TheSavingsofEnergySaving:Quan4fying - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The
Savings
of
Energy
Saving:
Quan4fying
 interac4ons
between
energy
supply
and
 demand
side
policies
for
Portugal
 Sofia
Simões,
Júlia
Seixas,
João
Cleto,
Patrícia
Fortes
 sgcs@fct.unl.pt
 ECEEE
2009
Summer
Study,
June
2009
 Climate
Change
and

 Sustainable
Energy
Group

 New
University
of
Lisbon,
Portugal


Overview
 → Objec4ve
&
Context
 → Methods
 ► Studied
scenarios
 ► TIMES_PT
model
 → Results
 ► Avoided
electricity
genera4on
capacity
 ► Final
energy
consump4on
&
share
of
renewables
 ► GHG
emissions
 → Conclusions
and
limita4ons


ObjecLve
&
Context
 ► What
 are
 the
 gains
 of
 end‐use
 energy‐efficient
 &
 small
 renewable
 applica4ons
in
residen4al
and
commercial
(and
industry)
regarding:
  reduced
investments
in
energy
supply

  contribu4on
for
compliance
with
energy
and
environmental
policy
targets
 (energy‐climate
policy
package)
 
Case‐study
Portugal
in
2020
with
 focus
on
residen4al
&
 commercial
sectors
  external
energy
dependency
(87%)
  
increasing
GHG
emissions
 







stepped
up
efforts
on
 - RES
(double
2005
capacity
by
2020)
 - NEAAP
(10%
final
energy
by
2015)
 - 
expansion
of
CCGT
capacity
(73%
 increase
of
2005
capacity )


Methods
|
studied
scenarios
(2020)
 BAU 
 E‐FRE 
 BAUeff 
 EFREeff 
 E‐FRE
capacity
(MW)
 10424 
 13426 
 10424 
 13426 
 CCGT
capacity
(MW)
 4376 
 Min.
CCGT
acLvity
 37% 
 _ 
 37% 
 _ 
 
9%
of
households
and
of
 Max.
InsulaLon
in
exisLng
buildings

 50% 
 commercial
area
 
 8%
of
households 
 Max.
double‐glazed
windows
 _ 
 1.2%
commercial
area 
 8%
of
households
and
1.2%
of
 Max.
Solar
thermal
H 2 O
heaLng
 _ 
 commercial
area
 
 Max.
Heat
Pumps
&
efficient
biomass
 8%
of
households
and
of
 _ 
 heaLng
 commercial
area
 
 Max.
CFL
 61%
in
total
ligh4ng 
 _ 
 1%
freezers,
8%
refrigerators,
1%
 Max
A+
and
A++
appliances
 _ 
 dishwashers
and
cloth
washers 
 Max
penetra4on
of
end‐use
efficient
&
RES
equipments
based
on
NEEAP
targets
for
 2015
(assumed
iden4cal
for
2020)


Methods
| 
 evoluLon
of
energy
services
demand


Methods
|
TIMES_PT
model
 Demand
projecLons
 Policy
constraints
 end‐use
energy
services
&
materials
 restric4ons,
taxes,
subsidies,
…
 Oil,
coal,
gas
import
 Materials
and
Energy
flows
 Transport:
 road
passengers
(car
–
 prices
 short
/
long
distance,
bus
–
urban
/
 intercity,
moto),
road
freight,
rail
 Final
energy
prices
 (passengers
/
freight),
avia4on,
 naviga4on
 Primary
energy
 supply: 
Refinery,
 Industry:
 Iron
&
Steel;
Non‐Ferrous
 imports
and
 metals;
Chlorine&Ammonia;
Other
 OpLmal
combinaLon
of
 renewable
energy
 Na4onal
primary
energy
poten4al
 Chemic.;
Cement;
Lime;
Glass:
Hollow/ energy
supply
and
 Flat;
Ceramics;
Pulp
&
Paper;
Other 
 demand
technologies 
 Hydro,
wind,
solar,
biomass
 Minimise
total
system
costs
 ResidenLal:
 Exis4ng
&
New
‐
Rural/
 Electricity
 Urban
/Mul4
appartment
 generaLon
 Commercial: 
Large
and
Small
 Emissions
 Agriculture
 Costs
 Installed
capacity
 Base
year
&
New
energy
technologies
 capacity,
availability,
efficiency,
life,
costs,
emission
factors


Results 


Results
| Avoided
electricity
generaLon
 ► no
changes
in
gas,
coal
and
hydro
(pre‐ defined
following

exis4ng
policies)
and
in
 other
RES
(not
compe44ve)
 ► +30%
wind
&
+5%
gas
CHP
in
BAUeff
than
 BAU
and
+24%
gas
CHP
in
EFREeff
than
EFRE
 
 BUT...
 LESS
1
to
8%
GROSS
GENERATED
 ELECTRICITY
&
CHANGE
IN
 TECHNOLOGY
DEPLOYMENT
 ► BAUeff
and
EFREff
is
cheaper
not
to
 operate
exis4ng
CCGT
(18%
and
8%
of
max
 availability
instead
of
min
of
37%)
 ► From
an
op4mal
energy
system
 perspec4ve
demand
side
measures
reduce
 compe44veness
of
new
CCGT




Results
|Final
energy
 Share
of
RES
in
total
final
energy

 ► EFREeff
‐2%
total
final
energy
than
EFRE
 BAUeff
 EFRE
 EFREeff
 BAU
 ► BAUeff
+1%
than
BAU
due
to
increase
of
solar
and
 biomass
 28%
 28%
 30%
 25%
 ► In
industry
and
commercial
reduc4ons
of
final
energy
 consump4on
on
1‐4%
and
11‐14%


Results
|GHG
emissions
 in
2020
 ‐2.8%
and
‐3.3
%
in
na4onal
 total
emissions
 2020 %
VariaLon
from
 2005 BAU BAUeff EFRE EFREeff 4 1 2 ‐4 EU
ETS 3 0 1 0 Non
EU
ETS Total
 3 1 1 ‐2

Conclusions
&
limitaLons
 ► demand‐side
 measures
 significantly
 reduce
 the
 compe44veness
 of
 the
 new
 1.6
 GW
 of
 CCGT
currently
being
built 

 ► not
achieved
the
target
of
31%
share
of
RES
in
total
final
energy
consump4on
 ► demand‐side
measures
do
make
a
significant
contribu4on
especially
for
RES
hea4ng
and
cooling
in
 the
residen4al
and
commercial
sectors
 ► current
NEEAP
too
modest?
 ► demand‐side
measures
significant
for
compliance
with
non‐EU
ETS
GHG
emission
targets
 ► savings
in
total
system
costs
of
2693
to
2873
M€
(approximately
2.1
and
2.3%
of
the
2005
 GDP
)
 ► No
simula4ons
of
electricity
market;
not
considered
transport
sector;
sensi4vity
analysis
for
 primary
energy
import
prices;
sensi4vity
analisys
for
“iner4a
factors”,
separate
assessment
 of
RES
and
more
efficient
appliances