Krzysztof śmijewski Comparison of PEP 2030 and APE 2030

Transcription

1 Krzysztof śmijewski Comparison of PEP 2030 and APE 2030 Two reports relating to the future of the energy sector have been elaborated recently, the first of which is the PEP 2030 report prepared by the Ministry of the Economy and adopted by the Council of Ministers very recently, i.e. in November this year. In turn, the second is the APE 2030 report which was prepared at an earlier date and presented publicly in the Polish Parliament (Sejm) by an independent team focused around the Institute for Sustainable Development and financed i.a. by the National Environmental Protection Fund a government institution. Both documents analyse consumption and production of energy in the energy, gas and heating sectors. APE also analyses transport as the last emitor of GHG and consumer of energy. However, there are fundamental differences between PEP 2030 and APE This is fundamentally attributable to the basic assumptions thereof and methodologies applied. The starting point of PEP 2030 is the assumed level of economic development of the country and the resulting level of energy consumption. This level and the assumed energy mix determine the level of GHG emissions. The assumed energy mix results mainly from Poland s EU obligations () and energy security requirements (NE). The starting point of APE 2030 is the assumed level of reductions in CO2 emissions, pursuant to both the assumptions of the Polish Climate Policy for the period up to 2020, namely a 40% reduction in emissions in 2020 and compared to 1988, and those of the European Energy and Climate Package (a 20% reduction between 2005 and 2020). The content of APE 2030 was also created according to different methodology (a scenario-based approach was assumed, which entailed analysing many different energy mixes rather than just one), as well as the means of construction of a document. Works on the APE 2030 were of a public nature: 4 authors and 13 experts took part in this, and the result was consulted with nearly 400 people during the course of over 10 meetings. 1

2 This makes it all the more interesting that in the perspective of 2020 both reports are very similar as to their appraisal of the required investment potential. Significant differences appear in relation to the years , and this is ainly because of the intensive promotion of nuclear energy in PEP 2030 and renewable energy in APE Nuclear energy does not play a part in the scenario that was ultimately chosen, although does participate to a significantly larger extent (30%) in production of electrical energy in Table 1 Participation of in the primary energy balance Participation of PEP ,3% 18,8% APE 2030 (1) 22% 30% APE 2030 (2) 19% 35% Table 2 Gross level of energy production Gross production (TWh) PEP ,3 217,4 APE 2030 (1) 166,1 205,0 APE 2030 (2) 171,2 192,6 Table 3 Level of generation in Renewable Energy Sources OZE TWh PEP ,1 38,0 APE 2030 (1) 36,1 60,9 1 APE 2030 (2) 33,0 69,9 3 Table 4 Level of consumption of final energy Final energy (TWh) In the atomic scenario - 37,5 TWh 2

3 PEP ,3 172,1 APE 2030 (1) 131,3 166,1 APE 2030 (2) 135,2 156,0 Analysis of the attached tables shows that there are insignificant differences in respect of the period up to 2020 (and practicaly none in the period up to 2015, as on this date no nuclear investment can be initiated). This leads to the conclusion that in the nearest future ( ) Polnd s energy efficiency should be improved, developed (mainly wind and aeroenergy) and modernisation of existing coal-based power plants should be carried out. Limited participation of gas power plants is also foreseen. There are also small differences in the foreseen volumes of investments in the electrical energy and gas sectors. Table 5 Investments in the electrical energy sector up to 2020 Level of investments billion PEP ,0 Electrical Energy Gas Heat 21,4 13,1 14,0 2,5 7,8 3,1 0,0 2,0 2,7 Extraction Security 2? APE ,1 10, ,6 3,1 Extraction 15 18,5 2, ,0 2,0 10 5,0 2,7 Security 4 15 Value of efficiency in PEP established orally, APE total approx. 110 billion. Figure 1 Electrical energy in 2020 PEP 2030 Figure 2 Electrical energy in 2020 PEP PEP 2030 mld 2,5 21,4 11 APE 2030 mld 5 15,6 2 LNG + połączenia transgraniczne + magazyny 13,1 Generacja OZE Dystrybucja Efektywność 18,5 Generacja OZE Dystrybucja Efektywność 3

4 Table 6 Level of investments in the energy sector in the years Level of investments billion PEP ,9 Electrical Energy Gas Heat 23,7 5,4 7,9 3,5?? APE ,9 10, , , ,0 10 6,0 15 APE total approx. 110 billion. Value of PEP 2030 investments in gas adopted in accordance with the report of the KPRM Polska 2030 team report. 4

5 Figure 3 Investment programme according to PEP ,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0, mld Figure 4 Investment programme according to APE El. Zawodowe Ec. Przemysłowe Ec. Lokalne na gaz Ź. Odnawialne Dostosowanie do Dyr. LCP/ IPPC Razem wytwarzanie Przesył i dystrybucja Razem mld El. Zawodowe Ź. Odnawialne Przesył i dystrybucja Efektywność Razem wytwarzanie Razem

6 Table 7 GHG emissions in Poland in mln tonnes CO 2eq Sources of GHG emissions Annual average Polish Climate Policy 40% 4 EU Climate Policy 20% EU Polish Polish Climate Climate APE APE 7 energy Policy Policy 21% 6 35% 8 policy 30% 7 24 % 8 21% 8 Total GHG emissions GHG emissions from combustion of x fuels without transport Includings emissions in the professional energy sector GHG emissions in the transport sector x 42/58/45 42/58/45 42/58/45 42/58/45 x/62/47 3 Obligations arising out of the Kyoto Protocol. 4 As compared to As compared to As compared to Calculations in respect of pollution limits were carried out for the energy sector (as part of the ETS), taking into account the fact that this is the most serious source of greenhouse gases. A more in-depth analysis required additional funds, which InE did not have at its disposal. An estimate was prepared in respect of the transport sector on the basis of W. Suchorzewski s publication Use of energy in transport, which was carried out upon the request of the APE. 8 The first number represents the limit adoped for the EU, i.e. an increase of 14% for the period in the non-ets region. The second number represent the planned amount in a business as usual scenario. The third number represents the effect of implementation of a sustainable approach to development of the transport sector. 6

7 GHG emissions other than fuel combustion, including in the transport sector x 42/26 51/38 39/23 7

8 Comparison of the results of PEP 2030 and APE 2030, reports prepared on the bais of different assumptions and with use of different methodologies, leads to one basic conclusion: In Poland (and similar countries), a 20% reduction in GHG emissions can be achieved in the period from A condition of achieving this level of reductions is total modernisation and restructuring of the country. In Poland, the costs of such reduction are billion for reduction of emissions by 107 million tco 2 by The issue of reduction of emissions in the perspective of 2030 is not so unequivocal. PEP 2030 assumes an increase in emissions, which may be impossible in light of the foreseen EU and post-kyoto restrictions in this respect. The comparison for the energy sector contained in Table 8 illustrates this. a Table 8 Comparison of investments and reduction of emissions in the energy sector billion million tco 2 /t CO 2 billion million tco 2 /t CO 2 PEP , ,9-5 xxxxxxx APE , , Table 8 should be accompanied by the comment that the values for are to a grea extent the same, and the level of dicrepancies in this type of prognosis can be deemed insignificant. Howere, prognoses for the period differ significantly, both in the context of investment levels and GHG emission levels. It is worth mentioning here that the PEP 2030 scenario assumes that intensive investments in zero-emissions nuclear energy will take place, meaning that weakening of investment activities (as combined with a simultaneous increase in emission levels) becomes difficult to accept. 8