RENEWABLE ENERGY SITUATION IN FINLAND Ari Lampinen (last(

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN NUCLEAR CRITICAL CONERENCE Helsinki, 11 November 27 RENEWABLE ENERGY SITUATION IN INLAND Ari Lampinen (last( name at kaapeli.fi) Technology for Life (= innish sustainable development NGO of scientists and engineers) A. RE USE IN INLAND B. POTENTIALS OR INCREASING RE USE IN INLAND C. REASONS OR NOT UTILIZING THE POTENTIAL D. WAY ORWARD Background: hydro and some biomass can be seen, but no sun or wind

2 A. Renewable energy in inland Share of RE of TPES = 24.1 % (in 26) Share of hydropower + industrial wood waste + domestic firewood = 23.4 % (in 26) Share of all other RE =.7 % of TPES (in 26)

3 B. Potentials for increasing RE production Physical reasons for high potential and cheap price: Large surface area Lot of rivers => cheap hydropower Large forest industry cluster => cheap waste wood, large load for CHP heat => cheap CHP (Combined( Heat and Power) Distributed population => free domestic firewood Long daylight time during summer => less capacity and storage needs for solar panels and collectors Cold weather: Good load for CHP heat => cheap CHP High efficiency of heat engines => cheap thermal electricity,, etc. High efficiency of wind turbines High efficiency of solar panels and solar collectors Little need for cooling in energy intensive industry Power consumption curve similar to wind and biomass CHP production curve

4 Montly wind power production in inland in 1995 (VTT 1996) % Month

5 innish farm energy potentials as an example orest owners have much larger potential Much more available offshore

6 Source: Lampinen A & Jokinen E (26) Suomen maatilojen energiantuotantopotentiaalit Ekologinen perspektiivi. (Energy( production potentials of innish farms Ecological perspective). Research reports in Biological and Environmental Sciences 84, University of Jyväskyl skylä, inland, 16 p. unded by innish Ministry of Agriculture and orestry + University of Jyväskyl skylä Available in internet (address( below) Picture: traffic use of straw based ethanol in Canada

7 Potentials estimated in this study Solar Bio Geo thermal Wind Hydro Wave, Tidal, Current Peat ossil Nuclear Physical Biological Agricultural Technological Chemical Ecological Social Economic Market = estimated for inland, P = estimated for each province (2), = estimated as negligible, = not relevant, Empty = not estimated

8 Ecological electricity production potential of farms vs. innish total power consumption Other Hydro,23 Peat (5 y) 1,6 Bio 15 Geothermal 2 Wind 14 Solar Ecological potential vs. innish power consumption [%]

9 Ecological traffic fuel production potential of farms vs. innish total traffic energy consumption Other Hydro,37 Peat (5 y) 6 Bio 57 Geothermal 52 Wind 22 Solar Ecological potential vs. innish traffic energy consumption [%]

10 One alternative for reaching 1 % trafficfuel fuel selfsufficiency sufficiency Priority TOTAL Source 7 % of putrescible biowaste 8 % of straw, leaves and tops 3 % of unused logging residues and forest management waste (wood) Energy crops 5. ha Share 1 % 2 % 5 % 2 % 1 % uels Biogas, direct liquefaction, biodiesel, ethanol Biogas, ethanol, synthetic Synthetic, ethanol Biogas, ethanol, biodiesel, PPO, synthetic

11 C. Why the potentials are not utilized? Only two reasons: 1. Very strong domestic resistance 2. Very weak domestic support Some underlying reasons: Poor environmental consciousness If measures have positive environmental impacts as a side effect they are advertised but they are not motives of the measures Climate change is beneficial for innish economy innish impact on climate change and potential role of mitigating climate change is negligible Poor understanding of the various benefits of distributed RE production and inability take them into account in policies and feasibility studies Reasonable price of energy is the overwhelming focus of energy policy Patriotism means a right for freeriding riding (EU and UN level), not motivation to use domestic resources

12 1. Very strong domestic resistance Press release of Confederation of innish Industries (EK) Chairman Antti Herlin Government must talk tough at energy negotiations in Brussels : inland with 25 % RE share is already above the EU 2 % target so the binding EU RE promotion policy should not apply to inland; inland has been a pioneering country for a long time in improving energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy RE promotion instruments such as feedin tariffs should not be taken into use (note:: inland is the only country in the world that utilizes feed in tariff for nonrenewable and nonrenewable energy only) Permanent Secretary of State/Ministry of inance Sailas 6.11.: RE promotion is like shooting into your own knee Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) representing inland in the EU Energy Council has opposed successfully, due to its veto power, all binding RE targets in EU since 1995: everything should be voluntary

13 Result: free freeridingriding (in EU and UN level)

14 1,9 1,9 Slovenia Slovenia ,9 1,9 Ranska Ranska ,3 2,3 Ruotsi Ruotsi , 6, Kroatia Kroatia ,2 8,2 Islanti Islanti , 13, Englanti Englanti ,1 16,1 Luxemburg Luxemburg ,2 18,2 Saksa Saksa ,2 24,2 Tsekki Tsekki ,3 28,3 Slovakia Slovakia ,9 31,9 Unkari Unkari ,4 34,4 Puola Puola ,5 38,5 Ven Venäjä ,4 44,4 Valkoven Valkovenäjä ,1 46,1 Romania Romania ,2 46,2 Ukraina Ukraina , 5, Bulgaria Bulgaria ,8 5,8 Eesti Eesti ,5 58,5 Latvia Latvia ,2 66,2 Liettua Liettua Pää ääst stömuutos [%] muutos [%] Maa Maa Järjestysluku rjestysluku +41,7 +41,7 Espanja Espanja ,8 +37,8 Monaco Monaco ,7 +36,7 Portugali Portugali ,8 +25,8 Kreikka Kreikka ,6 +25,6 Irlanti Irlanti ,2 +24,2 Kanada Kanada ,3 +23,3 Australia Australia ,5 +22,5 Uusi UusiSeelanti Seelanti ,5 +21,5 Suomi Suomi ,5 +16,5 It Itävalta valta ,3 +13,3 USA USA ,8 +12,8 Japani Japani ,5 +11,5 Italia Italia ,3 +9,3 Norja Norja ,8 +6,8 Tanska Tanska ,3 +5,3 Liechtenstein Liechtenstein ,5 +1,5 Hollanti Hollanti ,3 +1,3 Belgia Belgia ,4,4 Sveitsi Sveitsi ,4 1,4 EU15 EU GHG emissions in industrial countries (UNCCC 25)

15 EU15 GHG emission targets in 221 [%] 1 5 Tanska Itävalta Espanja Belgia Italia Hollanti Irlanti Saksa Portugali Englanti Ruotsi Kreikka Ranska 1 2 Suomi 4 Luxemburg Source: UNCCC

16 SO 2 emission changes in EU [%] Saksa Itävalta Tanska Ruotsi Suomi Luxemburg Ranska Hollanti Belgia Italia Englanti Espanja (1996) Irlanti Kreikka 35 Portugali (1998) Irlanti Englanti Tanska Hollanti Saksa Italia Belgia Ranska Luxemburg 5 Espanja Portugali Itävalta 26 Ruotsi 19 Kreikka 1 Suomi 1 SO 2 emission Gothenburg protocol targets [%] Source: UNECE

17 NO x emission changes in EU [%] Saksa Englanti Ruotsi Hollanti Tanska Luxemburg Italia Itävalta Ranska Belgia Suomi Irlanti 3 Espanja (1996) Kreikka (1998) Portugali Tanska 56 Ruotsi Luxemburg Ranska Hollanti Irlanti Italia Belgia Saksa Englanti Suomi Itävalta Espanja Portugali 27 Kreikka 9 NO x emission Gothenburg protocol targets [%] 7 Source: UNECE

18 NMVOC emission changes in EU15 from 1988 [%] Saksa 1996 Englanti 2 Tanska 2 Luxemburg 2 Ruotsi 2 Itävalta 2 Suomi 1996 Italia 2 Espanja Espanja 73 Belgia Portugali Saksa Irlanti Ruotsi Hollanti Ranska Englanti Luxemburg Tanska Italia Itävalta 36 Kreikka 31 Suomi 25 NMVOC emission Gothenburg protocol targets [%] Source: UNECE

19 Primary energy consumption (OECD/IEA)

20 During in inland: Share of RE in power production decreased from 47 % to 24 % Use of RE for heating decreased by 26 % Use of electricity for heating increased by 16 % Heating demand increased by 1 % Electricity consumption increased by 35 % (This development has a lot to do with the 4 nuclear reactors that were built in the 197 s)

21 Primary energy efficiency of innish paper industry second lowest in Europe (CEPI 22) Electric energy efficiency of innish paper industry lowest in Europe (CEPI 22)

22 Energy efficiency of innish steal industry medium level among industrial countries (IISI 1996)

23 THE EU RESE directive (21/77/EC) was discussed in inland simultaneously with the application of the 5th nuclear reactor 4 % 35 % 3 % 25 % 2 % 15 % 1 % 5% % KTM 21 EC

24 2. Very weak domestic support No strong lobbying organizations Some organizations that in other countries lobby for RE are not doing so in inland, e.g. The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and orest Owners (MTK) PhD dissertation V. Varho (Univ. Of Helsinki): All of the most visible wind energy experts and promoters in inland, incl. both wind energy associations, regard wind energy potential in inland insignificant Their hope in the long run is to achive only at most 1 TWh/y capacity, i.e. 8 % of one nuclear reactor Their expectations are much less Most results found in Energy Policy 33: (25)

25 D. Way forward inland s RE utilization development is dependent on external pressure, especially from EU E.g. strong domestic resistance against taking catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline into use in the 198 s: the transition was possible only due to international pressure EU has had an important development role in inland despite the innish veto power The new EU treaty will remove the veto power enabling much faster development, the new treaty also mentions RE and climate change explicitly making it much easier to proceed via courts, if needed

26 The challenge of low market potential of farm energy The overwhelming majority of the farm energy potentials remain untapped under present policies and feasibility analyses Need for more comprehensive economic analysis, e.g. bioenergy: Market value of bioenergy under currently common evaluation: V = Vown heat ull value of bioenergy: V = Vown heat + Vown cooling + Vown electricity + Vown engine fuel + Vown traffic fuel + Vside products for own use + Vsold heat + Vsold electricity + Vsold fuel + Vsold side products + Vgate fees +Vsold sertificates + Vselfsufficiency + Vreliability + Vquality + Vflexibility + Vimage + Vemployment + Vhealth + Venvironment + Vfor municipality + Vfor country (return for producer!)

27 Thank You! Author s wind electric bicycle (the extra cost of household wind power is about 1 cup of coffee per year) Author s biogas car, one of only 9 biogas vehicles in inland (in the new climate friendly car taxation law this car has higher annual car tax than gasolineonly version)