CLIMATE REPORT - Baltic Pipe · 2019-11-04 · Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic...
Transcript of CLIMATE REPORT - Baltic Pipe · 2019-11-04 · Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic...
Clean air, reduced carbon emissions and increased energy security for Poland and its neighbours
CLIMATE REPORT
25 000 lives can be saved annuallyBy replacing coal, oil and wood in buildings with electric heating using heat-pumps, the Baltic Pipe Project can reduce fine particle emissions by 54 percent.
70 million tonnes of carbon emissions reduced annuallyBy utilizing gas combined with wind at a 60/40 ratio. Such a reduction contributes with 58 percent to Poland’s 2030 target of 120 million tonnes emission reduction.
Increased energy security The Baltic Pipe Project is classified as a Project of Common Interest by the European Union and will connect Poland with the Norwegian gas fields, strengthening the European internal energy market and cooperation.
The future use of the pipe-line goes beyond natural gas The pipeline could potentially be utilized to transfer other gases too. Although this would require some modifications and a new license, the pipeline can for example transport methane (CH4) hydrogen (H2), ammonia (NH3) or carbon dioxide (CO2).
KEY FINDINGS — BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE REPORT
This report intends to evaluate possible climate benefits from The Baltic Pipe Project. Using data from reputable sources as Eurostat and EEA, the report features several calculations estimating the effect of the project on a wide range of issues including, but not limited to, air quality, premature mortality, carbon dioxide emis-sions and compliance with international energy goals.
The conclusions and calculations are limited to the conditions and made assumptions described in the report and generate outcomes that are realistic should the described pre-requisites be fulfilled. The report thus illustrates benefits that are fully possible, but the real effects of the project may differ from those described in the report should all described pre-requisites not be fulfilled.
KEY FINDINGS — BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE REPORT
CONTENT
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1 The Baltic Pipe Project in brief . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Mr Harald Klomp – Report lead author . . . . . 6
BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 The Baltic Pipe Project can enable significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1 The added benefits of combining gas and wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
2.2.2 The Baltic Pipe can save 25 000 lives annually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
2.2.3 The future use of the pipeline goes beyond natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.3 The Baltic Pipe Project’s effect on air quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.1 Greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.3.2 Air pollution in EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.3.3 Air pollution in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
2.3.4 Poland energy system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.4 The Baltic Pipe Project and the European energy goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.4.1 EU 2030 targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.4.2 EU 2050 goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
2.5 The importance of ensuring a security of supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
2.5.1 Electricity generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
2.6 Ending notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
AIR POLLUTION IN EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 26
INTEGRATED NATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE PLANS (NECPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
EUROPE GAS, POWER INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
SECURITY OF SUPPLY – ENERGY LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . 32
ENERGY SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.5 Chemical fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.6 Hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.7 Nuclear fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.8 Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.9 Energy conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.10 Electrical energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
PATHWAYS TO 100% CARBON FREE ENERGY SYSTEM . . . 35
3.11 High potential for wind energy in Poland . .35
TECHNICAL TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.12 Unit of energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
3.13 Volume units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
3.14 Greenhouse gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
ENERGY SOURCE DESIGNATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
CARBON DIOXIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
COUNTRY FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.15 EU energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.15.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.15.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.16 Baltic countries energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.16.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
3.16.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
3.17 Czech Republic energy balance . . . . . . . . . . .44
3.17.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.17.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.18 Poland energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
3.18.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.18.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.19 Germany energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
3.19.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.19.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.20 Sweden energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
3.20.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
3.20.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
3.21 Denmark energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.21.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
3.21.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
3.22 Slovak Republic energy balance . . . . . . . . . .54
3.22.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
3.22.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
3.23 Ukraine energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
3.23.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
3.23.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
3.24 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
3.25 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
3.26 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
4 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
BACKGROUND
The creation of a common market for coal and steel in 1951 was the reason for forming the European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor of the European Union. Energy was, and still is, a key vehicle for economic, political and social integration of countries previously divided.
In 2006 and 2009 Europe saw severe disruptions in its gas supply due to political disputes, putting a renewed focus on increased energy security through cooperation. Furthermore, climate change and air pollution are two other issues that European countries have decided to face together through cooperation.
Energy systems must be reliable, affordable and clean, the so-called energy tri-lemma. Today, EU countries import 53 percent of energy consumed representing a cost of € 1 billion per day (Euro-pean Commission).
As for Poland, the country is highly dependent on one single suppli-er for its natural gas. Coal is the largest domestic source of energy. In this context, the Baltic Pipe Project will enable Poland to achieve the following goals:
1 Significant lower carbon emissions
21 Greatly improved air quality
32 Increased energy security
43 Stronger integration with Europe
54 A more diverse energy mix
765 A decreased use of coal
Noteworthy is that this report is intended to verify whether there is any impact on the climate and environment in the southern Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic Pipe Project. The report also aims to study the project’s broader influence on the strategic cooperation for common interests between all countries involved.
All data is backed up by credible sources, and all references and sources can be found in the list of references at the end of this report. Thus, the intent is to first and foremost let the numbers speak for themselves so that conclusions can be easily verified.
The report will compare air quality data from Poland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark as these countries are located closest to the recommended route of the project.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 5
1.1 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT IN BRIEF
The Baltic Pipe Project is a strategic project for increased cooper-ation, integration and strategic energy security, not only for south Baltic and North Sea, but for all of Europe. Baltic Pipe is thus classi-fied by the EU as a “Project of Common Interest”, PCI.
By October 2022, the Baltic Pipe Project will enable shipment of a variety of gases between the south Baltic Sea Region and the North Sea Region. The pipeline has a capacity of 10 billion cubic meter (m³) of gas per year for gas transfer from Denmark to Poland and 3 billion m³ from Poland to Denmark. If used for shipping methane, this equals around 120 TWh of energy.
The offshore part of the pipeline will run from Denmark to Poland, with both countries having onshore portions of the project as well. The continental shelf in the area is shared by Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Poland and is divided into Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The planned route goes just north of the German part of the continental shelf, and thus translates via the Swedish EEZ from Denmark to Poland (Figure 1). In short, this stipulates that the respective government of each EEZ the pipeline passes through needs to approve the route.
1.2 TIMELINE
The planned timeline of the project spans over 5 years, and the pro-ject will soon move from the preparation phase as construction of the pipeline begins. The general timeline of the project is illustrated below (Figure 2).
1.3 MR HARALD KLOMP – REPORT LEAD AUTHOR
This report has been independently authored by lead author Mr Harald Klomp. Mr Klomp has a Bachelor in Business Adminis-tration and a Master of Science in Engineering both from Uppsala University including studies at National University of Singapore.
Mr Klomp has been political advisor to Swedish parliamentarians and done several high-profile studies for the Swedish energy com-mission, Swedish confederation of enterprises, Swedish industry, Swedish royal institute of engineering sciences, Swedish fortifi-cations administration to name a few. His focus has been interna-tional energy markets and economics. Mr Klomp has a long back-ground in business co-founding two companies one with an IPO exit and one company sold to a multinational company.
Mr. Klomp currently serves as the CEO of Uppsala Engineering Partner, a ex-pert consultancy within energy issues. He also serves as the Director of the
Board for Imint Intelligence, a Swedish company specialized in real-time video
enchantment software for aerial re-connaissance systems. He has also
served as advisor to the CEO of a company in the Swedish energy industry.
Figure 1 Proposed route for Baltic Pipe Project (source: Baltic Pipe Project).
6 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 2 Baltic Pipe Project timeline.
• Capacity
reservations
• Concept studies
• Surveys studies
• Beginning of the
Environmental
Impact Assessment
studies
2017 2018
• Detailed
engineering
• Surveys end
• Environmental
Impact Assessment
continued
• Business case
• Signing the
Construction
Agreement
2019
• Engineering
continued
• Environmental
Impact Assessment
end
• Permits
• Tender
procedures
2020
• Contract awards
• Start of the
Construction
• Permits continued
2021
• Construction
works
2022
• Commissioning
• Operation
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 7
BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE BENEFITS
2.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Baltic Pipe will lower carbon dioxide emissions and greatly improve air quality in Poland but will also bring Europe closer to-gether by connecting Poland to gas in the North Sea via Denmark. As the gas supply primarily comes from Norway the Baltic Pipe Project will also create a security of energy supply in Poland.
Poland has, through the EU 2030 goal, committed to reducing its 2017 carbon dioxide emissions by 120 million tonnes. Of these reductions are 43 million tonnes through effort sharing regula-tion, ESR for non-ETS emissions and 77 million tonnes through the Emissions Trade System, ETS.
Today, Poland has one of EU’s largest reliance on coal for use in both power generation (77 percent), district heating (81 percent) and direct use in buildings (26 percent). Furthermore, Poland has one of the worst air pollution situations in Europe. The burning of fuels, mainly coal, yearly emits 146 thousand tonnes of fine particle matter, PM2.5. This alone causes over 46 000 premature deaths annually. Emissions from buildings account for 54 percent of these emissions, causing 25 000 premature deaths every year.
Most of the coal power plants in Poland were constructed in 1970s and should be modernized to meet environmental requirements. Part of them should be replaced by zero- and low-emission tech-nologies. Almost 40% of all power blocks are more than 40 years old and 15% of them are more than 50 years old and they qualify for immediate retirement. According to the Energy Policy of Poland until 2040 project, the oldest coal power plants will be closed down soon. The example of change is CHP coal power plant in Warsaw, Elektrociepłownia Żerań, working since 1954, where the construction of gas turbine takes place. Expected date for gas turbine commissioning is year 2020. The gas turbine will fully sub-stitute the current coal fired generation units.
In short, when operational in 2022, the Baltic Pipe can:
u Add 60 TWh of electricity generation from gas
u Enable 40 TWh of additional wind and solar generation
u Total of 100 TWh electricity generation
u Increase electricity production by 60 percent or
u Replace 60 percent existing generation
u Replace 76 percent of coal generation
u Reduce emissions from buildings to zero
u Reduce fine particle PM2.5 emissions by 54 percent
u Prevent premature death of 25 000 people annually
u Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70 million tonnes
u With 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions reductions
contribute 58 percent to Poland’s 2030 target of 120 million
tonnes emission reduction
Using gas from Baltic Pipe Project to generate 60 TWh electricity combined with an additional 40 TWh from wind or solar a total of 100 TWh clean electricity generation becomes available. This can either be used to replace coal in electricity generation, denoted “BPP clean power” or used to replace coal, oil and wood in build-ings using electrically powered heat-pumps. As emissions from buildings account for about half of the PM2.5 emissions in Poland the later use of this additional electricity reduces PM2.5 emissions the most and is denoted “BPP clean air”.
8 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 9
As can be seen in Figure 3 there is no difference between scenario “BPP clean power” and “BPP clean air” when it comes to green-house gas emissions reductions, for reference also the 2030 target is included in this figure.
In Figure 4 it can be seen that the “BPP clean air” scenario reduces the premature deaths much more than in the “BPP clean power” scenario due to the difference in reduction of PM2.5 emissions (Figure 5).
These benefits are primarily realized in Poland, but as emissions do not stop at the border also neighbouring countries including Sweden and Denmark will benefit from better air quality.
Additionally, Baltic Pipe allows for:
u Integrating Poland to EU financially, politically and socially
u Increasing Poland energy security
u Providing more fuel options
The Baltic Pipe Project has continually for multiple years been designated as a Project of Common Interest, PCI, by the European Commission. This implies that the project has a strategic value not only for Poland, but for Europe as a whole. Concludingly, the Baltic Pipe will increase the political, economic and social integration in Europe, as well as both reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase air quality.
2.2 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CAN ENABLE A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
In 2017, Poland’s total emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) amounted to 317 million tonnes (Figure 6). Poland’s total greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other greenhouse gases in CO2 equiva-lents is 416 million tons for 2017 (Figure 11). The amount of emis-sion needs to be reduced with 120 million tons in order to reach the country’s 2030 targets (Figure 27). Sixty percent of its carbon dioxide emissions, 200 million tonnes, comes from coal and lignite (Figure 6).
Today
Milli
on to
nnes
per
yea
r
BPP clean power BPP clean air 2030 target
346346
416
296
Poland greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents
Today
Prem
atur
e de
aths
per
yea
r
BPP clean power BPP clean air
21 000
43 70046 020
Poland premature deaths due to PM2.5 emissions
Lorem ipsum
Today
Sum 147Sum 140
Sum 68
Thou
sand
tonn
es p
er y
ear
BPP clean power BPP clean air
21 000
43 70046 020
Poland PM2.5 emissions
Lorem ipsum
BuildingsIndustryRoadEnergyOther
1515
10 215 15
29
15
10
15
29
29
79 79
Poland CO2 emissions 2017 Source: globalcarbonproject.org
Oil 77 MMT (24 %)
Other 11 MMT (3 %)
Gas 38 MMT (12 %)
Coal 200 MMT (61 %)
Figure 3 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce green-house gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents in either the energy sector or in buildings.
Figure 4 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce the number of premature deaths caused by PM2.5 emissions.
Figure 5 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce PM2.5 emissions.
Figure 6 Poland CO2 emissions in 2017, million tonnes excluding other greenhouse gases.
10 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Poland uses about 535 TWh of coal, of which 75 percent is used for producing electricity, 18 percent in buildings and the remain-ing 7 percent in industry (Figure 24). The capacity of the Baltic Pipe pipeline is 10 billion m³ per year or 120 TWh, assuming 12 kWh/m³ (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017).
Electricity generation using gas offers two separate cycles, a gas cycle where air is heated by gas and hot air is expanded. The second cycle is a steam cycle where steam is heated by the exhaust from the gas cycle. The steam is then expanded using a steam turbine. This arrangement is commonly referred to as a combined cycle gas turbine, CCGT.
Coal powerplants, using data from US EIA have an average thermal efficiency of 38 percent. CCGT are more expensive to build but offer a thermal efficiency of 50 percent, i.e. 31 percent more efficient than a coal powerplant. A single-stage gas turbine has a thermal efficiency of about 37 percent, comparable to a coal plant (Energy Information Agency (EIA)). Moreover, gas turbines are considered as a flexible power source in comparison to coal power plants, which is an advantage when comes to planned increased RES share in the Polish electrical grid (2). Coal comes in different qualities from anthracite to lignite or brown coal. The carbon dioxide emis-sions from German lignite plants Jänschwalde, Boxberg, Schwarze Pumpe and Lippendorf were 60 million tonnes in 2015 and the electricity production 50 TWh, i.e. an average of 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh (Vattenfall).
When the gas is converted to electricity using a CCGT Baltic Pipe 120 TWh of gas can thus be converted to 60 TWh of electricity. Because a CCGT has higher thermal efficiency about 160 TWh of coal can be replaced using the Baltic Pipe. Using the average carbon emissions for coal in Poland of about 1 000 grams of carbon
dioxide emissions per kWh it is possible to calculate the benefit of switching from coal to gas (Section 2.5.1). If used instead of coal, the Baltic Pipe Project can annually replace about 30 million tons of CO2.
2 .2 .1 THE ADDED BENEFITS OF COMBINING GAS AND WIND
As described in section 2.5.1 wind energy can be combined with gas at a 60/40 gas to wind ratio. As seen in the previous section Baltic Pipe project can be used to produce about 60 TWh of electricity. This can then be combined with another 40 TWh wind (and/or solar) for a total of 100 TWh. This corresponds to an in-crease of 60 percent in electricity generation compared to today, from 170 to 270 TWh (Figure 23).
As wind has neglectable climate effects (Figure 31), the savings for replacing wind/solar with coal is thus an additional 40 million tonnes annually using the same number for coal emissions as in the section above at 1000 grams per kWh.
By combining gas from Baltic Pipe with wind, a 65 percent boost in energy and climate reduction effect of the project can be achieved about 30 million tonnes annually for coal (see previous section) and 40 million tonnes for solar and wind for a total of 70 million tons of annual CO2 reduction. This corresponds to:
132 percent of Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions of 53 million tonnes.
127 percent of Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions of 55 million tonnes.
18 percent of Poland’s greenhouse gas emissions of 398 million tonnes.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 11
2 .2 .2 THE BALTIC PIPE CAN SAVE 25 000 LIVES ANNUALLY
A heat pump is a thermal engine in reverse by using mechanical energy to pump heat from the cold side to the hot side of the heat engine. This way the cold side becomes colder (cooling) and the hot side hotter (heating). Heat pumps are thus used for both cooling in refrigerators and air conditioning and for heating.
If used for heating a heat conversion factor is useful. Often man-ufacturers advertise the peak heat conversion factor but as the conversion depends on the outside temperature an annual aver-age is more useful for calculations. The Swedish energy agency, Energimyndigheten in 2014 tested 16 air-heat-pumps and calculat-ed an average heat capacity factor of 2.6-2.7 for the larger units (Energimyndigheten, 2014).
Baltic Pipe annual capacity of 120 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017) gas can be converted to 60 TWh electricity using a CCGT. When converting it to heat using a heat pump 155-160 TWh of heat is generated replacing chemical fuels (coal, gas, wood, etc). Buildings in Poland use about 131 TWh of energy from coal, wood and oil (Figure 7). These fuels can be entirely replaced with heat-pumps using electricity generated using gas from Baltic Pipe.
By replacing fuels in buildings, not only are carbon emissions reduced but significant other air pollutants can also be reduced as many buildings have less optimized combustion and emission con-trol compared to large power-plants.
Looking at the economics of heat-pumps compared to gas furnaces the coefficient of performance, COP need to be 2.8 for the oper-ational cost (OPEX) to be even (Figure 8). This is close to the COP for the heat-pumps tested in Sweden as mentioned earlier in this
section. In addition, some financial incentive is likely needed to make up for the difference in capital cost (CAPEX). A heat-pump has the additional benefit that it can be used for both heating and cooling which a gas-furnace usually cannot. Heat-pumps can also be combined with solar utilizing an in-situ renewable resource. This is especially attractive for cooling purposes during the sum-mer when solar resources are more abundant. Buildings, especially if well-insulated have large thermal inertia allowing heat-pump to act as a flexible demand resource that can be used to balance the grid. Using time-of-day prices and/or taxation can give incentives for heat-pumps to be flexible and lower their operational cost and give additional financial incentive.
Buildings in Poland emit 79 000 tonnes of fine particles per year (Figure 16). The Baltic Pipe can replace 20 percent of final energy of 804 TWh (Figure 21) but 54 percent of total 146 000 tons of PM2.5 emissions (Figure 16).
Emissions of PM2.5 alone annually cause 46,020 premature deaths in Poland of which 54 percent or 24 800 from emissions from build-ings. Baltic Pipe Project can eliminate this by replacing coal, wood and oil in buildings.
Polish energy sector emits 9600 tonnes of PM2.5 or 6.5 percent of total PM2.5 emissions. Combined gas and wind (section 2.2.1) a further 10 percent reduction in PM2.5 from buildings and 40 TWh of electricity (24 percent). This can reduce premature deaths with another 4 100 from emissions from buildings and 700 from emis-sions in energy. Baltic Pipe project could conservatively, every year prevent 25 000 premature deaths.
Poland energy used in buildingsSum 325 TWh, year 2017, source: Eurostat
Coal, wood, Oil 131 TWh
Gas 59 TWh (16 %)
Electricity 59 TWh
Heat 76 TWh
Coal 84 TWh
Wood 35 TWh
Oil 12 TWh
Figure 7 Poland buildings use 131 TWh from coal, wood and oil
Figure 8 Poland gas and electricity prices for medium sized households. Prices including, taxes, levies, transmission, system services, meter rental, distribution and other services (source: Eurostat). Heat-pump COP break-even assumes gas furnace COP of 95 percent.
0,002014
S12014
S22015
S12015
S22016
S12016
S22017
S12017
S22018
S12018
S2
Gas
Gas avg
Heatpump COP break-even
Electricity
Electricity avg
Heatpump COP break-even avg
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
0,16
2,4
2,5
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
3,0
3,1
3,2
Poland gas and electricity prices for medium householdsPrices including all taxes, levies and VAT. Source: Eurostat (nrg_pc)
2,79
0,13
0,05
12 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
25 000 LIVES CAN BE SAVED
ANNUALLY
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 13
2 .2 .3 THE FUTURE USE OF THE PIPELINE GOES BEYOND NATURAL GAS
The pipeline is designed to ship natural gas. Natural gas mainly consists of methane (CH4). Methane can have both fossil original (natural gas) and bio origin (biogas). The pipeline can thus carry any mix of these two origins.
The pipeline is mainly intended to ship natural gas from the North Sea to Poland but can ship gas in the other direction from Poland north or from Poland to other countries. The pipeline has a design lifetime of at least 50 years and can thus see different use over its lifetime. With modifications and proper licensing the pipeline could be used to either transport fossil-methane (natural gas, CH4), bio-methane (biogas, CH4), hydrogen (H2), ammonia (NH3) or carbon dioxide (CO2). Using the full capacity of 10 billion m³/year the pipeline can yearly transport one of the following quantities (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017).
2.2.3.1 Hydrogen
Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the uni-verse. As a gas it combines in pairs H2. As it is a very light molecule earth’s gravity is not enough to gaseous hydrogen in the atmos-phere. Virtually all terrestrial hydrogen is thus bound in molecules such as with carbon to form hydrocarbons (Methane, Ethane, etc) or with oxygen to form water (H20).
For industrial purposes hydrocarbons are the most common source of Hydrogen using a process called hydroforming (International Energy Agency, IEA ). Hydrogen is then used in many petrochem-ical processes as well as in fertilizers such as Ammonia (NH3), see Figure 9.
Hydrogen from water can be generated using electricity using electrolysis. In a future with an abundance of cheap electricity it would be possible to generate hydrogen to be transported via pipe-
Gas Quantity Comment
Methane (CH4) 120 TWh Either natural gas or biogas (12 kWh/m³)
Hydrogen (H2) 9 TWh Different origins (3kWh/m3).
Ammonia (NH3) 8 million tonnes Mainly used for agriculture as fertilizer (0,86 kg/m³).
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
20 million tonnes
For geologic storage (CCS) (1.977 kg/m³).
Table 1 Different use for Baltic Pipe.
14 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
lines and stored for electricity generation. Baltic Pipe project could be used to transport renewable hydrogen from, as an example off-shore wind farms in the North Sea.
According to the most recent EU researches there is a possibility to maintain 15-30% of safe hydrogen content in natural gas pipelines (Melaina, Antonia, & Penev, 2013). Higher contents require specific materials ensuring the resistance to hydrogen penetration into intercrystallite structures of steal and in most cases it is achieved by building dedicated hydrogen pipelines. For example, the maxi-mum permissible concentration of hydrogen in the gas network in Netherlands and Germany is 12 and 5 percent, respectively (Navas, 2017).
2.2.3.2 Ammonia
Ammonia is used in agriculture as a fertilizer and is manufactured by combining hydrogen and nitrogen. About half of the world’s hydrogen is used to produce Ammonia (Figure 9) (International Energy Agency, IEA ).
If the cost of renewable energy continues to decline it could be possible to manufacture renewable hydrogen for Ammonia pro-duction as described in the previous section. According to Eurostat Poland uses about 1.1 million tonnes of nitrogen (Eurostat). Baltic Pipe could transport that amount in 1.5 months.
Before Baltic Pipe can be used for Ammonia several modifications would need to be made to the pipe-line and compressor stations. The exact modifications required is beyond the scope of this report.
2.2.3.3 Carbon dioxide storage
Carbon capture and storage, CCS is one of the key technologies to achieve net-zero emissions before 2050 and negative emissions beyond. Certain processes like cement production release carbon dioxide as part of the chemical process. For example, when lime-stone, calcium-carbonate (CsCO3) is heated to form calcium oxide (CsO), the main ingredient in cement.
Norway has now created a market for storage open for other countries to store their captured carbon dioxide. The Norwegian state-owned oil and gas company Equinor (former Statoil) together with Finland’s state-owned utility Fortum are creating a market for capture and storage of Carbon dioxide (Equinor). Norway’s Equinor also plans to build a pipeline connecting emission sources in United Kingdom and Netherlands and storage site in Norway (Figure 10). This project is designated by the European Commis-sion as a project of common interest, PCI, to be completed in 2023 (European Commission).
Before Baltic Pipe can be used for Carbon Dioxide several modifi-cations would need to be made to the pipeline and compressor sta-tions. The exact modifications required is beyond the scope of this report. The Baltic Pipe Project could later in its 50-year lifetime be re-designated to transport carbon dioxide to Norway for storage. Concludingly, the future possible uses of the pipeline other than transporting natural gas ensure that the pipeline will remain rele-vant and usable for its entire lifetime.
Figure 9 Global hydrogen demand (source EIA).
Figure 10
CO2 cross-border
transport between
emission sources
in United Kingdom
and Netherlands
and storage site in
Norway.
Cross-border carbone dioxide network
Global demand for pure hydrogen, 1975–2018Mt
0
25
50
75
100
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018e
Refining Ammonia Other
SENO
FI
EE
LVLT
BYRU
RU
PLDE
NLBE
LU
DK
FR
ES
CH AT
ITBA
SI HR
CZSKHU
RO
BGRS
MEALMKXK
GR
UA
MD
PT
UKIE
IS
NORWAY
GERMANYUNITED KINGDOM
NETHERLANDS
DENMARK
1 2
PCI 12.4 – CO2 injectionPCI 12.4 – CO2 terminalPCI 12.4 – CO2 shipping route
Eemshaven Port
12
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 15
2.3 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT’S EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY
The combustion of chemical fuels causes ambient air pollution as well as the emission of carbon dioxide, contributing to global warm-ing through the greenhouse effect.
Outdoor ambient air pollution is caused by both natural and human sources. Natural sources include dust, pollen, sea salt, smoke from natural causes and many other. Anthropogenic air pollution, i.e. air pollution caused by humans, is mainly caused by the combustion of oil and solid fuels such as coal and wood.
Air pollution causes stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma. Health effects leading to individual suffering, great societal cost and loss of life.
Human activities contribution to air pollution include:
u Fuel combustion from transportation, cars, trucks, busses,
planes and ships.
u Combustion of solid and liquid fuels for heat and electricity
generation.
u Waste handling from landfills to incinerations.
u Industrial processes such as manufacturing of steel, cement,
oil products, etc
u Residential heating, cooking and lighting with fuels
Humans naturally have effective defence mechanisms to air pollu-tion and other health threats, such as radioactive radiation, bacte-ria, viruses, bad food, etc. If safe levels are maintained, the human body can defend itself and repair potential damages. Although, should these defence mechanisms be repeatedly overwhelmed over long periods of time without time for recovery, negative health effects are to be expected.
The world health organization, WHO, lists the four air pollutants with the strongest evidence of health effects (World Health Or-ganization, WHO, 2018).
1. Particulate matter (PM)
2. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
3. Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
4. Ozone (O3)
Particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10) are linked to several health hazards. Particles with diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) when inhaled into the lungs transfers di-rectly to the blood.
Particular matter causes more than 1000 years of life lost per 100 000 persons in Poland, 700 in Germany 600 in Denmark with Sweden having the best air quality with less than 500 years of life lost due to PM2.5 emissions. (European Environment Agency EEA, 2018)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and Sulphur dioxide (SO2) cause damages to the lungs. When combined with water NO2 forms Nitric acid (HNO3) and SO2 forms Sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Both are strong acids causing negative health effects directly and acid rain. Acid rain causes damage to humans and nature but also to buildings, bridges and other structures. When acid water reaches into the ground it dissolves metals in the ground that reach ground water and drink-ing water sources, these include copper, lead, cadmium and zinc. (Shun-an Zheng, 2012)
Ozone (O3) near earth surface is formed through interaction of oxygen, sunlight and the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
16 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
2 .3 .1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Countries described in this report have different geographies as well as varying abilities to source local energy. Scandinavia has access to large land areas with low populations, suitable for wind and hydro generation as well as forests for biofuels. The North Sea has oil and gas and central Europe has the largest reserves of lignite coal as well as of hard coal. The North Sea and Baltic Sea have large sandbanks that are suitable for offshore wind generation.
The oil crisis of 1973 caused the first major shift in energy away from oil for heating to being mostly used for transport. The oil crisis also saw an expansion of coal and nuclear. Different countries have thus arrived at their respective energy mix for a variety of different reasons.
However, emissions of carbon dioxide have become the focal point of energy systems and have to be eliminated by mid-century to avoid a heating of more than 2 degrees. As illustrated below, different energy systems have different levels of carbon intensity. In a new carbon-neutral world electricity have a pivotal role as electricity can be generated affordable, reliable and at scale without emitting any carbon emissions. Most sectors can relatively easily be electrified such as most processes in buildings and factories. Transportation remains the most difficult to decarbonize but fast development in electric vehicles stand to change this outlook in the coming decade.
Eliminating carbon emissions in electricity generation and electrify-ing as much of society as possible is the path to a zero-carbon world.
Today Germany has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by some margin. Germany is the only EU country to also make it to the global top ten list placing itself number six after China, USA, India, Russia and Japan (globalcarbonatlas.org). In the EU Poland has the fifth highest greenhouse gas emissions, Sweden and Denmark are placed 18:th and 19:th respectively among EU members (Figure 11).
Eight EU countries have committed to exiting coal at different timepoints, such as France in 2022, Italy and Ireland by 2025 and Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland by 2030 (Carmichael, 2019). Germany, the EU country with the highest greenhouse gas emissions has plans to exit coal in 19 years by 2038. Currently Germany focuses on replacing nuclear on which it is still heavy reliant for its electricity generation (Vaughan, Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038, 2019).
For Poland, the greenhouse gas emissions from coal are dominant followed by emissions from oil. (Figure 12). The emissions from coal have been reduced in half from 400 to 200 million tonnes since peaking in mid 1980s but are still very high compared to other EU countries, both in relative and absolute terms. Natural gas combined with an expansion of renewables and other sources is an obvious bridge fuel to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from coal.
2 .3 .2 AIR POLLUTION IN EU
Air pollution is a major health hazard with many respiratory illnesses. Eurostat makes emission data available from European Energy System. Small particle matter, especially smaller than 2.5 micrometre (PM2.5) is a major health hazard as these particles can enter the bloodstream directly through the lungs (European Environment Agency EEG). There is a strong correlation between the annual concentration and the number of premature deaths (Figure 13).
936
505
482
439
416
357
205
130
119
115
99
85
74
64
64
62
57
55
51
43
25
21
21
18
12
12
10
2 .6
Germany
United Kingdom
France
Italy
Poland
Spain
Netherlands
Czechia
Belgium
Romania
Greece
Austria
Portugal
Ireland
Hungary
Finland
Bulgaria
Sweden
Denmark
Slovakia
Croatia
Lithuania
Estonia
Slovenia
Latvia
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Malta
kiloton
Greenhouse gasesCO2, and N2O, CH4, HFC, PFC, SF6, NF3 in CO2 equivalent. All sectors (excluding LULUCF
and memo items, including international aviation), source: Eurostat (env_air_emis), year 2017.
Figure 11 Greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other sources in CO2 equivalents. Source: Eurostat
Poland CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org
Million tonnes
500
400
300
200
100
0
Oil Coal Gas
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
1992
Figure 12 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org
Figure 13 Correlation between air concentration of PM2 .5 and NO2 and premature deaths with Poland marked (source: EEA).
Premature deaths due to air pollution from PM2.5 and NO2Source: European Environment AgencyPremature death per
100 000 persons
200
150
100
50
0
–50
PM2.5 Linear (PM2.5)NO2 Linear (NO2)
Poland
Annual mean concentration µg/m3
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 17
Premature deaths attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3Year: 2014 Source: EEAPremature
death
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
PM2.5 NO2 O3
German
y
Denmar
kLit
huan
iaLa
tvia
Finlan
dSlo
venia
Irelan
dEs
tonia
Cypru
sLu
xembo
urg
Malt
a
Italy
United
King
dom
Polan
dFr
ance
Spain
Roman
iaBulg
aria
Greec
eNet
herla
nds
Hunga
ry
Czech
Rep
ublic
Belgium
Austri
aPo
rtuga
lSlo
vakia
Croat
iaSw
eden
Figure 14 Premature death attributable to PM2 .5, NO2 and O3 (source EEA).
Figure 15 PM2 .5 annual mean in 2016 (source: EEA)
Premature deaths attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3Year: 2014 Source: EEAPremature
death
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
PM2.5 NO2 O3
German
y
Denmar
kLit
huan
iaLa
tvia
Finlan
dSlo
venia
Irelan
dEs
tonia
Cypru
sLu
xembo
urg
Malt
a
Italy
United
King
dom
Polan
dFr
ance
Spain
Roman
iaBulg
aria
Greec
eNet
herla
nds
Hunga
ry
Czech
Rep
ublic
Belgium
Austri
aPo
rtuga
lSlo
vakia
Croat
iaSw
eden
18 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Germany and Italy have the highest number of premature deaths in the EU with around 80 thousand per year followed by United King-dom, Poland and France with around 50 thousand per year. Fine particle matters being the by far the most problematic (Figure 14).
Poland, Bulgaria, northern Italy and the Balkans have the highest annual mean concentrations of particle matter (Figure 15). The European Environment Agency, EEA compiles a map where the anthropogenic source of PM2 .5 concentration is shown (European Environment Agency, EEG).
2 .3 .3 AIR POLLUTION IN POLAND
Poland has an annual mean of 23 μg/m³, the second highest con-centration of fine particles, PM2 .5 in EU after Bulgaria (Figure 13).
Every year, 46 000 premature deaths in Poland are caused by fine particle emissions, 1 700 by NO2 emissions and 970 through ozone (Figure 14). Particle emissions are highest from buildings (Figure 16, Figure 17). Emissions of Nitrogen oxides are mainly from road emissions (Figure 18) and emissions of Sulphur oxides mainly come from energy production (Figure 19). Buildings in Poland receive 26 percent of its energy from coal, 11 percent biofuels, 10 percent oil all of which are associated with particle and other emissions, especially if burned in furnaces without proper emission control (Figure 21).
Greenhouse gas emissions in Poland are dominated by use of coal (Figure 12).
Buildings
Industry
Road
Energy
Processes
Waste
Agriculture
Transport
Other
79
29
15
9 .6
6 .0
4 .4
3 .2
1 .0
0 .0
kiloton
Particulates < 2 .5 µmYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat
Figure 16 Emissions of PM2 .5 in Poland
Particulates < 10 µmYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat
Buildings
Industry
Agriculture
Energy
Road
Processes
Waste
Transport
Other
125
31
28
22
19
15
4 .5
1 .0
0 .0
kiloton
Figure 17 Emissions of PM10 in Poland
Road
Energy
Buildings
Agriculture
Industry
Processes
Transport
Waste
Other
297
193
155
64
58
18
16
2 .2
0 .0
kiloton
Nitrogen oxidesYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat
Figure 18 Emissions of NOX in Poland
Energy
Buildings
Industry
Processes
Road
Transport
Waste
Agriculture
Other
282
171
117
12
0 .5
0 .1
0 .1
0 .0
0 .0
kiloton
Sulphur oxidesYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat
Figure 19 Emissions of SOX in Poland
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 19
2 .3 .4 POLAND ENERGY SYSTEM
Poland uses about 1,222 TWh of primary energy (Figure 20), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 21).
Both district heating heat (Figure 22) and electricity is produced using mainly coal (Figure 23). As previously illustrated, Poland receives most of its primary energy from coal. This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heat-ing (Figure 24). Natural gas use (Figure 25) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.
The final energy use in the Poland shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 26).
2.4 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT AND THE EUROPEAN ENERGY GOALS
During recent years, the view of natural gas on an EU-level has been transformed. As the general view on natural gas previously been that it would serve a vital role in the transition to a greener energy use at least until 2035, but that view has now become
even more optimistic. The view has now shifted to that natural gas will fill an important role in the green transition for the foreseeable future.
The EU has set a few long terms energy goals that aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The main methods are energy efficiency and renewable energies, but emissions can be reduced through other means than increasing energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. For 2030, only the goal for greenhouse gas emissions is binding and in this context, natural gas is favourable, given its lower emissions than ignite coal as well as its ability to act as a bridge fuel.
2 .4 .1 EU 2030 TARGETS
The EU 2030 targets were decided in October 2014, one and half year before the Paris Agreement on climate change (European Commission) (UNFCCC, 2016) (European Commission).
The 2030 targets are
u 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels
• 43% reduction within ETS compared to 2005
• 30% reduction non-ETS compared to 2005
District heat production Poland Sum 83 TWh, year 2017
Coal 67 TWh (81 %)
Gas 11 TWh (13 %)
Bio 4 TWh (4 %)
Oil 1 TWh (1 %)
Electricity production Poland Sum 170 TWh, year 2017
Coal 131 TWh (77 %)
Wind 15 TWh (9 %)
Gas 12 TWh (7 %)
Bio 6 TWh (4 %)
Hydro 3 TWh (2 %)
Oil 2 TWh (1 %)
Primary energy Poland Sum 1 222 TWh, year 2017
Coal 578 TWh (47 %)
Oil 349 TWh (29 %)
Gas 180 TWh (15 %)
Bio 85 TWh (7 %)Wind 15 TWh (1 %)
Waste 10 TWh (1 %)Hydro 3 TWh (0 %)
Electricity 2 TWh (0 %)
Final energy Poland Sum 804 TWh, year 2017
Oil 281 TWh (35 %)
Electricity 136 TWh (17 %)Coal 131 TWh (16 %)
Gas 113 TWh (14 %)
Heat 68 TWh (8 %)
Bio 67 TWh (8 %)
Waste 8 TWh (1 %)
Figure 20 Primary energy Poland. Figure 22 Heat production in Poland.
Figure 21 Final energy Poland. Figure 23 Electricity production in Poland.
20 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
u at least a 32% share of renewable energy consumption, with
an upward revision clause for 2023
u indicative target for an improvement in energy efficiency at
EU level of at least 32.5%, following on from the existing 20%
target for 2020
u support the completion of the internal energy market by
achieving the existing electricity interconnection target of
10% by 2020, with a view to reaching 15% by 2030
Compared to 2017 years emissions the reductions required are 332 million tons for Germany, 120 for Poland, 10 for Denmark and 15 for Sweden (Figure 27). Of these four countries all but Poland have managed to reduce emissions between 2017 and 2005.
2 .4 .2 EU 2050 GOALS
In November 2018 the European Commission recommended a net zero emissions economy by 2050, in line with the targets agreed in the Paris agreement and the IPCC recommendations. These rec-ommendations are currently under consideration in the European Council and Parliament (European Commission, 2018).
In order to reduce climate emissions, several countries have decid-ed to reduce or fully eliminate their dependencies on coal as several alternatives exist, including natural gas. Gas is a very flexible energy
source with about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal, and gas powered generation is often easier to combine with low carbon options such as wind and solar. Oil is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for many countries, being used mainly in transportation. Though, electric vehicles are rapidly becoming more affordable and will see a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation when becoming more widely availa-ble in the coming years.
After the Paris agreement was signed several countries have com-mitted to eliminating coal from their energy mix. Leading is France pledging to end coal in 2022 followed by the Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom which all target 2025 (Vaughan, UK government spells out plan to shut down coal plant, 2018) (AFP).
Poland coal use Sum 535 TWh, year 2017
Energy sector 1.1 TWh (0 %)
Electricity and heat 402.0 TWh (75 %)
Industry 35.9 TWh (7 %)
Buildings 95.3 TWh (18 %)
None energy 0.8 TWh (0 %)
Poland gas use Sum 200 TWh, year 2017
None energy 25.3 TWh (13 %)
Buildings 59.5 TWh (30 %)
Industry 48.7 TWh (24 %)
Transport 4.4 TWh (2 %)
Electricity and heat33.9 TWh (17 %)
Energy sector 27.8 TWh (14 %)
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy PolandYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
131 (16%)
281 (35%)
113 (14%)
136 (17%)
36 (19%)
49 (26%)
20 (11%)
55 (30%)
234 (94%)
95 (26%)
38 (10%)
60 (16%)
40 (11%)
95 (16%)
78 (21%)
Country Year
France 2022
United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland 2025
Canada, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland
2030
Figure 24 Coal use in Poland. Figure 26 Poland energy use summary.
Figure 25 Gas use in Poland.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 21
Some of these countries use natural gas as a bridge fuel to more quickly phase out coal. The intent is to copy USA that has had a big success reducing its dependency on coal by increasing natural gas (Figure 28). The intent in the USA is to use natural gas as a bridge fuel to an energy system using renewables (Woolfork, 2009).
For Poland, a secure supply of natural gas can act as a bridge fuel by enabling further investments into renewables, such as wind and photovoltaic energy. As wind energy and photovoltaics are dependent upon weather conditions in order to function properly and generate electricity, there is a need for a reliable alternative when weather conditions are unfavourable. In this context, a se-cure and flexible energy source such as natural gas complement when wind or sun is unable to deliver, and further drive invest-ments into renewables.
2.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING A SECURITY OF SUPPLY
In the winters of both 2006 and 2009 there were severe disrup-tions in gas supply due to political disputes, some of which are still on-going. This became a wake-up call for a common European energy policy. The energy union, projects of common interest as well as national energy and climate plans are all part of this inte-gration effort coordinated by the European Commission on behalf of member states. The Commission has for this purpose compiled an energy security study and a European Energy Security Strategy (European Commission).
Today, the EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes. Energy im-port dependency relates to crude oil (almost 90%), to natural gas (66%), and to a lesser extent to solid fuels (42%) as well as nuclear fuel (40%). For both oil and nuclear fuels, a reasonably well func-tioning global market exists where dependency on a single supplier is less. Nuclear fuels can also be easily stored in large quantities due to its high energy density compared to chemical fuels.
Natural gas is often supplied via pipelines with high dependency on few suppliers. The Baltic Pipe Project is a key project to increase supplier choice for Poland and its neighbours.
The EU has large reserves of coal, especially lignite coal which makes this fuel beneficial from an energy security standpoint but is also a large source of air pollutants and carbon dioxide. Transition-ing away from coal thus takes time and need to address issues like reliability, affordability, jobs and energy security.
2 .5 .1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION
When used for electricity production, gas has about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal as shown in Figure 27. Switching from coal to gas will thus lead to a significant reduc-tion in greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 27). Poland uses lignite coal which has even higher greenhouse gas emissions than hard coal. Poland has 200 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal of which 75 percent is used to produce 131 TWh of electric-ity. Average is thus 150/131 = 1140 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (Figure 12, Figure 23, Figure 24). For simpler calcu-lations, 1000 grams for one kilowatt-hour electricity from coal and 500 grams for gas is used.
All electricity sources are not equal and can thus not always be substituted. Sources that use chemical fuels such as gas, oil, coal, biofuel or waste all need to be supplied continuously with large quantities of fuel. Hydroelectric generation is limited by geographic
availability. Snowmelt is stored for next winter generation. Hydro is flexible and can change its output based on demand. Generation is limited by amount of water available and the height of dams. Wind and solar are dependent on the availability of wind and sun both of which have natural cycles. Interconnection can to some extent even out the variability of both but large variability will always remain.
Each summer, the Swedish transmission system operator Svenska kraftnät publishes their winter follow-up with next winter forecast. In the latest report from 30 June 2019 (Svenska kraftnät, 2019) the report shows the variability of wind over the whole country of Sweden (Figure 29) which measures 500 km east-west and 1500 km north-south (Swedish Institute (SI)).
A measure of how much a generation asset is utilized capacity fac-tor can be used. In Germany wind energy had an average capacity factor of 44 percent and solar 12 percent (Figure 30). Low capacity factors for hard-coal and gas is not due to lack of availability but because they are used as back-up for days with high demand com-bined with little to no wind and solar.
Because of low capacity factors for wind and solar they are used primarily as so-called fuel-savers where they supplement other sources. If wind and gas is matched at 40/60 percent capacity factors emissions can be lowered without sacrificing overall avail-ability.
The median carbon emissions are 820 g/kWh for coal, 490 g/kWh for gas, 41 g/kWh for solar PV – rooftop, 24 g/kWh for hydropower, 12 g/kWh for wind offshore, 12 g/kWh for nuclear and 11 g/kWh for wind onshore (IPCC 2014). Using this information, the average
Sum
ETS
ESR 489 311 -178
447 293 –153
936 604 –332
213 170 –43
203 126 –77
416 296 –120
35 26 –9
16 15 –1
51 41 –10
33 27 –6
23 13 –9
55 40 –15
Germany
2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction
Poland Denmark Sweden
Emission targets 2030
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
–200
–400
ETS ESR Sum
936
604
–332
–120
–15–10
416
296
51 41 55 40
Million tonnes
Figure 27 Reduction of 2017 years greenhouse gas emission in
CO2 equivalent to reach 2030 goals of 40% reduction for both
Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) for non-ETS emissions and for
Emissions Trade System (ETS) emissions (data: Eurostat).
22 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
from such a combination is 40%*12 g/kWh + 60%*490 g/kWh = 299 g/kWh. Solar is more available in summertime when wind generation is lower so by adding solar emissions can be reduced somewhat further.
2 .6 ENDING NOTES
The Baltic Pipe project is a strategic project that will contribute greatly to the energy security of Poland and its neighbours. The climate and air quality emissions will be reduced, and the Baltic Pipe project will contribute to Poland’s climate goals. Enhanced air
quality in Poland will benefit not just its citizens but also its neigh-bours, as air pollution frequently gets transported with winds to neighbouring countries.
The Baltic Pipe Project is of vital importance to integrating Poland closer to Europe as a whole and its neighbours in particular. The project brings human, economic and political benefits for all coun-tries involved and beyond.
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
Coal Gas
TWh
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
SE 2017/2018 SE 2018/2019 LDC 2018/19 LDC 2018/19
Wind energy production [MWh/h]
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
7 000
2018
.11.16
2018
.12.01
2018
.12.15
2019
.01.01
2019
.01.15
2019
.02.
01
201.0
2.15
2019
.03.
01
2019
.03.1
5
Germany electricity capacity factors 2018Source: Fraunhofer
Uranium
Brown coal
Biomass
Wind
Hydro power
Hard coal
Average
Gas
Solar
Oil
81%
71%
67%
44%
35%
34%
30%
17%
12%
2%
Figure 28 Electricity generation from coal and gas in USA (source: BP Statistical Review).
Figure 29 Wind energy production in Sweden winter 2017/2018 and 2018/19 (source: Svenska kraftnät, SvK).
Figure 30 Capacity factors for different electricity generation sources in Germany in 2018 (source: Fraunhofer ISE energy-charts.de).
USA
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 23
AIR POLLUTION IN EU
Air pollution is a major health hazard with many respiratory illness-es. Eurostat makes emission data available from European Energy System. Data is made available 18 months after each year. Latest data available when writing this report is from 2017. Particulate matter are fine particles. Poland has the third highest emissions of fine particulate, PM2 .5 matter smaller than 2.5 micrometre (Figure 31) and the second highest for emissions for PM10, particles smaller than 10 micrometre (Figure 32).
Germany has the highest emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx) in EU and Poland in fourth place (Figure 33). Nitrogen oxides, among other things drive the formation of ozone (O3), a potent pollutant and cause of smog. Poland has the highest emissions of Sulphur ox-ides (SOx) in EU followed by Germany (Figure 34). Sulphur oxides combined with water form sulfuric acid, a very potent acid causing acid rain.
APPENDIXES
kiloton
Particulates < 2 .5 µm Total sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)
Italy
France
Poland
Romania
United Kingdom
Spain
Germany
Portugal
Hungary
Czechia
Bulgaria
Greece
Belgium
Sweden
Denmark
Slovakia
Latvia
Finland
Croatia
Austria
Netherlands
Ireland
Slovenia
Estonia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Malta
165
164
147
112
107
105
99
51
48
40
32
26
23
20
20
18
18
18
17
16
14
12
11
9 .2
9 .1
1 .3
1 .3
0 .2
Particulates < 10 µm Total sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)
France
Poland
Germany
Italy
Spain
United Kingdom
Romania
Portugal
Hungary
Greece
Czechia
Bulgaria
Sweden
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Croatia
Latvia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
Slovenia
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Malta
254
246
206
196
172
171
143
73
69
57
51
47
40
33
31
29
28
27
27
25
25
23
14
14
13
2 .1
2 .0
0 .4
kiloton
Figure 31 PM2 .5 emissions in EU (source: Eurostat). Figure 32 PM10 emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).
24 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Nitrogen oxidesTotal sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)
Germany
United Kingdom
France
Poland
Spain
Italy
Netherlands
Greece
Romania
Belgium
Czechia
Portugal
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Hungary
Denmark
Ireland
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Croatia
Lithuania
Latvia
Slovenia
Estonia
Luxemburg
Cyprus
Malta
1188
893
807
804
739
709
252
250
232
176
163
159
145
130
124
119
112
110
103
66
55
53
37
35
33
18
15
5 .3
kiloton
Poland
Germany
Spain
United Kingdom
France
Italy
Czechia
Romania
Greece
Bulgaria
Portugal
Estonia
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Slovakia
Netherlands
Sweden
Cyprus
Ireland
Lithuania
Austria
Croatia
Denmark
Slovenia
Latvia
Luxembourg
Malta
583
315
220
173
144
115
110
107
106
103
48
39
38
35
28
27
27
18
16
13
13
13
13
10
4 .9
4 .0
1 .0
0 .2
Sulphur oxidesTotal sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)
kiloton
Figure 33 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).
Figure 34 Sulphur oxides (SOx) emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 25
SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The source of greenhouse emissions in the EU originates mainly from burning of carbon intensive fuels . Oil and coal have the larg-est carbon content per unit of energy. Natural gas carbon content being about half compared to coal. EU emissions from oil peaked during the oil crisis of 1973. Several countries made investments in other forms of energy such as coal, nuclear and later in wind and solar. Natural gas has steadily been increasing in popularity.
Eight EU countries have committed to exiting coal at different timepoints, such as France in 2022, Italy and Ireland by 2025 and Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland by 2030 (Carmichael, 2019). Germany, the EU country with the highest car-bon dioxide emissions has plans to exit coal in 19 years by 2038. Currently Germany focuses on replacing nuclear on which it is still heavy reliant for its electricity generation (Vaughan, Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038, 2019).
For Poland, the carbon dioxide emissions from coal are dominant followed by emissions from oil. (Figure 12). The emissions from coal have been reduced in half from 400 to 200 million tonnes since peak-ing in mid 1980s but are still very high compared to other EU coun-tries, both in relative and absolute terms. Natural gas combined with an expansion of renewables and other sources is an obvious bridge fuel to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from coal.
Danish emissions are dominated by oil followed by almost equal amounts from coal and natural gas (Figure 12). During the oil crisis of the 1973 Denmark made a choice to switch some of its reliability from oil to coal. In the past 20 years the country has switched half of its electricity generation to a wind and imports.
Swedish greenhouse gas emissions are mainly from oil used in transportation followed by coal used in blast furnaces to produce steel with only minor use of natural gas. During the oil crisis of 1973 Sweden decided to switch its reliance on oil for heating to of electricity and district heating. Electricity from nuclear sources and district heating using biofuels and waste. The biggest challenge remaining for Sweden in order to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions is to decarbonize its transportation infrastructure and some parts of its industry (Figure 37).
Emissions from the three Baltic countries comes from oil for trans-portation and shale oil used for electricity generation. Shale oil is in this graph denoted as coal as it has close resemblance with coal (Figure 38).
Poland CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org
Million tonnes
500
400
300
200
100
0
Oil Coal Gas
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
1992
Denmark CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org
Million tonnes
60
40
20
0
Oil Coal Gas
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
1992
Sweden CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org
Million tonnes
100
75
50
25
0
Oil Coal Gas
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
1992
Baltics CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org
Million tonnes
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oil Coal Gas
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
1992
Figure 37 Greenhouse gas emissions Sweden. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.
Figure 35 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.
Figure 38 Greenhouse gas emissions Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.
Figure 36 Greenhouse gas emissions Denmark. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.
26 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
INTEGRATED NATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE PLANS (NECPS)
As required by the EU’s energy union 2030 strategy EU countries have to supply their national energy and climate plans, NECPs. The first drafts were submitted at the end of 2018 and received com-ments the 18th of June from the European Commission. Final plans have to be submitted end of 2019 (European Commission).
The first plans cover 2021-2030 and will be updated every two years covering ten years. As can be seen from NECP’s for Poland, Denmark, Germany and Sweden only Sweden is on track of meet-ing the non-ETS greenhouse gas emission reduction targets as set out in the effort sharing regulation, ESR (European Commission). The European Commission commented on the NECPs. Below is summary of the greenhouse gas emission reduction plans.
3.1 GERMANY
Germany submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union cover-ing years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Germany has been assigned a 38 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.
Germany is currently not on track of meeting neither its 2020 nor 2030 target (Figure 39).
The climate section of the German plan received the following assessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).
With the existing policies and measures outlined in the draft NECP Germany is not on track to achieve this target.
While Germany’s national and sector-wide greenhouse gas emis-sion reduction targets for 2030 are in line with the German long-term strategy (National Climate Plan 2050), these are not always reflected in sector-specific national contributions (e.g. to the EU energy efficiency target) and policies and measures (e.g. in the transport, building and agriculture sector).
Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumptionMtoe*
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
298 .3278 .3
218 .7194 .3
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
*Germany didn’t express its contribution to the EU 2030 targets. Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.
Primary energy consumption (PEC) Final energy consumption (FEC)
Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption%
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
15 .518
30
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
2020 baseline
Renewable share
2020-based on formula
2030-as from MS
Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR)* (compared to 2005)
%
0
–5
–10
–15
–20
–25
–30
–35
–402017-interim target 2020 target 2030 target
–3
–10 –11
–14–23
–38
*Emissions from non-ETS sectors, notably from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste2017 estimates from COM (2018)716 final
Greenhouse gas reduction targets under the ESR
2017 estimates & projections with existing measures
Figure 39 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Germany (source: European Commission).
NECP for Germany
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 27
3.2 POLAND
Poland submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union covering years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Poland has been as-signed a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.
Poland is on track of meeting its 2020 target but with current efforts not on track for its 2030 targets (Figure 40).
The climate section of the Polish plan received the following as-sessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).
The draft Polish plan contains a comprehensive analytical basis which shows that additional measures are required to achieve Poland’s 2030 -7% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission target com-pared to 2005 for sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (non-ETS), as set in the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). The draft plan describes qualitatively some planned climate policies and measures, mostly in the transport sector, while scarce infor-mation is provided on GHG emission reduction measures in the building and agriculture sectors.
Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumption
Mtoe
110100
908070605040302010
0
99 .1 96 .490 .9
66 .270 .9 71 .6
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.
Primary energy consumption (PEC) Final energy consumption (FEC)
Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption
%
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 .9 15
25
21 .0
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
2020 baseline
Renewable share
2020-based on formula
2030-as from MS
Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR)* (compared to 2005)
%
20
15
10
5
0
–5
–102017
interim target2020 target 2030 target
14
11
14
10
14
–7
2005
*Emissions from non-ETS sectors, notably from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste2017 estimates from COM (2018)716 final
Greenhouse gas reduction targets under the ESR
2017 estimates & projections with existing measures
2017 estimates & projections with additional measures
Figure 40 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Poland (source: European Commission).
NECP for Poland
28 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
3.3 DENMARK
Demark submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union covering years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Denmark has been as-signed a 39 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.
Denmark is on track of meeting its 2020 target but not on track of meeting its 2030 target (Figure 41).
The climate section of the Danish plan received the following assessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).
With existing measures, the European Commission estimates that Denmark would miss this target 16 percentage points and have a deficit of 35.6 Million tons of CO2 equivalent over the period 2021-2030. The draft NECP indicates that implementation of ad-ditional measures, use of ETS flexibility and potential credits from LULUCF may be used to reach the non-ETS target, as provided for in the ESR, but it is uncertain whether the described measures will be sufficient. The final plan would benefit from further clarification of the planned use of flexibilities. Significant emission reductions can be achieved through the planned transport policies, but some of these policies need to be further defined. Further efforts to in-crease energy efficiency, notably in buildings, would also contrib-ute to additional emission reductions.
Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumption
Mtoe
25
20
15
10
5
0
18 .6
15 .8
17 .7
14 .6
16 .9
14 .7
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.
Primary energy consumption (PEC) Final energy consumption (FEC)
Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
35 .830
55 .0
46
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
2020 baseline
Renewable share
2020-based on formula
2030-as from MS
Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR)* (compared to 2005)
%
–10
–20
–30
–40
–502017
interim target2020 target 2030 target
–13
–19
–20
–39
–26
–22
*Emissions from non-ETS sectors, notably from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste2017 estimates from COM (2018)716 final
Greenhouse gas reduction targets under the ESR
2017 estimates & projections with existing measures
2017 estimates & projections with additional measures
Figure 41 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Denmark (source: European Commission).
NECP for Denmark
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 29
3.4 SWEDEN
Sweden submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union cover-ing years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Sweden has been as-signed a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005, the highest target for all EU countries shared only with Luxemburg.
Sweden has already exceeded its 2020 targets in 2017. With current policies Sweden is on track of meeting its 2030 target (Figure 27).
The climate plan for Sweden the following assessment by the Euro-pean Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).
Based on the Swedish projections, the European Commission esti-mates that existing policies may be sufficient to achieve this target. However, the final plan would benefit from including assessments of the impact of individual or groups of policies and measures. Sweden has also set a national 2030 target for emissions not in-cluded in the emissions trading system (non-ETS emissions), which is more ambitious than its ESR target. This high ambition of Swed-ish climate policy is well noted. Sweden has an ambitious target for reducing emissions from transport. The draft NECP shows that Sweden uses carbon and energy taxes as important policies to achieve its targets.
Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumptionMtoe
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
42 .5
32 .3
46 .5
32 .6
43 .4
30 .3
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.
Primary energy consumption (PEC) Final energy consumption (FEC)
Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption***%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
54 .549
65 .0
64
2005
2006
2007
2009
2011
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008
2010
2012
2013
2019
2020
2021
2023
2025
2028
2029
2030
2022
2024
2026
2027
2020 baseline
Renewable share
2020-based on formula
2030-as from MS
***Only scenario with existing measures. No contribution to the EU 2030 target confirmed.
Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR)* (compared to 2005)
%
0–5
–10–15–20–25–30–35–40–45
2017interim target
2020 target 2030 target
–13
–25
–17
–10
*Emissions from non-ETS sectors, notably from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste2017 estimates from COM (2018)716 final
Greenhouse gas reduction targets under the ESR
2017 estimates & projections with existing measures
Figure 42 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Sweden (source: European Commission).
NECP for Sweden
30 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
EUROPE GAS, POWER INFRASTRUCTURE
As part of the energy union, the European Commission has point-ed out several projects of common interest, with the Baltic Pipe Project being named such a project. These projects are intended to enhance trade of energy within the union in order to increase security of supply and political integration as well as decrease cost for consumers with better cross border resource utilization.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 31
SE
NO
FI
EE
LV
LT
BY
RU
RU
PLDE
NL
BE
LU
DK
FR
ES
CHAT
IT
BA
SI HR
CZSK
HURO
BG
RSME
AL MKXK
GRTR
UA
CY
MD
PT
GBIE
IS
RG Continental Europe
RG Nordic
RG Baltic
RG UK
RG Ireland
SECURITY OF SUPPLY – ENERGY LOCATIONIn the winters of both 2006 and 2009 there were severe disrup-tions in gas supply due to political disputes. This became a wake-up call for a common European energy policy. The energy union, projects of common interest as well as national energy and climate plans are all part of this integration effort coordinated by the Euro-pean Commission on behalf of member states. The Commission has for this purpose compiled an energy security study and a European Energy Security Strategy (European Commission).
Today, the EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes. Energy im-port dependency relates to crude oil (almost 90%), to natural gas (66%), and to a lesser extent to solid fuels (42%) as well as nuclear fuel (40%). For both oil and nuclear fuels, a reasonably well func-tioning global market exists where dependency on a single supplier is less. Nuclear fuels can also be easily stored in large quantities due to its high energy density compared to chemical fuels.
Natural gas is often supplied via pipelines with high dependency on few suppliers. The Baltic Pipe Project is a key project to increase supplier choice for Poland and its neighbours.
The EU has large reserves of coal, especially lignite coal which makes this fuel beneficial from an energy security standpoint but is also a large source of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Transi-tioning away from coal thus takes time and need to address issues like reliability, affordability, jobs and energy security.
Electrical grids depend on synchronization of all generators and some large electrical motors designed to be synchronized with the grid. In Europe each grid operates at 50 Hz.
For electricity the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are dependent on a non-EU country for their synchronization (Figure 43). To eliminate this dependency the EU has co-funded several new alternating currents, AC interconnectors with the Baltics. These in-terconnectors are both between Baltic countries and with Poland for AC synchronization. Interconnectors with Finland and Sweden will remain direct current, DC connectors as these countries are not part of the Synchronous grid of Continental Europe.
Figure 43 Grids in Europe (source: ENTSO-E) (ENTSO-E).
32 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
SE
NO
FI
EE
LV
LT
BY
RU
RU
PLDE
NL
BE
LU
DK
FR
ES
CHAT
IT
BA
SI HR
CZSK
HURO
BG
RSME
AL MKXK
GRTR
UA
CY
MD
PT
GBIE
IS
RG Continental Europe
RG Nordic
RG Baltic
RG UK
RG Ireland
ENERGY SYSTEMS
This section describes different energy options that exist and how gas can be seen as a preferred source to achieve many important energy system goals. As energy cannot be destroyed or created it is usually useful to look at a flow chart from high entropy (dense) energy sources.
Energy sources can be divided into three categories
u Chemical – oil, coal, gas, wood, etc.
u Nuclear – fission, fusion and radioactive decay
u Natural – wind, solar, rivers, geothermal, etc.
The above categories are based on physical properties of different energy sources and energy fuels. From a climate and air pollution standpoint another way to categorize energy sources as follows¹:
u High emission fuels - coal, oil and wood
u Low emission fuels – gas
u No emission fuels - renewable energy sources (RES) and
nuclear
3.5 CHEMICAL FUELS
Chemical fuels are usually burned with oxygen to extract their energy. These include oil, coal, gas, wood, waste etc. On an atomic scale these energies exchange electrons and the energies ex-changed are measured in electron volts (eV).
Compared to other chemical fuels natural gas has half carbon di-oxide emissions and no solid waste and virtually no particle emis-sions. Burning of other chemical fuels for energy generates large quantities of solid (ash, particles, etc.) and gaseous (carbon dioxide, nitrous- and sulphur oxides, etc.) waste products.
3.6 HYDROGEN
Many of the integrated solutions can be achieved with hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen and its carriers allow for high geographi-cal flexibility. Hydrogen can store significant quantities of energy in tanks or underground. It can be delivered by pipeline (including blending in natural gas networks) and converted into chemicals (e.g. ammonia, synthetic natural gas or other liquid carriers). When the hydrogen is further processed to methane, it is commonly called synthetic natural gas (SNG), as methane is the main energy carrying content in natural gas. In such cases, carbon may come from CO2 captured from large combustion plants such as power stations or industrial facilities.
Hydrogen can be blended in the natural gas infrastructure up to a certain percentage (between 5-20% by volume, as demonstrat-ed by the EC research project NaturalHy). Work is going on in the technical standards organisation CEN/CENELEC, both on the con-tent limits and on the technical aspects at the points of injection. Subsequently the relevant regulations on gas quality and limits of hydrogen at EU level could define safe levels of hydrogen in the nat-ural gas infrastructure and enable the transfer of the low-carbon value of variable RES between the electricity networks and the gas networks.
Hydrogen could also be synthesised to methane, which would ena-ble storage in existing natural gas storages. The potential is signif-icant, as the underground storage sites for methane (natural gas) in Europe (EU-28) have a capacity of approximately 1200 TWh, while the annual electricity generation from all sources in 2014 was around 3000 TWh. In addition, the power-to-gas conversion could exploit the possibility to use the already developed natural gas infrastructure for long-distance transport.
Important to note that there are significant conversation losses to go from power to hydrogen and then again when converting hydro-gen to synthetic methane, etc.
3.7 NUCLEAR FUELS
Nuclear fuels either use fusion of lighter elements into heavier fuelling stars including our sun. Nuclear fission separates heavier elements into lighter, usually by splitting atoms of Uranium (U235) or Plutonium (P239). The third type of nuclear fuels are heat from nuclear decay of unstable elements. An example of this type of fuel is the isotope Plutonium 238 (P238) which is used to power space-craft traveling away from the sun.
On an atomic scale nuclear energy is measured in million electron volts (MeV). Nuclear fuels are thus six orders of magnitude more energy dense than their chemical cousins. Nuclear fuels generate solid waste in small quantities but highly dangerous unless handled properly.
3.8 NATURAL
Natural energy sources include wind, solar, rivers, tidal, wave and geothermal. These sources have no fuel cost but require often more land-use than fuel-based energy sources. Natural sources are also dependent on weather patterns and geography for avail-ability.
3.9 ENERGY CONVERSION
Chemical and nuclear fuels generate heat which can either be used directly or converted into electrical energy in powerplants. A powerplant converts heat into electrical energy using some heat engine. Any heat engine, from small two stroke petrol engines to huge coal or nuclear powerplants can be described using the Car-not heat engine developed by Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824.
The Carnot heat engine tells that when heat flows from a hot to a cold source, in Figure 44 denoted as Th and Tc for the hot and cold side of the engine.
Figure 44 Carnot heat engine.
1 Wood and other bio-fuels are renewable sources but can, if not properly controlled have high air pollution emissions
TH
QH Q
W
CTC
33
When heat flows from the hot to the cold side the difference in energy can be converted to mechanical energy W.
In real heat engines the hot side is limited by materials used to build the engine and the cold side of the engine is limited by ambient temperatures of air and water. The thermal efficiency is thus never larger than the difference between the hot and cold side divided by the cold side (Th-Tc)/Th when measured in degrees Kelvin with absolute zero as reference.
It is possible to reverse the heat engine by using mechanical energy as input. This type of engine is usually called a heat pump and can be used to increase the temperature in for example air or water. Heat pumps are used both for heating by increasing Th or cooling by decreasing Tc.
Carnot heat engine can also be useful to understand large scale flows such as wind where air moves from hot area to a cold area. Ocean currents work the same way with water transferring heat from hot source to a cold such as the gulf stream that moves wa-ter from the equator to the north pole. Solar heat can be used to transfer water from warm sea to cold air using the same heat en-gine principles.
3.10 ELECTRICAL ENERGY
Electricity is closely linked to mechanical energy making it versatile and possible to use for almost all energy related tasks. Electrifica-tion is also a key enabler that allows countries to lower greenhouse gas and other emissions. Baltic Pipe Project is a vital infrastruc-ture to increase electricity generation enabling this electrification strategy.
Electricity is generated by moving a magnet next to an electrical wire, as the electrons in the wire are “pushed”, creating a chain re-action in the wire which transfers the mechanical energy from the magnet to a magnet on the other side of the wire. The first magnet and wire are usually called the electrical generator and the other is usually called the electrical motor. They are fundamentally the same. Mechanical energy used to move the generator magnet is transferred to the motor magnet with typically 90 percent efficien-cy. Because mechanical and electrical energy can be interchanged with almost no losses they can be seen as near identical.
Chemical and nuclear fuels, geothermal steam or solar heat are all converted to electricity using a heat engine creating mechanical energy converted to electricity by a generator. The sun drives our weather systems that are a large-scale heat engine, the resulting flows of air and water drive turbines that turn a generator. Solar photovoltaic (PV) being almost the only way to generate electricity without a heat engine instead using a solar cell.
60
50 3 000
2 000
1 000
40
30
20
10
0 0
3
2
1
0
Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C
Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr) Billion tonnes CO2 (GtCO2) Watts per square metre (W/m2)b) Stylized net global CO2 emission pathways d) Non-CO2 radiative forcing pathwaysc) Cumulative net CO2 emissions
a) Observed global temperature change and modeled responses to stylized anthropogenic emission and forcing pathways
Observed monthly global mean surface temperature
Estimated anthropogenic warming to date and likely range
Faster immediate CO2 emission reductions limit cumulative CO2 emissions shown in panel (c).
Maximum temperature rise is determined by cumulative net CO2 emissions and net non-CO2 radiative forcing due to methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols and other anthropogenic forcing agents.
Global warming relative to 1850-1900 (°C)
CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040
Cumulative CO2 emissions in pathways reaching net zero in 2055 and 2040
Non-CO2 radiative forcing reduced a�er 2030 or not reduced a�er 2030
1960
1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100
1980 2000 2020
2017
2040 2060 2080 2100
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Likely range of modeled responses to stylized pathways
Faster CO2 reductions (blue in b & c) result in a higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C No reduction of net non-CO2 radiative forcing (purple in d) results in a lower probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C
Global CO2 emissions reach net zero in 2055 while net non-CO2 radiative forcing is reduced a�er 2030 (grey in b, c & d)
Source: IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C
Figure 45 Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.
34 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
PATHWAYS TO 100% CARBON FREE ENERGY SYSTEM
Electrification is an important pathway to a carbon free energy system as electricity is an energy carrier that can be generated us-ing non-emitting sources.
As is explained in this report the most air pollution in Poland comes from heating fuels in buildings such as coal (26% of energy use), wood (11%) and oil (10%). Heating is mostly provided during the winter season from mid November to mid March. The assumption is that it is desirable to maximize the use of renewable sources. As there is little sun available during winter wind becomes the only re-newable source that can scale during wintertime in Poland. Other renewable sources such as hydro and geothermal cannot scale due to the limited availability of these sources. Technical limitations of wind energy thus becomes the most important factor to consider when maximizing renewable electricity generation for heating in Buildings during wintertime.
Another important factor to consider is speed. As there is a limited greenhouse gas budget it becomes important to reduce emissions
quickly to increase the likelihood of to limit warming. The longer countries wait with reducing emissions the faster later emission reductions need to be to achieve the same result. For example, achieving an annual emissions reduction of one million tonnes over ten year period has the same result as an annual five million ton re-duction over two years. This is illustrated in Figure 45 from IPCC.
3.11 HIGH POTENTIAL FOR WIND ENERGY IN POLAND
The European Environment Agency did a study ten years ago on the technical, constrained and economic potential of wind energy in Europe (European Environment Agency, 2009). The technical potential looks at the theoretical case where all available land and shallow sea is used to generate wind energy. The constrained also applies social and environmental limits. Finally the study looks at the economic potential of wind in 2020 and 2030. The study as-sumes a carbon price of 22 €/ton in 2020 and 24 €/ton in 2030. These assumptions are pretty accurate given today’s ETS carbon prices of between 20-30 €/ton. The study assumes that onshore and offshore wind (depending on sea depth) will cost around 55 €/MWh in 2020. These assumptions are more or less accurate with todays prices (Lazard, 2018).
The EEA study does disregards the intermittency of wind energy and only looks at the total annual wind energy that can be generated
60
50 3 000
2 000
1 000
40
30
20
10
0 0
3
2
1
0
Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C
Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr) Billion tonnes CO2 (GtCO2) Watts per square metre (W/m2)b) Stylized net global CO2 emission pathways d) Non-CO2 radiative forcing pathwaysc) Cumulative net CO2 emissions
a) Observed global temperature change and modeled responses to stylized anthropogenic emission and forcing pathways
Observed monthly global mean surface temperature
Estimated anthropogenic warming to date and likely range
Faster immediate CO2 emission reductions limit cumulative CO2 emissions shown in panel (c).
Maximum temperature rise is determined by cumulative net CO2 emissions and net non-CO2 radiative forcing due to methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols and other anthropogenic forcing agents.
Global warming relative to 1850-1900 (°C)
CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040
Cumulative CO2 emissions in pathways reaching net zero in 2055 and 2040
Non-CO2 radiative forcing reduced a�er 2030 or not reduced a�er 2030
1960
1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100
1980 2000 2020
2017
2040 2060 2080 2100
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Likely range of modeled responses to stylized pathways
Faster CO2 reductions (blue in b & c) result in a higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C No reduction of net non-CO2 radiative forcing (purple in d) results in a lower probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C
Global CO2 emissions reach net zero in 2055 while net non-CO2 radiative forcing is reduced a�er 2030 (grey in b, c & d)
Source: IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C
Figure 45 (continued)Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 35
for different countries. It has not been updated since 2009 but since many of the assumptions and realities that the study bases its findings on are still valid so are the conclusions.
The available area for off-shore wind varies a lot from country to country in the EU as can be seen in Figure 46. The EU countries with most off-shore wind potential are UK, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany. Poland has more limited technical potential but still approximately of 500 TWh/year of which most can be realized less than 30 km from shore.
When it comes to on-shore wind energy the potential is more evenly spread among EU-countries. In Figure 47 the on-shore wind potential is show for Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden as-suming a cost of less than 55 €/MWh. As can be seen the economic potential for on-shore wind is almost equal in Germany, Poland and Sweden.
TECHNICAL TERMS
This report uses several technical terms, which are explained in the following chapter.
3.12 UNIT OF ENERGY
Energy can be measured in several units. This report uses watt-hours, Wh and their kWh, MWh, GWh and TWh counterparts re-spectively.
A kWh is usually used on an individual scale, MWh is a common unit used in wholesale markets between energy producers and sellers. For country to country comparison TWh is a useful unit.
Austria
Belgium
Bulgar
ia
Cypr
us
Czec
h Re
public
Denmar
k
Esto
nia
Finland
Fran
ce
German
Greec
y e
Hunga
ry
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithu
ania
Luxe
mbo
urgMal
ta
Nethe
rland
s
Norw
ay
Poland
Portu
gal
Roman
ia
Slov
akia
Slov
enia
Spain
Swed
en
Switz
erland
Turk
ey
Unite
d King
dom
Technical potential
Figure 3.4 Available offshore area (km2) for wind energy farms within national jurisdictions
United Kingdom — Jersey
United Kingdom — Guernsey United Kingdom
Turkey Sweden
Spain — Mediterranean Spain — Atlantic
Slovenia Romania
Portugal Poland
Norway Netherlands
Malta Lithuania
Latvia Italy
Ireland Greece
Germany — North Sea Germany — Baltic Sea
France — Mediterranean Sea France — Atlantic Sea
Finland Estonia
Denmark — Faroe Islands Denmark — Bornholm
Denmark Cyprus
Bulgaria Belgium
0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000
Distance to shore (km2)
0–10 km 10–30 km 30–50 km > 50 km Source: EEA, 2008.
Figure 3.5 Unrestricted technical potential for offshore wind energy in 2030 based on average wind speed data
Technical potential (TWh)
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
< 10 km 10–30 km 30–50 km > 50 km
Note: A recent Norwegian study (NVE, 2008) estimates Norwegian offshore wind power capacity to be around 55 300 MW (at maximum depths of 50 m and minimum distances to the coast of 1 km).
Source: EEA, 2008.
Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential 21
0
751
246
7 260
9
253
9
D E NM A RK G E RM A NY POLA ND S WE D E N
TWh/
year
On-shore wind energy potential 2030
sour ce: EEA
Figure 47 On-shore wind energy potential if levelized cost
of energy (LCOE) is lower than 55 €/MWh.
Figure 46 Available offshore area (km²) for wind energy farms
within national jurisdictions.
Unrestricted technical potential for offshore wind energy in 2030 based on
wind speed data
36 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Other units are Joules (J) which is one watt for one second (Ws), as there are 3600 seconds in one hour a Wh is 3600 Ws and a kWh is 3.6 million J or 3.6 MJ.
Ton of oil equivalent or “toe” is traditionally used as an energy unit but not in this report. One ton of oil has an energy content of 11.6 MWh, i.e. one kilo of oil (about a liter) has an energy content of ap-proximately 12 kWh.
Calories (symbol: cal) is also used as a unit of energy, mainly for food. One calorie is defined as the energy required to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius which is 4.184 J. As this is a very small amount of energy the “kcal”, sometimes denoted “Cal” is more commonly used.
As all energy exchanges are scaled up from atomic scales it can be useful to use even smaller units of energy. On the subatomic scale the energy of particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons can be used. The unit used is electronvolt (symbol eV) which is defined as 1.6 x 10-19 J. This unit is used once in this report to compare different fuels and their energy properties.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 37
3.13 VOLUME UNITS
For gases all volumes are stated in standard atmospheric condi-tions. Standard atmospheric pressure (symbol: atm). In reality gas-es are compressed before shipped in pipelines to reduce the flow and increase the pipe capacity.
This report always states gas volumes in standard atmospheric conditions. Volumes are in cubic meters (m³).
3.14 GREENHOUSE GASES
The term greenhouse gases in this report is used to denote the sum of CO2, N2O in CO2 equivalent, CH4 in CO2 equivalent, HFC in CO2 equivalent, PFC in CO2 equivalent, SF6 in CO2 equivalent and NF3 in CO2 equivalent emissions.
ENERGY SOURCE DESIGNATIONS
For most of the energy related figures a energy balances database from Eurostat (Eurostat, 2019) has been used. An energy balance describes what fuels are used their transformation and use. In a closed energy system no energy can be created or lost according to the first law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermody-namics states that energy always moves from high density (low en-tropy) to low density (high entropy). In strict thermodynamic terms energy is never lost although sufficient low density, high entropy, low temperature energy cannot perform any more mechanical work. Energy is thus labeled “lost”, not in a thermodynamic sense but in practical and economic terms.
Eurostat energy balance uses sixty-nine different categories for different fuels and energy sources. Fuels are divided into five main categories (Table 2).
Eurostat has denoted a lists products of the simplified energy bal-ance as presented in Eurostat’s database (Table 3).
For this report, it was desirable for the energy categories tobe slightly different, and thus to combine a few categories and add three more (Table 4).
Eurobase code Eurobase dissemination label: EN
TOTAL TOTAL
C0000X0350-0370 Solid fossil fuels
C0350-0370 Manufactured gases
P1000 Peat and peat products
S2000 Oil shale and oil sands
O4000XBIOOil and petroleum products (exclu-ding biofuel portion)
G3000 Natural gas
RA000 Renewables and biofuels
W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste
N900H Nuclear heat
H8000 Heat
E7000 Electricity
Report Eurobase code
Eurobase dissemina-tion label: EN
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
Coal
C0000X0350-0370+P1000+S2000
Solid fossil fuels Peat and peat products Oil shale and oil sands
GasC0350-0370+G3000
Manufactured gasesNatural gas
Oil O4000XBIOOil and petroleum pro-ducts (excluding biofuel portion)
Bio
RA000-RA100-RA300-RA410-RA420
Renewables and biofuels Hydro powerWind powerSolar thermalSolar voltaic
Hydro RA100 Hydro power
Wind RA300 Wind power
SolarRA420+RA410
Solar photovoltaicSolar thermal
Waste W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste
Nuclear N900H Nuclear heat
Heat H8000 Heat
Electricity E7000 Electricity
Energy type Statistical energy amount
Chemical fuels The calorific energy content when burned with oxygen.
Nuclear fuelsThe heat content extracted when used in a nuclear reactor.
Natural sources such as hydro, wind and solar
The electrical energy generated from these sources.
ElectricityElectrical energy. Electrical energy is electric potential (volt) multiplied by electrical flow (ampere).
Heat
The heat content in a medium (usually water) compared to temperature of outside air, lake, river or sea.
Table 2 Energy source type.
Table 3 Eurostat simplified energy balance sources.Table 4 Translation table between this report categories and
Eurostat categories.
38 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
The categories for hydro, wind and solar are sub-categories to the Eurostat category renewables and biofuels. As wind and solar are growing in importance this report has chosen to give them separate categories and label the remainder as bio as most of the remainder is biofuels but also include tide, wave and ocean and geothermal energy.
The Sankey graph used in this report is a subset of all energy flows. Excluded from this report are conversions in oil refineries, coal ovens, gas works, export of fuels, etc.
For a full detailed, interactive analysis of the energy flows used in this report please use the Eurostat Sankey tool. It also allows for time series analysis back to 1990. The tool has sixty-nine energy categories, 134 sections covering 27 years for 39 countries, that is almost ten million datapoints available.
For final energy supply Eurostat uses the term “other” for both buildings and agriculture. As most energy is used in buildings, this report utilizes the designation buildings instead of “other”.
This report only provides a few snapshots to allow the reader to understand the basic structure of each of the studied countries energy systems to put the Baltic Pipe Project in proper context.
CARBON DIOXIDE
Per atom both hy drogen and carbon generate about the same amount of heat. Coal has the lowest hydrogen content and gen-erates almost only carbon dioxide during combustion. Oil used in transport is usually either petrol or diesel. Petrol has approximate-ly eight coal atoms paired with eighteen hydrogen atoms (C8H18) and twelve coal atoms paired with twenty six hydrogen atoms for diesel (C12H26).
Natural gas consists mainly of Methane (CH4) and has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio of all fossil fuels and thus releases the least amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced.
COUNTRY FOCUS
This section provides an overview of the energy systems for the EU, Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Slovak Republic and Ukraine. For final energy supply Eurostat uses the term “other” for both buildings and agriculture. As most energy is used in buildings, this report utilizes the designation buildings instead of “other”. A description of the data presented in this section is available in appendix G.
3.15 EU ENERGY BALANCE
The countries in the European Union have chosen to primarily use a mix of chemical fuels with some nuclear fuels and natural sources such as wind, solar and hydro.
Energy is often divided into two categories; primary energy and final energy. Primary energy are chemical and nuclear fuels, elec-tricity from wind, solar, hydro or imports. Final energy is energy that has been transformed to suit final energy users in industry, transport, buildings and other users. Transformation can be done from fuels to electricity, from fuels to district heating, from crude oil to gasoline and diesel for cars, etc.
Oil is the most important fuel in the EU and is used for transporta-tion and some for heating and non-energy use such as petrochemi-cal use. Use of gas and coal is discussed below.
Report Eurobase code
Eurobase dissemina-tion label: EN
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
Coal
C0000X0350-0370+P1000+S2000
Solid fossil fuels Peat and peat products Oil shale and oil sands
GasC0350-0370+G3000
Manufactured gasesNatural gas
Oil O4000XBIOOil and petroleum pro-ducts (excluding biofuel portion)
Bio
RA000-RA100-RA300-RA410-RA420
Renewables and biofuels Hydro powerWind powerSolar thermalSolar voltaic
Hydro RA100 Hydro power
Wind RA300 Wind power
SolarRA420+RA410
Solar photovoltaicSolar thermal
Waste W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste
Nuclear N900H Nuclear heat
Heat H8000 Heat
Electricity E7000 Electricity
Figure 48 Energy flow EU (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bio
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationint_marine
heat
oil
other
wind
nuclear
solarhydroimport
Energy flow EU282017
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 39
EU uses about 19 479 TWh of primary energy. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fuels and some nuclear fuels (Figure 49).
3 .15 .1 ENERGY USE
Heat production for district heating (Figure 51) is mainly per-formed using a mix of gas, biofuels and coal. Electricity is produced using nuclear and fossil fuels (Figure 52). This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 53). Natural gas use (Figure 54) is split between use in build-ings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refiner-ies) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.
3 .15 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
Final energy use in the EU shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and and electricity (Figure 55).
District heat production EU28 Sum 670 TWh, year 2017
Nuclear 1 TWh (0 %)
Oil 27 TWh (4 %)
Waste 36 TWh (5 %)
Coal 165 TWh (25 %)
Bio 177 TWh (26 %)
Gas 263 TWh (39 %)
Electricity production EU28 Sum 3 294 TWh, year 2017
Waste 25 TWh (1 %)Oil 61 TWh (2 %)
Solar 119 TWh (4 %)
Hydro 331 TWh (10 %)
Wind 362 TWh (11 %)
Coal 677 TWh (21 %)
Nuclear 830 TWh (25 %)
Gas 696 TWh (21 %)
Bio 192 TWh (6 %)
Primary energy EU28 Sum 19 479 TWh, year 2017
Solar 167 TWh (1 %)Waste 170 TWh (1 %)
Hydro 301 TWh (2 %)Wind 362 TWh (2 %)
Bio 1 885 TWh (10 %)
Nuclear 2 451 TWh (13 %)
Coal 2 730 TWh (14 %)
Oil 6 769 TWh (35 %)
Gas 4 633 TWh (24 %)
Electricity 2 798 TWh (23 %)
Final energy EU28 Sum 12 328 TWh, year 2017
Solar 26 TWh (0 %)Waste 45 TWh (0 %)
Coal 303 TWh (2 %)Heat 564 TWh (5 %)
Bio 1 164 TWh (9 %)
Gas 2 844 TWh (23 %)
Oil 4 584 TWh (37 %)
Figure 49 Primary energy EU in 2017
Figure 50 Final energy EU in 2017.
Figure 51 Heat production in EU.
Figure 52 Electricity production in EU.
40 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Electricity and heat 1 885.0 TWh (85 %)
EU28 coal use Sum 2 216 TWh, year 2017
None energy 19.9 TWh (1 %)Energy sector 7.9 TWh (0 %) Buildings 133.0 TWh (6 %)
Industry 70.0 TWh (8 %)
Transport 0.1 TWh (0 %)
EU28 gas use Sum 4 806 TWh, year 2017
Electricity and heat1 533.2 TWh (32 %)
Transport 39.3 TWh (1 %)
Industry 1 021.7 TWh (21 %)
Buildings 1 782.8 TWh (37 %)
None energy 175.9 TWh (4 %)Energy sector 252.8 TWh (5 %)
Int . shipping 0.3 TWh (0 %)
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy EU28Year 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
4 584 (37%)
2 844 (23%)
2 798 (23%)
312 (10%)
1 022 (34%)
1 035 (34%)
3 524 (93%)
747 (14%)
1 783 (32%)
1 698 (31%)
723 (13%)
Figure 53 Coal use in EU. Figure 55 EU energy use summary.
Figure 54 Gas use in EU.
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 41
3.16 BALTIC COUNTRIES ENERGY BALANCE
This report has chosen to combine the energy systems of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They are quite different but small even when combined. The energy use is similar to many other EU countries. Estonia uses oil shale for electricity production which is denoted as coal below. Lithuania has a high share of electricity imports. Baltic countries have a relative high percentage of biofuel use. Oil is mainly used for transportation. Gas is used for district heating and directly in buildings (Figure 56)
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania only use 200 TWh of primary energy combined which is six times smaller than neighbouring Poland. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fuels (Figure 57). Final energy use is dominated energy for buildings, gas, electricity and biofuels and oil for transportation (Figure 58).
3 .16 .1 ENERGY USE
Heat production for district heating is done through the use of biofuels and gas (Figure 59). Electricity is produced using shale oil (similar to coal as a fuel), hydro, gas, bio and wind (Figure 60). Shale oil is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (Figure 61). Gas is predominantly used for electricity generation and non-ener-gy use such as petrochemical industry with some use in buildings and other industries (Figure 62).
3 .16 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use sim-ilar energy mix with similar shares of gas, biofuels, heat and elec-tricity (Figure 63).
Figure 57 Primary energy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Figure 58 Final energy use in Estonia Latvia and Lithuania.
Figure 56 Energy flow Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bio
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationint_marine
heat
oil
otherwindsolarhydroimport
Energy flow Baltics2017
Waste 2 TWh (1 %)Wind 2 TWh (1 %)
Hydro 5 TWh (2 %)Electricity 6 TWh (3 %)
Gas 39 TWh (19 %)
Bio 46 TWh (22 %)
Oil 54 TWh (26 %)
Coal 52 TWh (25 %)
Primary energy Baltics Sum 206 TWh, year 2017
Coal 3 TWh (2 %)
Gas 13 TWh (10 %)
Heat 23TWh (17 %)
Electricity 24 TWh (17 %)
Oil 51 TWh (37 %)
Bio 24 TWh (18 %)
Final energy Baltics Sum 139 TWh, year 2017
42 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 61 Coal use in Baltics.
Figure 62 Gas use in Baltics.Figure 59 Heat production in Baltics.
Figure 63 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania energy use summary.
Gas 9 TWh (41 %)
Bio 14 TWh (59 %)
District heat production Baltics Sum 25 TWh, year 2017
Coal 10 TWh (42 %)
Hydro 6 TWh (24 %)
Gas 3 TWh (15 %)
Bio 2 TWh (10 %)
Wind 2 TWh (9 %)
Electricity production Baltics Sum 24 TWh, year 2017
None energy 0.6 TWh (2 %)
Buildings 1.4 TWh (4 %)
Industry 1.7 TWh (5 %)
Electricity and heat 29.6 TWh (89 %)
Baltics coal use Sum 33 TWh, year 2017
Baltics gas use Sum 40 TWh, year 2017
None energy 11.6 TWh (29 %)
Buildings 7.0 TWh (17 %)
Industry 5.8 TWh (14 %)
Transport 0.4 TWh (1 %)
Electricity and heat 15.0 TWh (37 %)
Energy sector 0.4 TWh (1 %)
Figure 60 Electricity production in Baltics.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy BalticsYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
51 (36%)
24 (18%)
23 (17%)
24 (17%)
6 (21%)
5 (20%)
4 (15%)
8 (28%)
43 (97%)
7 (10%)
18 (27%)
19 (29%)
16 (24%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 43
3.17 CZECH REPUBLIC ENERGY BALANCE
The Czech Republic has chosen to primarily use a mix of chemical fuels with some nuclear fuel. The Czech Republic uses mostly coal with some nuclear for electricity production. In 2017 it exported about 13 TWh of electricity to neighbouring countries (Figure 64).
The Czech Republic uses about 518 TWh of primary energy, similar to Sweden. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fu-els and some nuclear fuels (Figure 65). The energy use is about half from fossil energy, oil and gas and the other half from electricity, bio, heat and coal (Figure 66).
3 .17 .1 ENERGY USE
The heat production for district heating is mainly performed using a mix of gas, biofuels and coal (Figure 67). Electricity is produced using nuclear and fossil fuels (Figure 68). This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, but some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 69). The use of natural gas is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry (Figure 70).
3 .17 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
Final energy use in the Czech Republic shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 71).
Figure 65 Primary energy Czech Republic in 2017. Figure 66 Final energy use Czech Republic in 2017.
Figure 64 Energy flow Czech Republic (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bioelectricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationexport
int_marine
heat
oil
other
nuclear
windsolarhydro
Energy flow Czech Republic2017
Primary energy Czech Republic Sum 518 TWh, year 2017
Coal 184 TWh (36 %)
Oil 112 TWh (22 %)
Gas 84 TWh (16 %)
Nuclear 82 TWh (16 %)
Bio 48 TWh (9 %)
Waste 4 TWh (1 %)
Solar 2 TWh (0 %)Hydro 2 TWh (0 %)
Final energy Czech Republic Sum 284 TWh, year 2017
Oil 77 TWh (27 %)
Gas 68 TWh (24 %)Electricity 57 TWh (20 %)
Bio 34 TWh (12 %)
Heat 25 TWh (9 %)
Coal 20 TWh (7 %)
Waste 3 TWh (1%)
44 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 69 Coal use in Czech Republic.
Figure 70 Gas use in Czech Republic.Figure 67 Heat production in Czech Republic.
Figure 71 Czech Republic energy use summary.
District heat production Czech Republic Sum 34 TWh, year 2017
Coal 19 TWh (58 %)
Gas 11 TWh (34 %)
Bio 2 TWh (8 %)
Elecricity production Czech Republic Sum 87 TWh, year 2017
Solar 2 TWh (3 %)
Hydro 3 TWh (4 %)Bio 5 TWh (6 %)
Gas 6 TWh (7 %)
Nuclear 28 TWh (33 %)
Coal 41 TWh (48 %)
Czech Republic coal useSum 154 TWh, year 2017
Industry 10.1 TWh (7 %)
Energy sector 3.3 TWh (2 %)
Electricity and heat 126.5 TWh (82 %)
Buildings 10.2 TWh (7 %)
None energy 4.0 TWh (3 %)
Czech Republic gas use Sum 98 TWh, year 2017
None energy 1.2 TWh (1 %)
Buildings 38.6 TWh (40 %)
Industry 28.1 TWh (29 %)
Transport 0.8 TWh (1 %)
Electricity and heat 23.8 TWh (24 %)
Energy sector 5.1 TWh (5 %)
Figure 68 Electricity production Czech Republic.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy Czech RepublicYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
77 (27%)
68 (24%)
34 (12%)
57 (20%)
10 (13%)
28 (36%)
24 (31%)
71 (92%)
39 (30%)
25 (19%)
18 (14%)
32 (25%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 45
3.18 POLAND ENERGY BALANCE
Poland has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, mainly coal, oil and gas. Most coal and some gas is converted into electricity. Oil is mainly used for transportation and gas is used in several different end use (Figure 72).
Poland uses about 1,222 TWh of primary energy (Figure 73), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 74).
3 .18 .1 ENERGY USE
Both district heating heat (Figure 75) and electricity is produced using mainly coal (Figure 76). As previously illustrated, Poland receives most of its primary energy from coal. This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heat-ing (Figure 77). Natural gas use (Figure 78) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (re-fineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.
3 .18 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Poland shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 79).
Figure 73 Primary energy in Poland. Figure 74 Final energy use in Poland.
coal
bio
gas
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationint_marine
heat
oil
otherwindsolar
importhydro
Energy flow Poland2017
Primary energy Poland Sum 1 222 TWh, year 2017
Coal 578 TWh (47 %)
Oil 349 TWh (29 %)
Gas 180 TWh (15 %)
Bio 85 TWh (7 %)Wind 15 TWh (1 %)
Waste 10 TWh (1 %)Hydro 3 TWh (0 %)
Electricity 2 TWh (0 %)
Final energy Poland Sum 804 TWh, year 2017
Oil 281 TWh (35 %)
Electricity 136 TWh (17 %)Coal 131 TWh (16 %)
Gas 113 TWh (14 %)
Heat 68 TWh (8 %)
Bio 67 TWh (8 %)
Waste 8 TWh (1 %)
Figure 72 Energy flow Poland (source: Eurostat).
46 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 77 Coal use in Poland.
Figure 78 Gas use in Poland.Figure 75 Heat production in Poland.
Figure 79 Poland energy use summary.
District heat production Poland Sum 83 TWh, year 2017
Coal 67 TWh (81 %)
Gas 11 TWh (13 %)
Bio 4 TWh (4 %)
Oil 1 TWh (1 %)
Electricity production Poland Sum 170 TWh, year 2017
Coal 131 TWh (77 %)
Wind 15 TWh (9 %)
Gas 12 TWh (7 %)
Bio 6 TWh (4 %)
Hydro 3 TWh (2 %)
Oil 2 TWh (1 %)
Poland coal use Sum 535 TWh, year 2017
Energy sector 1.1 TWh (0 %)
Electricity and heat 402.0 TWh (75 %)
Industry 35.9 TWh (7 %)
Buildings 95.3 TWh (18 %)
None energy 0.8 TWh (0 %)
Poland gas use Sum 200 TWh, year 2017
None energy 25.3 TWh (13 %)
Buildings 59.5 TWh (30 %)
Industry 48.7 TWh (24 %)
Transport 4.4 TWh (2 %)
Electricity and heat33.9 TWh (17 %)
Energy sector 27.8 TWh (14 %)
Figure 76 Electricity production in Poland.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy PolandYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
131 (16%)
281 (35%)
113 (14%)
136 (17%)
36 (19%)
49 (26%)
20 (11%)
55 (30%)
234 (94%)
95 (26%)
38 (10%)
60 (16%)
40 (11%)
95 (16%)
78 (21%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 47
3.19 GERMANY ENERGY BALANCE
Germany has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, nuclear and natural sources. All nuclear, most coal and some gas are converted into electricity. Oil is mainly used for transportation and gas is used in several different end use (Figure 80).
Germany uses 3,799 TWh of primary energy (Figure 81), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 82).
3 .19 .1 ENERGY USE
District heating heat is produced using gas for around half, coal for quarter and the remaining quarter a combination of bio, waste (Figure 83). Electricity in Germany is produced using mainly coal fol-lowed by wind, gas and nuclear (Figure 84). Germany receives most of its primary energy from oil used mainly in transportation. Coal is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 85). Natural gas use (Figure 86) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation.
3 .19 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
Final energy use in the Germany shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 87). One fifth of the energy used in build-ings comes from oil, mainly used in private houses.
Figure 81 Primary energy in Germany. Figure 82 Final energy use in Germany.
Figure 80 Energy flow Germany (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bio
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
exportint_aviationint_marine
heat
oil
other
nuclear
windsolarhydro
Energy flow Germany2017
Primary energy Germany Sum 3 799 TWh, year 2017
Oil 1 316.2 TWh (35 %)
Gas 876.2 TWh (23 %)
Coal 829.3 TWh (22 %)
Bio 323.6 TWh (9 %)
Nuclear 228.6 TWh (6 %)
Wind 105.7 TWh (3 %)
Waste 52.5 TWh (1 %)
Solar 47.3 TWh (1 %)Hydro 20.2 TWh (1 %)
Final energy Germany Sum 2 380 TWh, year 2017
Solar 7.9 TWh (0 %)Waste 13.1 TWh (1 %)
Coal 52.9 TWh (2 %)Heat 114.1 TWh (5 %)
Bio 176.7 TWh (7 %)
Electricity 519.0 TWh (22 %)
Gas 639.3 TWh (27 %)
Oil 856.7 TWh (36 %)
48 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 85 Coal use in Germany.
Figure 86 Gas use in Germany.Figure 83 Heat production in Germany.
Figure 87 Germany energy use summary.
District heat production Germany Sum 128 TWh, year 2017
Gas 61.1 TWh (48 %)
Coal 36.4 TWh (28 %)
Bio 18.8 TWh (15 %)
Waste 10.9 TWh (8 %)
Oil 1.3 TWh (1 %)
Electricity production Germany Sum 652 TWh, year 2017
Oil 5.6 TWh (1 %)Waste 7.3 TWh (1 %)
Hydro 26.2 TWh (4 %)Solar 39.4 TWh (6 %)
Bio 51.1 TWh (8 %)
Nuclear 76.3 TWh (12 %)
Gas 98.6 TWh (15 %)
Wind 105.7 TWh (16 %)
Coal 241.9 TWh (37 %)
Germany coal use Sum 683 TWh, year 2017
Industry 46.9 TWh (7 %)Buildings 6.0 TWh (1 %)
None energy 4.6 TWh (1 %)
Energy sector 2.2 TWh (0 %)
Electricity and heat 623.7 TWh (91 %)
Germany gas use Sum 935 TWh, year 2017
None energy 30.0 TWh (3 %)
Buildings 371.6 TWh (40 %)
Industry 262.3 TWh (28 %)
Transport 5.3 TWh (1 %)
Electricity and heat242.1 TWh (26 %)
Energy sector 23.5 TWh (3 %)
Figure 84 Electricity production inGermany.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy GermanyYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
857 (36%)
639 (27%)
519 (22%)
262 (40%)
228 (35%)
618 (93%)
214 (20%)
372 (35%)
114 (11%)
279 (26%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 49
3.20 SWEDEN ENERGY BALANCE
Sweden has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, mainly oil and biomass, nuclear fuel and natural sources, mainly hydro and wind. Hydro is available through rivers. Sweden converts nuclear fuels into electricity, other sources of electrical energy are hydro, wind and biofuels.
Sweden uses about 606 TWh of primary energy (Figure 89) of which some is converted to electricity, some of the oil is used in in-ternational aviation and shipping, not included in the final energy use in Figure 90.
3 .20 .1 ENERGY USE
Heat production for district heating is mainly done using biofuels (Figure 91). Electricity is produced using about 40 percent nuclear and hydro respectively and the remaining 20 percent is split about equal between biofuels and wind (Figure 92). Sweden uses rela-tively little coal and is mainly used in industry in blast furnaces for iron production (Figure 93). Sweden uses relatively little gas and is used in industry, in district heating and for non-energy use such as in petrochemical processes (Figure 94). Coal use for blast furnaces is not shown in Eurostat energy balances.
3 .20 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Sweden shows that transportation is most reliant on oil. Industry uses a mix of oil, biofuel and electricity. Buildings in Sweden use either electricity, biofuels or district heat-ing. (Figure 95).
Figure 89 Primary energy in Sweden. Figure 90 Final energy use in Sweden.
Figure 88 Energy flow Sweden (source: Eurostat).
coalgas
bio
oil
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationexport
int_marine
heat
other
nuclear
windsolar
hydro
Energy flow Sweden2017
Waste 10 TWh (2 %)Gas 11 TWh (2 %)
Wind 18 TWh (3 %)Coal 24 TWh (4 %)
Hydro 65 TWh (11 %)
Oil 128 TWh (21 %)
Bio 160 TWh (26 %)
Nuclear 190 TWh (31 %)
Primary energy Sweden Sum 606 TWh, year 2017
Electricity 127 TWh (34 %)
Bio 96 TWh (25 %)
Oil 90 TWh (24 %)
Heat 51 TWh (14 %)
Gas 8 TWh (2 %)Coal 4 TWh (1 %)
Final energy Sweden Sum 376 TWh, year 2017
50 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 93 Coal use in Sweden.
Figure 94 Gas use in Sweden.Figure 91 Heat production in Sweden.
Figure 95 Sweden energy use summary.
District heat production Sweden Sum 51 TWh, year 2017
Bio 40 TWh (79 %)
Waste 6 TWh (13 %)
Gas 2 TWh (5 %)
Coal 2 TWh (4 %)
Nuclear 66 TWh (40 %)
Hydro 65 TWh (40 %)
Wind 18 TWh (11 %)
Bio 12 TWh (7 %)
Waste 2 TWh (1 %)
Electricity production Sweden Sum 164 TWh, year 2017
Electricity and heat 3.3 TWh (42 %)
None energy 0.2 TWh (3 %)
Industry 4.4 TWh (56 %)
Sweden coal use Sum 8 TWh, year 2017
None energy 3.3 TWh (20 %)
Buildings 1.4 TWh (8 %)
Industry 6.4 TWh (38 %)
Transport 0.2 TWh (1 %)
Electricity and heat 4.0 TWh (24 %)
Energy sector 1.4 TWh (8 %)
Int . shipping 0.2 TWh (0 %)
Sweden gas use Sum 17 TWh, year 2017
Figure 92 Electricity production in Sweden.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy SwedenYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
90 (24%)
96 (25%)
51 (14%)
127 (34%)
48 (38%)
51 (40%)
19 (20%)
76 (78%) 45 (29%)
74 (48%)
28 (18%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 51
3.21 DENMARK ENERGY BALANCE
Denmark has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and some wind. Denmark converts a mix of coal, gas and wind to electricity. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of electricity, gas, oil and biomass for heating (Figure 96).
Denmark uses about 212 TWh of primary energy (Figure 97) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 98).
3 .21 .1 ENERGY USE
Heat production for district heating is mainly done using biofuels (Figure 99). Electricity is produced using half wind, one fifth from biofuel and coal and gas for the remainder (Figure 100). Denmark is a net-importer of electricity (Figure 96). Denmark uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 101). Denmark uses gas mainly in buildings, industry, and electricity and district heat (Figure 102).
3 .21 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Denmark shows that transportation is most reliant on oil. Industry uses a mix of oil, gas, biofuel and elec-tricity. Buildings in Denmark use either electricity, biofuels or dis-trict heating supplemented by some oil and gas (Figure 103).
Figure 97 Primary energy in Denmark. Figure 98 Final energy use in Denmark.
Figure 96 Energy flow Denmark (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bio
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviation
int_marine
heat
oil
other
windsolarhydroimport
Energy flow Denmark2017
Primary energy Denmark Sum 212 TWh, year 2017
Solar 1.4 TWh (1 %)Electricity 4.6 TWh (2 %)
Waste 5.0 TWh (2 %)Wind 14.8 TWh (7 %)
Coal 18.0 TWh (9 %)
Gas 32.0 TWh (15 %)
Oil 82.7 TWh (39 %)
Bio 53.4 TWh (25 %)
Final energy Denmark Sum 161 TWh, year 2017
Gas 17.7 TWh (11 %)
Heat 29.8 TWh (19 %)
Bio 21.3 TWh (13 %)
Coal 1.4 TWh (1 %)
Oil 59.3 TWh (37 %)
Electricity 31.3 TWh (19 %)
52 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 101 Coal use in Denmark.
Figure 102 Gas use in Denmark.Figure 99 Heat production in Denmark.
Figure 103 Denmark energy use summary.
District heat production Denmark Sum 37 TWh, year 2017
Waste 3.5 TWh (10 %)
Gas 5.7 TWh (16 %)
Bio 21.1 TWh (59 %)
Coal 5.3 TWh (15 %)
Electricity production Denmark Sum 31 TWh, year 2017
Gas 1.9 TWh (7 %)
Bio 6.4 TWh (22 %)
Coal 6.2 TWh (21 %)
Wind 14.8 TWh (51 %)
Denmark coal use Sum 18 TWh, year 2017
Buildings 0.1 TWh (1 %)
Electricity and heat 16.9 TWh (92 %)
Industry 1.3 TWh (7 %)
Denmark gas use Sum 33 TWh, year 2017
Energy sector 6.3 TWh (19 %)
Transport 0.1 TWh (0 %)
Buildings 9.5 TWh (29 %)
Industry 8.1 TWh (25 %)
Electricity and heat8.7 TWh (27 %)
Figure 100 Electricity production in Denmark.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy DenmarkYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
59 (37%)
21 (13%)
18 (11%)
30 (19%)
31 (19%)
5 (19%)
8 (30%)
3 (11%)
9 (31%)
46 (94%)
10 (11%)
16 (18%)
29 (34%)
22 (26%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 53
3.22 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ENERGY BALANCE
The Slovak Republic has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and some nuclear and hydro. Slovak Republic converts a mix of main-ly nuclear, hydro, coal and gas to electricity. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of electricity, district heat and elec-tricity (Figure 104).
Slovak Republic uses 201 TWh of primary energy (Figure 105) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 106).
3 .22 .1 ENERGY USE
Heat production for district heating is mainly done using gas fol-lowed by coal, bio and oil (Figure 107). Electricity production in Slovak Republic is done for more than half by using nuclear fuels, splitting the remain between hydro, coal, gas and bio (Figure 108). Slovak Republic is a net-importer of electricity (Figure 104). Slovak Republic uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 109). Slovak Republic gas is mainly used in buildings, industry and for electricity and district heating (Figure 110).
3 .22 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Slovak Republic shows that transporta-tion is most reliant on oil. Industry mainly uses a mix of gas, electric-ity and some biofuel. Buildings in Slovak Republic use either gas, electricity or district heating (Figure 111).
Figure 105 Primary energy in Slovak Republic. Figure 106 Final energy use in Slovak Republic.
Figure 104 Energy flow Slovak Republic (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bio
electricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationint_marine
heat
oil
other
nuclear
windsolarhydroimport
Energy flow Slovak Republic2017
Primary energy Slovak Republic Sum 201 TWh, year 2017
Waste 2.4TWh (1 %)Electricity 3.0 TWh (2 %)
Hydro 4.3 TWh (2 %)Bio 13.6 TWh (7 %)
Coal 39.3 TWh (20 %)
Oil 42.9 TWh (21 %)
Nuclear 46.3 TWh (23 %)
Gas 48.1 TWh (24 %)
Final energy Slovak Republic Sum 115 TWh, year 2017
Waste 2.2 TWh (2 %)
Coal 4.7 TWh (4 %)
Bio 6.9 TWh (6 %)
Heat 7.8 TWh (7 %)
Electricity 25.8 TWh (22 %)
Gas 37.0 TWh (32 %)
Oil 30.7 TWh (27 %)
54 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 109 Coal use in Slovak Republic.
Figure 110 Gas use in Slovak Republic.Figure 107 Heat production in Slovak Republic.
Figure 111 Slovak Republic energy use summary.
District production Slovak Republic Sum 10 TWh, year 2017
Gas 4.4 TWh (44 %)
Coal 2.4 TWh (4 %)
Bio 1.8 TWh (18 %)
Oil 1.4 TWh (14 %)
Electricity production Slovak Republic Sum 28 TWh, year 2017
Bio 1.7 TWh (6 %)
Gas 2.2 TWh (8 %)
Coal 3.0 TWh (11 %)
Hydro 4.6 TWh (17 %)
Nuclear 15.1 TWh (57 %)
Slovak Republic coal use Sum 16 TWh, year 2017
Industry 3.5 TWh (22 %)
Electricity and heat 10.8 TWh (67 %)
Buildings 1.2 TWh (7 %)None energy 0.6 TWh (4 %)
Slovak Republic gas use Sum 56 TWh, year 2017
None energy 4.5 TWh (8 %)
Buildings 20.3 TWh (37 %)
Industry 15.0 TWh (27 %)
Transport 1.8 TWh (3 %)
Electricity and heat 8.5 TWh (15 %)
Energy sector 5.5 TWh (10 %)
Figure 108 Electricity production in Slovak Republic.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy Slovak RepublicYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
31 (27%)
37 (32%)
26 (22%)
15 (37%)
4 (10%)
12 (31%)
28 (87%)
6 (15%)
13 (30%)
20 (47%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 55
3.23 UKRAINE ENERGY BALANCE
The Slovak Republic has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and nuclear. Ukraine converts a mix of mainly nuclear and coal and. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of gas, electricity and district heat (Figure 112).
Ukraine uses 1 043 TWh of primary energy (Figure 113) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 114).
3 .23 .1 ENERGY USE
Almost all energy used for district heating is from gas with some coal and biofuel (Figure 115). Electricity production in Ukraine is done for more than half by using nuclear fuels followed by one third coal and the remainder hydro and gas (Figure 116). Ukraine uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 117). Ukraine gas is mainly used in buildings, industry and for electricity and district heating (Figure 118).
3 .23 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE
The final energy use in the Ukraine shows that transportation is most reliant on oil but almost one fifth coming from gas. Industry almost equal amounts electricity, gas, district heating and coal. Buildings in Ukraine use mainly gas followed by electricity or dis-trict heating (Figure 119).
Figure 113 Primary energy in Ukraine. Figure 114 Final energy use in Ukraine.
Figure 112 Energy flow Ukraine (source: Eurostat).
coal
gas
bioelectricity
energysector
nonenergy
industry
transport
building
int_aviationexport
int_marine
heat
oil
other
wind
nuclear
solarhydro
Energy flow Ukraine2017
Primary energy UkraineSum 1 043 TWh, year 2017
Coal 298.8 TWh (29 %)
Gas 285.6 TWh (27 %)
Nuclear 262.0 TWh (25 %)
Oil 150.0 TWh (14 %)
Bio 34.8 TWh (3 %)
Hydro 8.9 TWh (1 %)
Final energy UkraineSum 551 TWh, year 2017
Gas 181.0 TWh (33 %)
Electricity 117.4 TWh (21 %)
Oil 105.0 TWh (19 %)
Heat 91.2 TWh (17 %)
Coal 34.2 TWh (6 %)
Bio 21.3 TWh (4 %)
56 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
Figure 117 Coal use in Ukraine.
Figure 118 Gas use in Ukraine.Figure 115 Heat production in Ukraine.
Figure 119 Ukraine.energy use summary.
District heat production UkraineSum 106 TWh, year 2017
Gas 82.6 TWh (78 %)
Coal 10.3 TWh (10 %)
Bio 7.5 TWh (7 %)
Oil 3.6 TWh (3 %)Nuclear 1.8 TWh (2 %)
Electricity production UkraineSum 156 TWh, year 2017
Nuclear 85.6 TWh (56 %)Coal 47.8 TWh (31 %)
Hydro 10.5 TWh (7 %)
Gas 8.8 TWh (6 %)Oil 1.3 TWh (1 %)
Ukraine coal use Sum 197 TWh, year 2017
None energy 6.0 TWh (3 %)
Buildings 3.8 TWh (2 %)
Industry 30.4 TWh (15 %)
Transport 0.1 TWh (0 %)
Electricity and heat 156.2 TWh (79 %)
Energy sector 0.9 TWh (0 %)
Ukraine gas use Sum 319 TWh, year 2017
Energy sector 16.0 TWh (5 %)
Electricity and heat 108.2 TWh (34 %)
Transport 18.7 TWh (6 %)Industry 51.0 TWh (16 %)
Building 111.2 TWh (35 %)
None energy 13.7 TWh (14 %)
Figure 116 Electricity production in Ukraine.
All
TWh
Industry Transport Buildings
Final energy UkraineYear 2017
CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar
105 (19%)
181 (33%)
91 (17%)
117 (21%)
30 (17%)
51 (29%)
39 (22%)
50 (29%)
85 (76%)
19 (17%)
111 (42%)
52 (20%)
60 (23%)
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 57
3.24 INDUSTRY
Energy use in industry is different for different EU countries de-pending on the choice of fuels and the structure of the industry in each country (Figure 120). Danish and Polish industries are similar to the industries in EU as a whole with a mix of fossil fuels and elec-tricity for energy use.
3.25 TRANSPORTATION
The final energy use in transportation is dominated by oil in most counties in EU as well as the countries studied. Sweden and Ukraine being somewhat of an exception with use of 20 percent bio fuel in Sweden and 17 percent gas in Ukraine. Ukraine also has a relative highPshare of electricity in transportation (Figure 121).
3.26 BUILDINGS
Final energy use in buildings differs between countries with most countries using 20-30 percent electricity, natural gas and biofuel supplemented by district heating. Three countries stand out, Ger-many, Poland and Sweden. Germany has a high share of oil at 20 percent. Poland has a high share of coal at 26 percent and relative share of oil at 10 percent. Sweden buildings receive almost half of its energy from electricity and the remaining half from district heating and biofuel making Sweden’s buildings almost fossil free. (Figure 122).
TW
h
Final energy industry
year 2017
10 (13%)10 (13%)36 (19%)36 (19%) 30 (17%)30 (17%)
312 (10%)312 (10%)5 (19%)5 (19%)
1 022 (34%)1 022 (34%)
6 (21%)6 (21%)
28 (36%)28 (36%)262 (40%)262 (40%)
8 (30%)8 (30%) 49 (26%)49 (26%)
15 (37%)15 (37%)51 (29%)51 (29%)
5 (20%)5 (20%)
3 (11%)3 (11%)20 (11%)20 (11%)
48 (38%)48 (38%)
4 (10%)4 (10%)
4 (15%)4 (15%)39 (22%)39 (22%)
1 035 (34%)1 035 (34%)8 (28%)8 (28%) 24 (31%)24 (31%)
228 (35%)228 (35%) 9 (31%)9 (31%) 55 (30%)55 (30%)
51 (40%)51 (40%)
12 (31%)12 (31%) 50 (29%)50 (29%)
coaloilgasbiosolarwasteheatelectricity
EU28 Baltics Czech Republic Germany Denmark Poland Sweden Slovak Republic Ukrainesource: Eurostat
TW
h
Final energy transport
year 2017
3 524 (93%)3 524 (93%) 43 (97%)43 (97%)71 (92%)71 (92%) 618 (93%)618 (93%) 46 (94%)46 (94%) 234 (94%)234 (94%)
76 (78%)76 (78%)28 (87%)28 (87%)
85 (76%)85 (76%)
19 (17%)19 (17%)19 (20%)19 (20%)
coaloilgasbiosolarwasteheatelectricity
EU28 Baltics Czech Republic Germany Denmark Poland Sweden Slovak Republic Ukrainesource: Eurostat
TW
h
Final energy buildings
year 2017
95 (26%)95 (26%)747 (14%)747 (14%) 214 (20%)214 (20%)
38 (10%)38 (10%)1 783 (32%)1 783 (32%)
7 (10%)7 (10%)
39 (30%)39 (30%)
372 (35%)372 (35%)
10 (11%)10 (11%)
60 (16%)60 (16%)
20 (47%)20 (47%) 111 (42%)111 (42%)
723 (13%)723 (13%)
18 (27%)18 (27%)
25 (19%)25 (19%)
114 (11%)114 (11%)
16 (18%)16 (18%)
40 (11%)40 (11%)
28 (18%)28 (18%)
19 (29%)19 (29%)
18 (14%)18 (14%)
29 (34%)29 (34%)
59 (16%)59 (16%)
45 (29%)45 (29%)
6 (15%)6 (15%)
52 (20%)52 (20%)
1 698 (31%)1 698 (31%)16 (24%)16 (24%) 32 (25%)32 (25%) 279 (26%)279 (26%) 22 (26%)22 (26%)
78 (21%)78 (21%)
74 (48%)74 (48%)
13 (30%)13 (30%)60 (23%)60 (23%)
coaloilgasbiosolarwasteheatelectricity
EU28 Baltics Czech Republic Germany Denmark Poland Sweden Slovak Republic Ukrainesource: Eurostat
Figure 120 Final energy use in industry.
Figure 121 Final energy use in transportation.
Figure 122 Final energy use in buildings.
58 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AFP. (n.d.). Eight EU countries to phase out coal by 2030. Retrieved from https://news.yahoo.com/eight-eu-countries-phase-coal-2030-162602006.html
Arrhenius, S. (1896). Über den Einfluss des atmosfärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche.
Barteczko, A. (2019, July 10). Poland may need $30 bln from foreign investors to build nuclear plant . Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-nuclear-idUSL8N-24B3HL
Björck, P.-O., & Grahn, M. (1999). A feasibilty study of Hydrogen distribution in present natural gas pipeline systems. Retrieved from http://fy.chalmers.se/~np97magr/reports/h2_1999.pdf
Carmichael, L. (2019, June 18). Only eight EU countries to phase out coal by 2030 . Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-eu-countries-phase-coal.html
Energimyndigheten. (2014, Oct 7). Luftvattenvärmepumpar. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/tester/test-er-a-o/luftvattenvarmepumpar/
Energy Information Agency (EIA). (n.d.). Table 8.2. Average Tested Heat Rates by Prime Mover and Energy Source, 2007 - 2017 . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html
ENTSO-E. (n.d.). Regional Groups. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://docstore.entsoe.eu/about-entso-e/system-operations/regional-groups/Pages/default.aspx
Equinor. (n.d.). Here’s how your CO2 emissions can be stored under the ocean . Retrieved July 13, 2019, from https://www.equinor.com/en/magazine/carbon-capture-and-storage.html
European Commission. (2018, November 28). 2050 long-term strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en
European Commission. (n.d.). 2030 climate & energy framework . Retrieved July 9, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en
European Commission. (n.d.). 2030 Energy Strategy . Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ener-gy-strategy-and-energy-union/2030-energy-strategy
European Commission. (n.d.). CO2 cross-border transport connections between emission sources in United Kingdom and Netherlands and a storage site in Norway. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/maps/pci_fiches/pci_12_4_en_2017.pdf
European Commission. (n.d.). Effort sharing 2021-2030: targets and flexibilities. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/regulation_en
European Commission. (n.d.). Energy security strategy . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ener-gy-strategy-and-energy-union/energy-security-strategy
European Commission. (n.d.). Energy union and climate. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en
European Commission. (n.d.). National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/ener-gy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/governance-en-ergy-union/national-energy-climate-plans
European Commission. (n.d.). National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Retrieved July 10, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/ener-gy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/governance-en-ergy-union/national-energy-climate-plans
European Commission. (n.d.). Projects of common interest – Interactive map. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/transparency_platform/map-viewer/main.html
European Environment Agency. (2009). Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from European Environment Agency: https://www.eea.europa.eu/pub-lications/europes-onshore-and-offshore-wind-energy-potential
European Environment Agency EEA. (2018). Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe. (22).
European Environment Agency EEG. (n.d.). Premature deaths at-tributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3 exposure in 41 European coun-tries and the EU-28, 2014 . Retrieved July 11, 2019, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/improving-air-quality-in-europe-an/premature-deaths-2014
European Environment Agency, EEG. (n.d.). PM2.5 annual mean in 2016. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/pm2-5-annual-mean-in-1
Eurostat. (2019, Jan 31). Energy balance guide. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/energy-balances
Eurostat. (2019, Jan 31). Energy balances 2019 edition. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/energy-bal-ances
Eurostat. (n.d.). Agri-environmental indicator - mineral fertiliser consumption. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_in-dicator_-_mineral_fertiliser_consumption
Frank Dohmen, A. J. (2019, May 13). German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future. Retrieved from Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html
globalcarbonatlas.org. (n.d.). Global Carbon Atlas. Retrieved from http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions
Hansen J, L. S. (1987). Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature. 62(11).
Hornsdale Power Reserve. (n.d.). Hornsdale Power Reserve. Re-trieved Aug 19, 2019, from https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . (2018, October 8). Global Warming of 1.5 °C . Retrieved from https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 59
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. (2018, Oct 8). Global Warming of 1.5 °C . Retrieved from https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/
International Energy Agency, IEA . (n.d.). The Future of Hydrogen . Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/hydrogen2019/
Lazard. (2018, Nov 8). Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018 . Retrieved from https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-stor-age-2018/
Matt Palmer, D. M. (n.d.). Earth's energy imbalance . Retrieved from https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/earths-ener-gy-imbalance/
Melaina, M., Antonia, O., & Penev, M. (2013). Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues.
Ministerstwo Energii. (2018, Dec 18). Draft "Energy Policy of Poland until 2040". Retrieved from https://www.gov.pl/web/ener-gia/draft-energy-policy-of-poland-until-2040
Nasa. (1984, 1986). The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). Retrieved from https://science.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/
Nasa. (2019). Venus. Retrieved from https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/overview/
Navas, C. (2017). Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Applications for Regions and Cities.
PGNiG TERMIKA SA. Elektrociepłownia Żerań website [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019] https://termika.pgnig.pl/elektrocie-plownia-zeran
Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency. Energy sector in Poland. [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019] https://www.paih.gov.pl/files/?id_plik=19609
Polish Power Networks. [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019]https://www.pse.pl/dane-systemowe
Shun-an Zheng, X. Z. (2012). Leaching Behavior of Heavy Metals and Transformation of Their Speciation in Polluted Soil Receiving Simulated Acid Rain. 7(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti-cles/PMC3504143/).
Swedish Energy Agency. (2017, June 19). Värmevärden och emis-sionsfaktorer. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/statistik/branslen/varmevarden-och-emissionsfaktorer1/
Swedish Energy Agency. (2017, June 19). Värmevärden och emis-sionsfaktorer. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/statistik/branslen/varmevarden-och-emissionsfaktorer1/
Swedish Institute (SI). (n.d.). Sweden in brief . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from sweden.se: https://sweden.se/society/swe-den-an-overview/
Svenska kraftnät. (2019, June 30). Kraftbalansen på den svenska elmarknaden vintrarna 2018/2019 och 2019/2020. Retrieved from https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2019/kraftbalansrapport2019.pdf
UNFCCC. (2016, April 22). Paris Agreement . Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
Vattenfall. (n.d.). Finansiella rapporter. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from Vattenfall: https://group.vattenfall.com/se/om-oss/vart-foretag/finansiellt/finansiella-rapporter
Vaughan, A. (2018, Jan 5). UK government spells out plan to shut down coal plant. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025
Vaughan, A. (2019, Jan 26). Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/germany-agrees-to-end-reliance-on-coal-stations-by-2038
Woolfork, B. (2009, Aug 10). Natural Gas: A Bridge Fuel for the 21st Century . Retrieved from Center for American Pro-gress: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/re-ports/2009/08/10/6513/natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-for-the-21st-century/
World Health Organization, WHO. (2018, 05 02). Ambient (out-door) air quality and health . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/
60 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Proposed route for Baltic Pipe project .............................. 6
Figure 2 Baltic Pipe Project timeline .................................................... 7
Figure 3 Poland greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents........................................................................ 10
Figure 4 Poland premature deaths due to PM2.5 emissions ..... 10
Figure 5 Poland PM2.5 emissions .......................................................... 10
Figure 6 Poland CO2 emissions in 2017 ............................................ 10
Figure 7 Poland energy used in buildings ........................................ 12
Figure 8 Poland gas and electricity prices for medium sized households ...................................................................... 12
Figure 9 Global hydrogen demand ..................................................... 15
Figure 10 Cross-border carbone dioxide network ...................... 15
Figure 11 Greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other sources in CO2 equivalents ............................................... 17
Figure 12 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. ............................... 17
Figure 13 Correlation between air concentration of PM2.5 and NO2 and premature deaths with Poland marked. ................ 17
Figure 14 Premature death attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3 (source EEA). ................................................................................. 18
Figure 15 PM2.5 annual mean in 2016................................................ 18
Figure 16 Emissions of PM2.5 in Poland ..............................................19
Figure 17 Emissions of PM10 in Poland ...............................................19
Figure 18 Emissions of NOX in Poland ................................................19
Figure 19 Emissions of SOX in Poland .................................................19
Figure 20 Primary energy Poland ....................................................... 20
Figure 21 Final energy Poland .............................................................. 20
Figure 22 Heat production in Poland ................................................ 20
Figure 23 Electricity production in Poland ..................................... 20
Figure 24 Coal use in Poland ................................................................. 21
Figure 25 Gas use in Poland................................................................... 21
Figure 26 Poland energy use summary ............................................ 21
Figure 27 Reduction of 2017 years greenhouse gas emission in CO2 equivalent to reach 2030 goals of 40% reduction for both Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) for non-ETS emissions and for Emissions Trade System (ETS) emissions. ........................................ 22
Figure 28 Electricity generation from coal and gas in USA ...... 23
Figure 29 Wind energy production in Sweden winter 2017/2018 and 2018/19 ........................................................................ 23
Figure 30 Capacity factors for different electricity generation sources in Germany in 2018 .......................................... 23
Figure 31 PM2.5 emissions in EU............................................................24
Figure 32 PM10 emissions in EU ............................................................24
Figure 33 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in EU. ...................... 25
Figure 34 Sulphur oxides (SOX) emissions in EU. .......................... 25
Figure 35 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland................................. 25
Figure 36 Greenhouse gas emissions Denmark ........................... 26
Figure 37 Greenhouse gas emissions Sweden. ............................. 26
Figure 38 Greenhouse gas emissions Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 39 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Germany ............................... 27
Figure 40 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Poland .................................... 28
Figure 41 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Denmark ............................... 29
Figure 42 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Sweden .................................. 30
Figure 43 Grids in Europe ....................................................................... 32
Figure 44 Carnot heat engine ............................................................... 33
Figure 45 Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C .................................. 34-35
Figure 46 Available offshore area (km²) for wind energy farms within national jurisdictions...................................... 36
Figure 47 On-shore wind energy potential if levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is lower than 55 €/MWh ........................... 36
Figure 48 Energy flow EU ....................................................................... 39
Figure 49 Primary energy EU in 2017 ............................................... 40
Figure 50 Final energy EU in 2017 ..................................................... 40
Figure 51 Heat production in EU ......................................................... 40
Figure 52 Electricity production in EU ............................................. 40
Figure 53 Coal use in EU ..........................................................................41
Figure 54 Gas use in EU ............................................................................41
Figure 55 EU energy use summary ......................................................41
Figure 56 Energy flow Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania .................. 42
Figure 57 Primary energy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ..... 42
Figure 58 Final energy use in Estonia Latvia and Lithuania ..... 42
Figure 59 Heat production in Baltics ................................................. 43
Figure 60 Electricity production in Baltics ..................................... 43
Figure 61 Coal use in Baltics .................................................................. 43
Figure 62 Gas use in Baltics ................................................................... 43
Figure 63 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania energy use summary ....... 43
Figure 64 Energy flow Czech Republic ............................................. 44
Baltic Pipe Project climate report 61
Figure 65 Primary energy Czech Republic in 2017 ..................... 44
Figure 66 Final energy Czech Republic in 2017 ............................ 44
Figure 67 Heat production in Czech Republic ............................... 45
Figure 68 Electricity production in Czech Republic .................... 45
Figure 69 Coal use in Czech Republic ................................................ 45
Figure 70 Gas use in Czech Republic ................................................. 45
Figure 71 Czech Republic energy use summary ........................... 45
Figure 72 Energy flow Poland ............................................................... 46
Figure 73 Primary energy Poland ....................................................... 46
Figure 74 Final energy Poland .............................................................. 46
Figure 75 Heat production in Poland .................................................47
Figure 76 Electricity production in Poland ......................................47
Figure 77 Coal use in Poland ..................................................................47
Figure 78 Gas use in Poland ....................................................................47
Figure 79 Poland energy use summary .............................................47
Figure 80 Energy flow Germany.......................................................... 48
Figure 81 Primary energy Germany .................................................. 48
Figure 82 Final energy Germany ......................................................... 48
Figure 83 Heat production in Germany ........................................... 49
Figure 84 Electricity production in Germany ................................ 49
Figure 85 Coal use in Germany ............................................................ 49
Figure 86 Gas use in Germany .............................................................. 49
Figure 87 Germany energy use summary ....................................... 49
Figure 88 Energy flow Sweden ............................................................ 50
Figure 89 Primary energy Sweden ..................................................... 50
Figure 90 Final energy Sweden............................................................ 50
Figure 91 Heat production in Sweden ...............................................51
Figure 92 Electricity production in Sweden ....................................51
Figure 93 Coal use in Sweden ................................................................51
Figure 94 Gas use in Sweden ..................................................................51
Figure 95 Sweden energy use summary ...........................................51
Figure 96 Energy flow Denmark...........................................................52
Figure 97 Primary energy Denmark ...................................................52
Figure 98 Final energy Denmark ..........................................................52
Figure 99 Heat production in Denmark ........................................... 53
Figure 100 Electricity production in Denmark ............................. 53
Figure 101 Coal use in Denmark ......................................................... 53
Figure 102 Gas use in Denmark ........................................................... 53
Figure 103 Denmark energy use summary .................................... 53
Figure 104 Energy flow Slovak Republic ......................................... 54
Figure 105 Primary energy Slovak Republic .................................. 54
Figure 106 Final energy Slovak Republic ......................................... 54
Figure 107 Heat production in Slovak Republic ........................... 55
Figure 108 Electricity production in Slovak Republic ................ 55
Figure 109 Coal use in Slovak Republic ............................................ 55
Figure 110 Gas use in Slovak Republic .............................................. 55
Figure 111 Slovak Republic energy use summary........................ 55
Figure 112 Energy flow Ukraine .......................................................... 56
Figure 113 Primary energy Ukraine .................................................. 56
Figure 114 Final energy Ukraine ......................................................... 56
Figure 115 Heat production in Ukraine ........................................... 57
Figure 116 Electricity production in Ukraine ................................ 57
Figure 117 Coal use in Ukraine ............................................................ 57
Figure 118 Gas use in Ukraine .............................................................. 57
Figure 119 Ukraine final energy use summary .............................. 57
Figure 120 Final energy use in industry ........................................... 58
Figure 121 Final energy use in transportation .............................. 58
Figure 122 Final energy use in buildings .......................................... 58
62 Baltic Pipe Project climate report
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT VISIT BALTIC-PIPE.EU
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
Co-financed by the Connecting Europe Facility of the European Union