No energy wasted

Example of an energy strategy in urban areas

Brussels, 22nd June 2006

2

•finite fossil energy resources•increasing commodity prices•dependence on unstable political regions

discussion focused on end energylook on use of primary resources is needed!!

Energy efficiency is in discussion

District heating in urban area is an important part of the solution!

3

Share 2005

Peak load heat plants 2,5%

CHP 66,1 %

Industrial CHP 7,6 %

Waste utilisation 23,8%0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Heat genera

tion for

dis

tric

t heatin

g n

etw

ork

[GW

h]

Heat plant

CHP

Industrial CHP

Waste utilisation

Development of district heating in Vienna1969 “Heizbetriebe Wien”, waste incineration and stand alone grids 350MW th capacity1979 reached production 55% in heat plants and 45% in waste utilisationSince then new heat sources developed with the use of otherwise wasted energy

4

PRF Fernwärme Wien < 0,30

Compare:Condensing boiler 1,2Heatpump 0,85

Use of waste heat from industry, power generation and waste incineration is responsible for low PRF(Picture: Refinery near Vienna delivers industrial waste heat)

Primary resource factor (PRF)

Use it or loose it!

5

Leads automatically to:

- lower Emissions of greenhouse gases AND air pollutants – district heating reduced and will reduce the Volume of pollutants in Vienna

- high security of supply – temporary shortages in gas or oil supply do not affect us

- lower dependence on fuel prices - price for household customers have not risen in Vienna since 1991

Advantages of low Primary resource factor (PRF)

6

Example for lower emissions in terms of CO2

Calculation from federal environmental agency

Includes also CO2 from waste incineration

Value without waste ~ 95 kg/MWh used energy

256

400

132

756

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

coal fired singlecombustion

oil fired singlecombustion

gas fired centralheating

district heating

spe

cific

em

issi

on

s o

f diff

ere

nt h

ea

ting

sys

tem

s[k

g C

O2

/ M

Wh

use

d e

ne

rgy]

.

7

TodayMarket share 35%

5.290 GWh Heat sold

2020 expected market share > 50%

7.500 GWh heat sold

Growth based mainly on renewables and waste heat!

8

New plants already under construction 2006 – biomass CHP + 37 MWth

2008 – waste utilisation Pfaffenau + 54 MWth

2008 – Geothermal source + 15 MWth 2009 – CHP repowering Simmering 1/2 + 170 MWth

Installations to utilise capacities and to raise efficiency Additional mesh in the network + 100 MW useable Heat storage facility for district heating + 170 MW usable

Planned plants – mid and long term options Bio fuel plants Further CHP-Repowering Coal based CHP including CO2 separation

9

max. 66 MWth

District heating37,0 MWUp to 300 GWh per year

Electricity16,2 MWel

> 140 GWh per year

Efficiency in CHP mode> 80 %

New biomass CHP starts operation in few weeks

600.000 piled metre woodchips per year

10

Biggest difference to small biomass plants:

1. High efficient combined production of electricity and heat

2. Denox catalytic converter

3. Bag house filter

How would you do it?

this way?

decentral

or this way?

central

11

Initiated development

Heat is to 1/3 produced in plants with renewable energy or waste as fuel

97 % of the heat is made in CHP (waste, renewables, fossil)

To produce 2/3 of the heat the highefficient fossile CHP needs far less fuel input!

Therefore the share of renewables and waste on used fuels is 60%0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2020 2020

Sh

are

of f

ue

ls o

n s

up

plie

d h

ea

t an

d s

ha

re o

f fu

el i

np

ut f

or

ge

ne

ratio

n [G

Wh

] .

oil

natural gas

coal (incl. CO2separation)

industrial waste

renewables

biogenic waste

fossile waste

Supplied heat Therefore used fuel

renewables and waste

fossil ressources

1/3

2/3

68%

32%

12

This development will:

lower PRF < 0,15*

lower specific emissions of district heating system > 100 t CO2/GWh (CO2 of waste included)

further increase security of supply

guarantee low energy costs for the customers

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

20

Sp

eci

fic C

O2

em

issi

on

s [

t/G

Wh

]

*calculation includes assumption that PRF for electricity in Europe will improve from 2,5 now to 2,1 in 2020

13

Consequence of this expansion for Vienna

Reduction of ~ 2,7 million MWh fossil fuels

Saves about € 53 millions energy import

38% reduction of CO2 emissions for domestic use 11% reduction of CO2 emissions for waste treatment

+ 8600 GWh electricity produced in chp mode

~ 1/3 of Austrian thermal electricity production

+ 100% waste recycling in Vienna (energetic and material)

+ 100% of industrial waste heat in the area is used

14

= No Energy wasted

What is possible in Vienna

is also possible elsewhere

Thank you for you attention