39.2 88.7 113.8 33.7Share on gross heat demand 31.6% 7.0% 40.9% 62.1% 28.3% 13.6% 24.0% 11.4% 9.9% 4.6% 5.3% 43.8% 21.1% 81.3% 5.8%

RES TransportTraditional biofuels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 6.0 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0Advanced biofuels 1.5 2.9 3.6 7.6 21.4 18.1 4.1 5.2 9.9 0.0 3.3 3.6 18.0 7.9 18.2Biofuel import 2.1 7.2 1.4 1.2 5.6 21.8 3.0 1.9 12.9 0.6 5.0 2.4 9.5 2.8 15.1

RES-T total1 3.6 10.1 5.0 8.8 45.1 46.0 7.8 7.3 25.2 0.6 8.6 6.0 27.5 10.8 37.3Share on diesel & gasoline demand1 4.1% 9.5% 8.5% 16.9% 8.4% 7.0% 7.6% 11.5% 4.9% 2.2% 5.3% 7.0% 5.4% 11.4% 6.6%RES-T total 2 7.6 9.0 4.6 4.4 46.4 52.8 8.3 5.0 43.0 2.5 12.0 7.1 41.6 8.0 43.1Share on diesel & gasoline demand 2 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9%

RES in totalRES total1 110.3 37.6 59.0 134.4 415.6 388.5 51.2 26.0 216.8 1.8 57.6 77.6 252.6 227.1 205.5Share on total final energy demand1 34.6% 9.6% 34.6% 47.9% 23.8% 16.4% 19.2% 17.2% 13.1% 3.7% 9.9% 32.8% 20.0% 59.6% 13.5%RES total 2 114.3 36.6 58.6 129.9 416.9 395.3 51.7 23.6 234.6 3.7 61.0 78.7 266.7 224.4 211.3Share on total final energy demand 2 35.8% 9.3% 34.4% 46.3% 23.8% 16.7% 19.4% 15.6% 14.2% 7.4% 10.5% 33.3% 21.1% 58.8% 13.9%Proposed RES target for 2020 3 34% 13% 30% 38% 23% 18% 18% 16% 17% 11% 14% 31% 20% 49% 15%Corresponding national target fulfillment 2 105% 72% 115% 122% 104% 93% 108% 98% 83% 67% 75% 107% 106% 120% 93%

Notes: 1 … biofuels accounted according to production / domestic resources, 2 … biofuels accounted according to consumption (10% target), 3 … according to the Commission proposal for the RES directive as published on the 23 January 2008


36

Table A. 2 Breakdown of the scenario-specific 2020 RES deployment by country and by technology – for New Member States and total EU-27

Breakdown of 2020 RES deployment by country & by technology (expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.] Part 2: New MS & EU-27 C

ypru

s

Cze

ch

Rep

ublic

Est

onia

Hungary

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Malta

Pola

nd

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

venia

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

Eu

rop

ean

U

nio

n

RES category CY CZ EE HU LV LT MT PL SK SI BG RO EU27

RES ElectricityBiogas 0.1 1.8 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.0 6.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 3.1 88.2Solid biomass 0.1 4.7 0.6 5.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 19.5 3.1 0.7 2.3 7.0 216.9Biowaste 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 34.0Geothermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.5Hydro large-scale 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8 2.9 0.4 0.0 1.4 4.6 5.0 4.1 20.3 321.4Hydro small-scale 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 62.7Photovoltaics 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 25.9Solar thermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0Tide & wave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0Wind onshore 0.7 4.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 6.9 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.2 256.5Wind offshore 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 195.0

RES-E total 1.0 13.6 1.8 9.6 5.2 2.9 0.4 38.3 9.7 7.7 9.8 33.6 1228.2RES-E CHP 0.1 3.6 0.4 3.8 0.7 0.8 0.0 12.5 2.2 0.8 1.3 5.0 187.4

Share on gross electricity demand 19.6% 17.1% 16.8% 19.4% 51.1% 19.7% 17.5% 22.2% 25.6% 43.4% 23.0% 41.8% 34.8%

RES HeatBiogas (grid) 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 22.2Solid biomass (grid) 0.0 5.4 1.9 3.6 3.1 3.8 0.0 22.9 4.0 0.7 1.8 5.4 200.3Biowaste (grid) 0.0 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4 60.0Geothermal heat (grid) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.8 10.2Solid biomass (non-grid) 0.1 17.3 6.1 8.3 14.2 8.2 0.0 55.1 4.2 7.1 10.0 42.4 750.4Solar thermal heat. & water 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 3.2 89.6Heat pumps 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 35.4

RES-H total 0.9 24.3 8.3 15.9 17.5 12.3 0.1 84.6 9.4 9.0 13.8 54.7 1168.2Share on gross heat demand 21.9% 15.0% 43.6% 13.2% 48.2% 37.7% 20.9% 18.7% 12.7% 33.8% 23.6% 24.0% 19.6%

RES TransportTraditional biofuels 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.5 0.0 1.3 7.0 51.6Advanced biofuels 0.0 4.9 1.6 8.8 3.5 5.2 0.0 25.2 1.9 0.0 4.7 8.3 189.5Biofuel import 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.0 100.8

RES-T total 0.2 7.6 1.6 10.8 3.5 5.2 0.1 36.9 2.8 0.3 6.7 16.3 341.9Share on diesel & gasoline demand 1.8% 8.7% 15.9% 20.1% 21.2% 26.8% 2.4% 19.8% 11.9% 1.7% 16.5% 22.4% 8.2%RES-T total 0.8 7.8 1.0 4.9 1.5 1.6 0.3 14.9 2.2 1.8 3.1 6.8 341.9Share on diesel & gasoline demand 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9%

RES TransportRES total1 2.1 45.5 11.7 36.4 26.2 20.4 0.6 159.8 21.9 17.0 30.3 104.6 2738.3Share on total final energy demand1 10.1% 13.8% 29.3% 16.2% 41.5% 30.6% 8.4% 19.7% 16.1% 27.2% 21.4% 27.5% 20.0%RES total 2 2.7 45.6 11.0 30.4 24.2 16.8 0.8 137.9 21.4 18.5 26.6 95.0 2738.3Share on total final energy demand 2 12.7% 13.9% 27.7% 13.6% 38.3% 25.1% 11.1% 17.0% 15.7% 29.5% 18.8% 25.0% 20.0%Proposed RES target for 2020 3 13% 13% 25% 13% 42% 23% 10% 15% 14% 25% 16% 24% 20%Corresponding national target fulfillment 2 98% 107% 111% 105% 91% 109% 111% 113% 112% 118% 118% 104% 100%

Notes: 1 … biofuels accounted according to production / domestic resources, 2 … biofuels accounted according to consumption (10% target), 3 … according to the Commission proposal for the RES directive as published on the 23 January 2008


Table A. 3 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for EU-15 countries

Realisable mid-term potentials for RES by country & by technology (expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.]) Part 1: EU-15 MS A

ust

ria

Bel

giu

m

Den

mar

k

Finla

nd

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Italy

Luxe

mbou

rg

Net

her

lands

Port

ugal

Spain

Sw

eden

United

Kin

gdom


RES ElectricityBiogas 1.9 3.2 1.9 1.3 22.8 16.4 1.6 3.4 10.4 0.2 4.3 2.3 13.2 1.9 16.3Solid biomass 6.8 4.1 5.2 19.4 36.2 34.6 4.7 2.2 22.0 0.3 7.5 7.8 27.6 16.4 17.4Biowaste 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.5 5.0 5.8 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.0 4.8 0.5 5.2 1.0 4.4Geothermal electricity 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.0Hydro large-scale 35.0 0.2 0.0 13.9 62.6 15.6 4.6 0.8 46.4 0.0 0.1 14.1 44.8 69.9 4.7Hydro small-scale 9.6 0.3 0.0 1.7 10.9 9.6 0.4 0.2 10.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 7.7 5.2 0.7Photovoltaics 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 5.9 5.5 1.0 0.3 3.7 0.2 1.2 1.0 5.1 1.3 4.3Solar thermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 49.2 0.0 0.0Tide & wave 0.0 0.2 2.6 1.5 13.2 7.7 4.0 3.9 3.2 0.0 1.0 7.4 13.2 3.0 58.9Wind onshore 5.4 4.7 9.5 8.6 61.4 58.1 9.6 3.0 31.2 0.2 6.0 7.6 42.8 10.7 31.0Wind offshore 0.0 4.0 11.8 4.5 32.6 83.7 2.9 3.9 2.6 0.0 21.6 7.2 15.7 14.8 73.0

RES-E total 60.8 17.9 32.8 51.9 252.1 236.8 38.7 18.3 215.9 0.8 46.7 59.0 225.4 124.3 210.7

RES HeatBiomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste) 47.9 10.4 32.5 95.6 202.4 140.9 18.1 6.5 50.4 1.0 12.3 35.0 86.0 110.4 36.8Geothermal heat (grid) 1.1 0.3 4.4 0.0 1.8 7.2 0.4 0.3 12.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.2Solar thermal heat. & hot water 7.7 9.6 5.4 7.7 68.7 77.2 10.4 3.6 70.4 0.1 14.9 10.1 39.6 9.4 56.3Heat pumps 8.8 13.5 5.2 6.2 50.2 85.2 5.6 3.3 50.2 0.2 14.4 3.2 14.9 11.1 56.3

RES-H total 65.5 33.9 47.6 109.6 323.1 310.5 34.5 13.8 183.2 1.3 41.9 48.6 141.4 131.3 149.6

RES TransportDomestic biofuels 4.5 2.9 10.1 7.8 88.5 47.1 6.5 5.5 20.8 0.2 3.6 3.6 37.5 11.5 23.9Biofuel import1

RES in totalRES total2 130.8 54.7 90.5 169.2 663.7 594.4 79.7 37.5 419.8 2.4 92.2 111.2 404.3 267.0 384.2RES total2 as share in final energy demand3 41% 14% 53% 60% 38% 25% 30% 25% 25% 5% 16% 47% 32% 70% 25%RES total (incl. biofuel import) 4 133.0 61.9 91.9 170.5 669.3 616.2 82.7 39.5 432.7 3.0 97.2 113.6 413.8 269.8 399.3

no country-specific potential applicable as only an EU-wide cap for biofuel imports was introduced

Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad, 3 … final energy demand according to PRIMES efficiency case (2007), 4 … incl. scenario-specific biofuel imports from abroad


38

Table A. 4 Breakdown of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology – for New Member States and

total EU-27

Realisable mid-term potentials for RES by country & by technology (expressed in terms of final energy [TWh/yr.]) Part 2: New MS & EU-27 C

ypru

s

Cze

ch

Rep

ublic

Est

onia

Hungar

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Mal

ta

Pola

nd

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

venia

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

Eu

rop

ean

U

nio

n


RES ElectricityBiogas 0.1 2.2 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 8.0 1.0 0.7 1.4 5.2 123.6Solid biomass 0.1 5.3 1.7 6.7 1.5 2.3 0.0 20.4 3.4 1.4 3.8 9.2 268.0Biowaste 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.9 39.3Geothermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 68.7Hydro large-scale 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.3 3.7 0.6 0.0 1.5 4.6 5.0 10.0 20.5 361.1Hydro small-scale 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 66.4Photovoltaics 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 33.7Solar thermal electricity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.4Tide & wave 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 124.6Wind onshore 0.7 4.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.1 8.6 0.6 0.3 7.3 6.7 323.6Wind offshore 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 282.5

RES-E total 1.5 15.1 5.1 12.3 8.1 5.5 0.5 45.9 10.8 8.8 26.3 44.8 1776.8

RES HeatBiomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste) 0.4 24.4 13.0 17.2 18.5 13.8 0.1 81.8 9.7 10.0 17.2 55.4 1147.9Geothermal heat (grid) 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.5 1.3 2.2 39.3Solar thermal heat. & hot water 1.2 4.8 0.7 5.0 1.1 1.9 0.2 20.6 2.5 1.5 4.2 13.9 448.8Heat pumps 0.2 5.3 0.7 5.2 1.2 2.0 0.0 20.1 2.8 1.0 1.4 11.7 380.1

RES-H total 1.7 34.7 14.4 30.3 20.8 17.7 0.3 123.5 16.5 13.0 24.1 83.1 2015.9

RES TransportDomestic biofuels 0.3 10.2 2.9 15.2 6.2 10.7 0.0 52.1 3.8 0.7 12.0 32.3 420.4Biofuel import1

RES in totalRES total2 3.5 60.1 22.4 57.8 35.2 34.0 0.8 221.4 31.1 22.4 62.5 160.2 4213.2RES total2 as share on final energy demand3 17% 18% 56% 26% 56% 51% 11% 27% 23% 36% 44% 42% 31%RES total (incl. biofuel import) 4 3.7 61.4 22.4 58.7 35.2 34.0 0.9 224.8 31.5 22.7 63.2 161.3 4314.0


Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad, 3 … final energy demand according to PRIMES efficiency case (2007), 4 … incl. scenario-specific biofuel imports from abroad


Table A. 5 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology

– for EU-15 countries

RES deployment vs. potential - Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term potential for RES by country & by technology (i.e. 2020 deployment as share on potential [%]) Part 1: EU-15 MS A

ust

ria

Bel

giu

m

Den

mark

Finla

nd

Fran

ce

Ger

many

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Ital

y

Luxe

mbou

rg

Net

her

lands

Port

ugal

Spain

Sw

eden

United

Kin

gdom


RES ElectricityBiogas 78% 79% 49% 45% 56% 94% 74% 55% 82% 81% 72% 58% 60% 70% 79%Solid biomass 94% 100% 90% 87% 28% 87% 88% 100% 91% 22% 98% 100% 96% 87% 98%Biowaste 92% 93% 98% 59% 95% 100% 59% 59% 95% 92% 43% 71% 94% 98% 95%Geothermal electricity 8% n.a. n.a. n.a. 12% n.a. 5% n.a. 12% n.a. n.a. 9% 5% n.a. n.a.Hydro large-scale 100% 100% n.a. 97% 95% 86% 85% 83% 82% n.a. 99% 90% 73% 95% 90%Hydro small-scale 79% 68% 96% 91% 99% 100% 100% 68% 100% n.a. 3% 76% 100% 100% 69%Photovoltaics 86% 72% 75% 58% 72% 90% 77% 69% 83% 85% 82% 67% 85% 58% 72%Solar thermal electricity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12% n.a. 8% n.a. n.a. 13% 15% n.a. n.a.Tide & wave n.a. 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 7% 22% 1% n.a. 0% 8% 9% 0% 8%Wind onshore 76% 76% 97% 74% 80% 74% 73% 93% 80% 76% 65% 81% 99% 79% 90%Wind offshore n.a. 81% 53% 33% 68% 87% 44% 88% 26% n.a. 73% 5% 6% 34% 82%

RES-E total 93% 83% 70% 79% 69% 82% 52% 68% 55% 71% 71% 55% 61% 83% 64%RES Heat

Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste) 98% 99% 87% 86% 87% 87% 96% 83% 97% 55% 91% 100% 84% 98% 91%Geothermal heat (grid) 27% 11% 9% n.a. 85% 12% 36% 2% 16% n.a. 0% 37% 11% 9% 19%Solar thermal heat. & hot water 23% 11% 19% 1% 19% 21% 45% 11% 31% 21% 20% 38% 38% 2% 0%Heat pumps 17% 9% 30% 36% 12% 9% 16% 11% 1% 10% 10% 12% 9% 52% 0%

RES-H total 77% 37% 66% 77% 61% 48% 67% 45% 40% 46% 37% 81% 63% 87% 23%RES Transport

Domestic biofuels 34% 100% 36% 98% 45% 51% 74% 98% 59% 0% 98% 100% 48% 69% 93%Biofuel import1

RES in total

RES total2 83% 56% 64% 79% 62% 62% 60% 64% 49% 51% 57% 68% 60% 84% 50%

Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad



40

Table A. 6 Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term (2020) potential for RES by country and by technology

– for New Member States and total EU-27

RES deployment vs. potential - Scenario-specific exploitation of the realisable mid-term potential for RES by country & by technology (i.e. 2020 deployment as share on potential [%]) Part 2: New MS & EU-27 C

ypru

s

Cze

ch

Rep

ublic

Est

onia

Hungary

Latv

ia

Lith

uania

Malta

Pola

nd

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

venia

Bulg

aria

Rom

ania

Eu

rop

ean

U

nio

n


RES ElectricityBiogas 59% 84% 56% 66% 70% 61% 65% 83% 80% 89% 42% 61% 71%Solid biomass 92% 89% 35% 82% 52% 44% 71% 96% 89% 54% 61% 76% 81%Biowaste 83% 74% 84% 91% 85% 58% 0% 94% 64% 59% 59% 94% 86%Geothermal electricity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 45% 34% 12%Hydro large-scale n.a. 100% n.a. 64% 78% 68% n.a. 94% 100% 100% 41% 99% 89%Hydro small-scale 30% 100% 90% 76% 100% 95% n.a. 100% 76% 88% 100% 69% 94%Photovoltaics 49% 43% 42% 42% 42% 42% 43% 42% 63% 17% 42% 42% 77%Solar thermal electricity n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 13%Tide & wave 0% n.a. 0% n.a. 0% 0% 0% 0% n.a. n.a. 0% 0% 6%Wind onshore 98% 91% 55% 86% 64% 57% 99% 80% 71% 86% 14% 18% 79%Wind offshore 55% n.a. 41% n.a. 41% 55% 98% 21% n.a. n.a. 21% 55% 69%

RES-E total 69% 90% 35% 78% 65% 52% 75% 84% 90% 88% 37% 75% 69%RES Heat

Biomass heat (incl. biogas, biowaste) 46% 99% 63% 76% 94% 88% 2% 100% 87% 82% 71% 89% 90%Geothermal heat (grid) n.a. 15% n.a. 77% n.a. 9% n.a. 8% 62% 36% 36% 36% 26%Solar thermal heat. & hot water 62% 3% 1% 11% 0% 0% 57% 4% 0% 37% 23% 23% 20%Heat pumps 13% 1% 11% 2% 4% 8% 9% 11% 0% 14% 11% 11% 9%

RES-H total 53% 70% 57% 53% 84% 70% 40% 69% 57% 69% 57% 66% 58%RES Transport

Domestic biofuels 0% 62% 57% 66% 57% 49% 0% 64% 64% 0% 50% 47% 57%Biofuel import1

RES in total

RES total2 55% 73% 52% 61% 75% 60% 63% 71% 69% 75% 47% 65% 63%

Notes: 1 … for biofuel imports from abroad only an EU-wide cap was set, 2 … excl. biofuel imports from abroad



41

ANNEX B: SHORT CHARACTERISATION OF THE Green-X MODEL

The Green-X model was developed by EEG within the research project “Green-X – Deriv-

ing optimal promotion strategies for increasing the share of RES-E in a dynamic European

electricity market”, a joint European research project funded within the 5th framework

program of the European Commission, DG Research (Contract No. ENG2-CT-2002-00607).

It allows performing a detailed quantitative assessment of the RES deployment until 2030

in a real-world policy context. This tool has been successfully applied at the European level

within several tenders and research projects on renewable energies and corresponding en-

ergy policies, e.g. FORRES 2020, OPTRES, PROGRESS and has been used in the discussion

process on “20% RES by 2020” for the European Commission. Besides, also several studies

have been conducted at the national level to assess RES policy options in a brief manner. It

fulfils all requirements to explore the prospects of renewable energy technologies:

• It currently covers geographically the EU-27 (all sectors) as well as Croatia, Swit-

zerland, Norway (limited to RES-electricity) and can easily be extended to other

countries or regions.

• It allows investigating the future deployment of RES as well as accompanying gen-

eration costs and transfer payments (due to the promotion of RES) within each

energy sector (electricity, heat and transport) on country- and technology-level on

a yearly basis up to a time-horizon of 2020 / 2030.

• The modelling approach to describe supply-side generation technologies is to de-

rive dynamic cost-resource curves by RES option, allowing besides the formal de-

scription of potentials and costs a suitable representation of dynamic aspects such

as technological learning and technology diffusion.

• It is perfectly suitable to investigate the impact of applying different energy policy

instruments (e.g. quota obligations based on tradable green certificates, feed-in

tariffs, tax incentives, investment subsidies) and non-economic diffusion barriers.

• Its global pendant, the WorldRES model is periodically applied by the International

Energy Agency to assess the future deployment of renewable energy technologies

at the global scale in the context of the “World Energy Outlook” series. It covers

21 world regions and allows forecasts in the 2030 timeframe.

futures-e - 20% RES by 2020 - a balanced scenario to meet€¦ · futures-e 1 Scenario of reaching...

Documents

Transcript of futures-e - 20% RES by 2020 - a balanced scenario to meet€¦ · futures-e 1 Scenario of reaching...