UNECE EE Session Geneva,, 24-26 26 May 2004 Energy Saving Potential Methodology and Results Dr. Laszlo Molnar Energy Centre Hungary
Energy Intensity in Central-Eastern Eastern-Baltic Europe (CEB), South-East Europe (SEE) and in the States of the former Soviet Union (CIS) toe US$1,000 Energy intensity in 1999 (--- US) 4,5 4 3,5 Average in sub-region 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Slovenia Latvia Lithuania Slovak Republic Poland Albania Romania Bos & Her. Bulgaria FYR Macedonia Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldavia Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan CEB SEE CIS
Causes of Inefficiencies in CEE Countries Lack of progress in transition, particularly the slow restructuring of energy-intensive industries and inadequate reform of the power and heat sectors Inefficiency in governance and enterprise restructuring Lack of progress in privatisation but the link is less evident statistically Most significant factor influencing energy intensity appears to be the level of energy tariffs In most transition countries energy consumption is still subsidised, as end-user prices are kept artificially below cost-recovery levels
Methodology Issues of Energy Saving Potential I. Technical ES potential: it is an absolute value depending on technology development (practically limitless, e.g. zero energy house) leads to unprofitable investments Economic ES potential (criteria: profitable investment): relative value (depends on {local and volatile}investment & labour costs, energy prices) We prefer a market approach (no state subsidies) i.e. we think that the economic ES potential is really important
Methodology Issues of Energy Saving Potential II. Difficulties of ES potential s comparison in different countries: 1. Country by country (Cbc) different economic structure 2. Cbc different primary fuel- & technology-mix 3. Cbc different share of electricity in the final consumption Therefore international (cross country) comparison is difficult though adjustment technics are available
Energy Balances in the OECD and in Hungary (The Energy Sector is the largest consumer!) Unit: Mtoe, Year 2000 TPES Transformation Losses Own use Distribution Losses TFC (TFC/TPES) Industry Sector Transport Sector Other Sectors (HH, Agr, Tert) Non-Energy Use OECD 5317-1344 -298-63 3612 (67,9%) 1086 1219 1189 118 Hungary 24,60-5,66-0,74-0,76 17,44 (0,71%) 3,70 3,18 9,03 1,53
Efficiencies in Main Energy Transformations in Hungary in 2001 (large saving potential in thermal power generation) 100 % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 96,7 72,9 88,6 20 10 34,4 36,2 0 oil refinery thermal public power generation nuclear power generation public CHP production public heat production
Energy Saving Potential in the Power Sector Electricity Plants Comparison of Hungarian and EU efficiencies - Power only, efficiency in Hungary: 34 % efficiency in the EU: 40 % - Coal-fired plants, efficiency in Hungary: 32 % efficiency in Germany: 37 % efficiency in Austria: 39 % - Nat. Gas-fired plants, efficiency in Hungary: 38 % efficiency in Germany: 45 % efficiency in Austria: 47 % efficiency in France: 53 %
Methodology Issues of Energy Saving Potential III. Bench-marking Bench-marking: point of reference for making comparison e.g. using indicators of EU-15 for estimating energy saving potential Two examples: Final energy intensities adjusted to same climate (EU15 average) (at purchasing power parities), EU-15 = 100 Energy intensity of manufacturing, EU-15 = 100
Final energy intensities adjusted to same climate (EU15 average = 100) (at purchasing power parities) 200 180 160 140 EU = 100 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Bulgaria Czech Rep Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia EU at ppp at ppp and EU climate
Energy intensity of manufacturing In Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia, Energy Intensity of Manufacturing is below EU level because of the high share of high-tech industries 350 300 250 EU = 100 200 150 100 50 0 Bulgaria Czech Rep Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia EU at ppp at ppp and adjusted at EU structure
Bench-marking in the Final Consumption Examples: In the EU-15 and in Hungary around 40 % of TFC is used for space heating. The Hung. space heating use is 0,90 GJ/m 2,a, in the EU-15 it is 0,53 GJ/m 2,a, EU efficient building: 0,24 GJ/m2,a Unit consumption of steel (+ 5 %) Unit consumption of cement (+ 15 %) Unit consumption of cars (- 20 %)
Unit consumption of steel 0,7 0,6 0,5 toe/ ton 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 Bulgaria Hungary Latvia Poland Slovenia UE 1995 2001
Unit consumption of cement 0,12 0,1 0,08 toe/ ton 0,06 0,04 0,02 0 Hungary Poland Czech Rep Slovakia EU 1995 2001
Unit consumption of road transport (per car equivalent) The smaller unit consumption is due to smaller mileage & smaller cars in some CEE countries 1,2 1 toe/ car eq 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Slovenia Romania Latvia EU Estonia Hungary 1996 2001
Data & Results of 3 Hung.. EE Funds German Coal Aid Fund PHARE Credit Programme National Energy Saving Programme Type of the Fund Revolving, soft loan Revolving, soft loan grant Start of the Fund 1991 1998 2001 Sum of the Fund at the start DEM 30m ~ HUF '04 5bn EURO 5m~ HUF '04 1,3bn HUF 11,9bn ( 2001-3) Max. loan/grant HUF 80m 0,4m with no int st rate, + 90 % with int st rate HUF 0,5m for household Max share of the loan/grant from the inv. 80% total 90 % with no inter. rate 25 % 30%, 50%(churches) Accepted/approved applications 564 73 18971 ( 2001-3) Yearly energy saving 8,48 PJ/year 2,0 PJ/year 10,92 PJ/year
Lessons learnt from the 3 Funds: 1st lesson: 1st improve end-use EE and after try to replace fossile fuels by RES (eg. for the generation of electric power) 2nd lesson: for the mitigation of CO2 emissions, with the same sum, you get better results investing into EE than into RES 3rd lesson: -- Best investment target is: Modernisation of heating -- Worst investm t target is: Improvem t of external insulation Fig ure 4: Re s ide ntial Building s : Sav ing in GJ pe r millio n HUF inv e s tme nt (1 = 260 HUF) Tota l Complex Mod. of windows, doors Exte rn a l in s u la tio n Mod. of windows, doors Modernisation of heatings 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Conclusions, results (AND AN UNOFFICIAL ESTIMATION) There are methods for estimating the energy saving potential It makes difficult the job that the economic energy saving potential depends on volatile factors such as energy prices, investments & manpower costs,taxes In Hungary, with current prices and costs, economic ES potential - in the Heat & Power Sector: 5-10 % - in Buildings: 10-20 % - in the Transport sector: 5-10 % Total economic ES potential: 50-100 PJ ~ 5-10 % of TPES. With right pricing the saving can be higher.