User manual | Aalborg Universitet Heat Roadmap Europe 2

Aalborg Universitet
Heat Roadmap Europe 2
Connolly, David; Mathiesen, Brian Vad; Østergaard, Poul Alberg; Møller, Bernd; Nielsen,
Steffen; Lund, Henrik; Persson, Urban; Werner, Sven; Grözinger, Jan; Boermans, Thomas;
Bosquet, Michelle; Trier, Daniel
Publication date:
2013
Document Version
Early version, also known as pre-print
Link to publication from Aalborg University
Citation for published version (APA):
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V., Østergaard, P. A., Möller, B., Nielsen, S., Lund, H., ... Trier, D. (2013). Heat
Roadmap Europe 2: Second Pre-Study for the EU27. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg
University.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: June 01, 2016
HEAT ROADMAP EUROPE 2050
SECOND PRE-STUDY FOR THE EU27
By
Aalborg University
David Connolly
Brian Vad Mathiesen
Poul Alberg Østergaard
Bernd Möller
Steffen Nielsen
Henrik Lund
Halmstad University
Urban Persson
Sven Werner
For
Ecofys Germany GmbH
Jan Grözinger
Thomas Boermans
Michelle Bosquet
PlanEnergi
Daniel Trier
Publisher:
Department of Development and Planning
Aalborg University
Vestre Havnepromenade 5
9000 Aalborg
Denmark
May, 2013
ISBN: 978-87-91404-48-1
© The Authors
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this report is partly as a result of the research activities of the Strategic
Research Centre for 4th Generation District Heating (4DH), which has received funding from The Danish
Council for Strategic Research (www.4dh.dk).
Since this is a pre-study, some key assumptions were necessary due to the limited time and resources
available to investigate a pan-European energy system. However, this pre-study outlines the previously
unconsidered potential of district heating and cooling in the EU, while also highlighting the need for
new tools, data, and methodologies to analyse the specific requirements of district heating and cooling
as technologies. The authors intend to continue developing these in the future.
3
FOREWORD
ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY: FASTER DECARBONISATION, CHEAPER COMFORT, BETTER
ENERGY - THE CHALLENGE
In 2009 the European Council committed the European Union to decarbonize its energy
system to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. As heat demands dominate end-use,
decarbonizing the European energy system requires special attention to these sectors which
given their importance for health and wellbeing also have a very strong social dimension. The
challenge is for the heat market to contribute to the decarbonisation goal in a manner which
allows keeping the cost of energy in general - and of comfort in particular - affordable.
A wide range of renewable and energy-efficient technologies are readily available already
today to replace the two thirds of the heat market which today are covered by fossil fuels.
These are outlined in various reports and studies, i.e. in the Energy Efficiency of the Energy
Roadmap 2050 published by the European Commission in 2011 1.
Why another study?
Basically all existing studies exploring the road to a decarbonized energy supply in 2050 model
generic solutions without investigating the possibilities and limits of their implementation in
practice in an urban environment. Yet, future solutions must in the first instance be urban
solutions. Forecasts indicate that 75% of the European citizens will live in urban areas in 2020
and that this share will increase to 84% by 2050.
This means that the local character of heating and cooling markets both with regard to supply
and demand must be taken into account when identifying concrete pathways to a low-carbon
future. For example, a compact urban environment can compromise the desired use of
natural lightning, ventilation and decentralized use of solar energy. Higher densities also limit
the potential of ground-source heat pumps (and hence of electrifying heating and cooling as
one of the options which is currently modelled in most reports).
A compact urban environment also limits possibilities to accelerate the deep refurbishment
rate of buildings due to space limitations, noise disturbances, social acceptance and relocation
needs during construction work. Yet, the assumptions in the Energy Efficiency Scenario (EEEU) of the Energy Roadmap are over-ambitious as regards the reduction of final heat demands
in buildings (72% reduction of the specific heat demands), exceeding even what is considered
feasible in recent reports of the European insulation manufacturing industry 2, and hence are
assumed to be extremely costly.
1
European Commission, 2011: Energy Roadmap 2050. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Boermans T., Bettgenhäuser K, Offermann M, Schimschar S. Renovation Tracks for Europe up to 2050: Building
renovation in Europe – what are the choices? Ecofys, 2012
2
4
THE OPPORTUNITIES
On the positive side, the local and urban dimensions of energy provide opportunities which
usually are overlooked in studies as they often are not properly reflected in statistics and
models.
Heat Roadmap Europe is the first study on EU27 scale which combines geographical mapping
of energy demand and supply in unprecedented detail with comprehensive energy system
modelling (incl. hour-by-hour analysis). It identifies the potential for using local resources
across Europe, and subsequently applies this in the EU27 energy system. The study takes the
EU-EE scenario as starting point, refining and complementing it with local heat market
information. As a result and beyond theoretical potentials, the new Heat Roadmap Europe
Energy Efficiency scenario (HRE-EE) shows a pathway that can realistically be implemented
and allows leveraging additional benefits.
THE BENEFITS
 CHEAPER COMFORT
Rising energy prices and fuel poverty are a major concern for all European governments. The
study shows that ambitious targets can be achieved while keeping comfort affordable and
without compromising on quality of life and health. While being ambitious to the limit of what
can realistically be deemed feasible in terms of future reduction of space heat demands,
additional cost savings identified by refining the EU-EE amount to at least EUR 100 billion/year
and up to EUR 146 billion/year due to a reduction of the costs for the total heating and cooling
supply for buildings in the range of 15 to 22%. These savings benefit all European citizens from
the most vulnerable customer to businesses and ultimately Europe’s competitiveness on the
World market.
 FASTER DECARBONISATION
Redesigning the heating and cooling supply as proposed in the study provides a fast-track
solution to overcoming the constraints of compact urban environments and bringing
renewable energies into cities. It enables the efficient use of combined heat and power,
biomass, solar thermal, large-scale heat pumps, individual heat pumps, geothermal energy, as
well as heat from waste incineration and excess heat from industry. At the same time, the
HRE-EE scenario introduces additional flexibility to the EU-EE scenario that facilitates the
integration of more wind and photovoltaic power in the electricity sector.
 BETTER ENERGY
Energy autonomy ranks evenly high on the EU’s energy agenda as competitiveness and
decarbonisation. The HRE-EE scenario creates a more diverse energy supply than any other EU
scenario and improves the security of supply. Using local renewable sources instead of
imported fossil fuels does not only serve the environment but also creates welfare and jobs
5
within smart communities in Europe. The HRE-EE scenario uses no-regrets technologies that
ensure flexibility and help avoiding lock-in effects. This reduces risks and adverse effects if
heat savings in buildings do not have the expected effect due to lack of implementation (i.e.
due to technical limitations or increasing costs) and creates robustness against fluctuating or
increasing fuel prices, including of renewable energy sources.
THE TOOL
Based on their analysis, the authors of this study consider that while lowering energy
consumption in buildings is essential, it must be combined with a robust strategy for a future
heat and cooling supply in the European Union. As the results show, re-designing the heat
and cooling supply in Europe will contribute to making any chosen decarbonisation path more
robust and affordable.
This means that any decarbonisation strategy for the energy sector as a whole should
integrate a clear strategy for addressing energy efficiency and renewable energy use in
heating and cooling. A strategy embracing a district or community dimension and targeting
the reduction of fossil primary energy provides substantial benefits as outlined above.
Given the urban dimension of the challenges and the resulting constraints, increasing the
market penetration of heating and cooling networks to 30% by 2030 and to 50% by 2050 in
combination with the use of local sustainable resources (renewable energies and recycled
heat) can be considered as an essential element in achieving the ambitious goals of cheaper
comfort, faster decarbonisation and better energy.
27th May 2013
Frederic Hug
President
Euroheat & Power
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Heat Roadmap Europe 3 is the first study on the EU27 scale which combines geographical mapping of
energy demand and supply in unprecedented detail with detailed energy system modelling. Heat
Roadmap Europe identifies the potential for using local resources across Europe, and subsequently
applies this in the EU27 energy system. The results are recommendations for a redesign of the
European heat supply.
In 2009 the European Council made the objective for the EU to decarbonise its energy system to at
least 80% below the 1990 level by 2050, without affecting general economic growth. A number of
measures and technologies could contribute to these goals. A scenario which achieves these goals is
the Energy Efficiency scenario in the Energy Roadmap 2050 report 4 by the European Commission.
The Heat Roadmap Europe scenario proposed here achieves these same CO2 reduction, but at a lower
cost. Lowering the energy consumption in buildings is essential. However here we combine heat
savings in the buildings with higher energy efficiency by expanding district heating in the future heat
supply in the EU27. Local conditions are considered using geographical information systems (GIS) and
combined with hour-by-hour energy system analyses for the EU27, which enables us to find a robust
strategy to increase competitiveness, integrate more renewables and reduce the risks in the energy
supply. By analysing heat savings and energy efficiency, by investigating local conditions, and by
making energy system analyses we are able to identify a balance between heat savings and key
infrastructural changes in the energy supply. The findings in the Heat Roadmap Europe can be
summarised into three key messages (see Figure 1).
1. Cheaper Comfort
•Annual savings of B€100/year while still achieving decarbonisation
•15% lower total heating and cooling costs
•Lower costs of the EU27 energy supply for citizens and businesses
•220,000 more jobs per year than in business as-usual scenario in the energy sector
2. Faster Decarbonisation
•Infrastructure that ensures efficient use of renewable heat and electricity
•Recycling of heat otherwise wasted and an increased penetration of renewable energy
•Large heat savings and new more efficient energy conversion
•Supports the general goals in the Energy Efficiency scenario from the EU commission
3. Better Energy
•Increases the security of supply with local ressources and renewable energy
•Creating a flexible infrastructure
•Enhanced energy efficiency with a balanced choise of technologies
•Reducing risks and the adverse effects of technology lock-ins
Figure 1: Three key messages from Heat Roadmap Europe.
3
“Heat Roadmap Europe” refers to the Heat Roadmap Europe report from 2012 (First pre-study for the EU27)
and this report.
4
European Commission. Energy Roadmap 2050. European Commission, 2011. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/.
7
Cheaper Comfort
First of all we are able to Increase the economic competitiveness of the EU27. In Heat Roadmap
Europe we have compared our results both to the current energy supply as well as to the
implementation of the European Commission’s Energy Efficiency scenario (EU-EE). By refining the EUEE scenario, we are able to decarbonise to the same level while saving B€100/year, corresponding to
15% lower costs for the total heating and cooling supply for buildings. We achieve this by proposing an
enhanced energy efficiency scenario (HRE-EE), which has significant heat demand reductions,
combined with lower heat losses and more renewable energy in the energy supply. This ensures that
the cost burden on European citizens and businesses is comparably lower with Heat Roadmap Europe,
which enables stronger economic development in the EU and provides a more competitive business
environment.
Faster Decarbonisation
Secondly Heat Roadmap Europe creates a Pathway for heat recycling and more renewable energy, by
ensuring that we can increase the penetration of renewable energy in both the heat sector and the
electricity sector. In HRE-EE we re-design the heat supply in the EU27 by quantifying the benefits of
using individual heat pumps and district heating, in combination with energy savings and renewable
energy. Currently about half of the primary energy in the EU27 is lost in the conversion from the
primary energy supply to the end use. District heating makes it possible to recycle heat that would
otherwise be wasted. The new infrastructure and redesign of the heating and cooling supply presented
here enables the efficient use of heat from combined heat and power, solar thermal, large-scale heat
pumps, individual heat pumps and many other sources such as geothermal, waste incineration and
excess heat from industry. The scenarios introduce flexibility that facilitates the integration of more
wind and photovoltaic power in the electricity sector compared to the EU-EE scenario. The HRE-EE
scenario includes large savings in the heat demand in buildings. Heat savings in combination with an
efficient energy supply system creates a scenario that supports the goals of the European Commission.
Better Energy
Reducing risks for the EU27 is a third key message from Heat Roadmap Europe. The infrastructure
proposed creates a more diverse energy supply and improves the EU’s security of supply by using
resources within the EU and increasing the share of renewable energy. The HRE-EE scenarios use
technologies that ensure flexibility in the energy supply which reduce the risk of lock-in effects in
Europe. This reduces risks and adverse effects if 1) heat savings in buildings do not have the expected
effect due to a lack of implementation, which could occur due to technical limitations or increasing
costs, 2) fluctuating or increasing fuel prices, or 3) the cost of some renewable energy sources
increases. In Heat Roadmap Europe we suggest a more robust strategy, with a diversified supply and
an enhanced energy efficiency scenario that balances heat savings and efficient energy conversion.
8
COMBINING HEAT SAVINGS WITH A NEW HEAT SUPPLY
The results in the HRE-EE scenario are based on thorough analyses of the heat savings feasible in the
EU27 and the mapping of local conditions all over the EU27. The space heating demands in the HRE-EE
scenario are reduced by as much as 47% compared to today. This is extremely ambitious and in
accordance with the most ambitious deep renovation heat saving scenario in the Eurima study 5 from
2012. On the supply side, the market penetration of district heating is increased in the HRE-EE scenario
based on existing and forecasted heat demands in the EU27. These have been profiled using the first
ever pan-EU Heat Atlas, which was developed in this study (see Figure 2). Based on this data, the share
of district heating for space heating and hot water supply in 2050 is set at 50% in the year 2050. Similar
maps have been created to establish how to supply the heat for these new district heating systems
from resources such as thermal power plants, solar thermal, geothermal, and industry. The resolution
utilised in these maps ensures that the local conditions in the EU27 are considered in the macro
modelling also carried out in this study.
Figure 2: New European Heat Atlas developed in this study.
5
Boermans T, Bettgenhäuser K, Offermann M, Schimschar S. Renovation Tracks for Europe up to 2050: Building
renovation in Europe - what are the choices? Ecofys, 2012. Available from: http://www.eurima.org/.
9
QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF THE NEW HEAT SUPPLY
To quantify the impacts of the HRE-EE scenario, the resulting primary energy supply and the CO2
emissions are compared to those in the original EU-EE scenario from the European Commission, using
hour-by-hour modelling in the energy-systems-analysis tool EnergyPLAN. The fossil fuel and biomass
consumption in both scenarios is the same for the years 2030 and 2050, though the primary energy
supply is marginally larger in the HRE-EE scenario (~2%). As a result, the carbon dioxide emissions in
both scenarios are also the same, but the Heat Roadmap Europe scenarios are significantly cheaper
(see Figure 3). The slightly larger primary energy supply in the HRE-EE scenario is due to the additional
resources utilised in the district heating network such as waste incineration, geothermal, and largescale solar thermal. If district heating is not included in the EU energy system, these resources will be
wasted. The HRE-EE scenario also utilises approximately 5% more wind power than the EU-EE scenario
due to the additional flexibility introduced into the system by integrating the electricity and heat
sectors.
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste
RES
18,000
3,000
15,000
2,500
12,000
2,000
9,000
1,500
6,000
1,000
3,000
500
0
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (X, Mt/year)
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
Nuclear
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 3: Primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions in the Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) and Heat
Roadmap Europe (HRE-EE) scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
The HRE-EE scenario has a higher heat demand than the EU-EE scenario, due to the very high costs
required to reduce the heat demand in buildings by more than the ~50%. As a result, the HRE-EE
scenario proposed here also has lower investment costs in building refurbishments to reduce the heat
demand than the EU-EE scenario (see “Energy Efficiency Investments” in Figure 4). Some of these
savings are invested in redesigning the heating sector in the HRE-EE scenario by increasing the share of
district heating and cooling and using larger individual boilers. However, these additional costs are
10
offset by the reduced investments on building side, so the total cost of heating and cooling for
buildings in the HRE-EE scenario is ~15% lower. To put this in context, the overall energy costs for the
EU energy system are reduced by approximately 7-8%. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis in this study
indicates that this is a conservative estimate: the total heating and cooling costs are more likely to be
approximately 22%, since the costs assumed here for heat savings in the buildings could be
significantly higher while the district heating distribution costs could be lower.
Total Costs for Heating and Cooling in the
Residential and Services Sectors (B€/year)
End-Use Energy Efficiency Investments
Cooling System Investments
Fuel
Heating System Investments
Centralised Electricity & Heat Plants
CO2
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 4: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the Energy
Efficiency (EU-EE) and Heat Roadmap Europe 2 (HRE-EE) scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
DISTRICT HEATING IN URBAN AREAS IS ALSO CHEAPER THAN INDIVIDUAL HEAT PUMPS
The EU27 analysis in this study is also supported here by a more specific local case study, based on the
city of Aarhus in Denmark. Using the case study it is possible to determine more specific costs and
demands when comparing alternative heat strategies. Similar to the results already discussed on an
EU27 scale, the case study reveals that heat savings and district heating together can provide an
efficient and cost-effective heat supply for buildings. An additional comparison between district
heating and individual heat pumps is also completed here using the case study. The results show that
district heating is also a cheaper solution than individual heat pumps in urban areas (see Figure 5). This
is particularly due to two reasons: firstly, it is the very large investment costs for installing an individual
heat pump in each building compared to sharing thermal capacity in a centralised plant with district
heating and secondly, it is the larger investment in residual power plants to supply electricity for the
heat pumps. The conclusions are also valid when demands are decreased, although the individual heat
pump scenarios become more competitive with very low demands, because this results in a lower
need for production capacity.
11
350
Annual Costs (M€/year)
300
250
200
Fuel costs
150
O&M
Investment
100
50
0
District
Heating
Reference
Individual
Heat Pumps
55% Heat Reduction
District
Heating
Individual
Heat Pumps
77% Heat Reduction
Figure 5: Annualised costs for all scenarios considered in the Aarhus case study.
FEWER HEAT SAVINGS STILL REQUIRES A NEW HEAT SUPPLY
Another scenario in the Energy Roadmap 2050 report4 by the European Commission describes a
situation where none of the current policy initiatives in the EU are changed (EU-CPI scenario). EU-CPI
contains very little combined heat and power and district heating systems using excess heat.
In the first pre-study of Heat Roadmap Europe [1], we have also redesigned the heat supply in the EUCPI scenario, to create a new HRE-CPI scenario. This highlights the benefits of a different heat supply
that can recycle heat, even if fewer heat savings are achieved than expected in both the EU-EE and the
HRE-EE scenarios. In HRE-CPI, the expansion of district heating could decrease the European primary
energy supply, decrease fossil fuel consumption, and lower the CO2 emissions while still supplying
exactly the same energy services as in EU-CPI (see Figure 6).
12
Coal
Oil
Natural gas
Biomass & Waste
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
20,000
RES
3,500
18,000
3,000
16,000
14,000
2,500
12,000
2,000
10,000
8,000
1,500
6,000
1,000
4,000
500
2,000
0
0
EU-CPI
HRE-CPI
2030
EU-CPI
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (X, Mt/year)
Nuclear
HRE-CPI
2050
Figure 6, Primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions in the EU-CPI and HRE-CPI scenarios for the
years 2030 and 2050.
More district heating in Europe will reduce the energy system costs considerably since local heat
recycling and renewable energy will replace expensive energy imports compared to EU-CPI. The
reduced energy import will increase the future security of supply and give a more positive balance of
foreign exchange.
At the same time as reducing the costs of energy, more district heating will generate local labourintensive investments. For HRE-CPI a first
rough estimate of job creation indicates
It should be emphasized that 220,000 jobs is a
that around 8-9 million man-years will be
rough estimate of the minimum number of work
created, which equals approximately
places being created and the 220,000 jobs arise
220,000 new jobs on average over the 38
from purely the additional investments. The real
number will be higher due to the following:
year period from 2013 to 2050, due to
• Multiplier effects of the jobs created are not
investments in heat recycling, renewable
included.
energy supply, and extended and new
• Additional jobs are not included to account for
district heating grids. It should be noted
the fact that when the energy costs of Europe
decrease, European industry will become
that these jobs are additional to the jobs
more competitive.
in the EU-CPI 2050 scenario. In neither the
• Additional jobs from industrial innovation due
EU-CPI nor the HRE-CPI scenarios are the
to the investments in new energy technologies
decarbonisation goals achieved.
are not included.
When comparing the jobs in EU-EE and
HRE-EE in which the goals are achieved, HRE-EE would create fewer jobs in the energy sector, as we
have created a cheaper alternative. However with HRE-EE the costs for EU citizens and businesses will
be lower: this reduces the cost burden with regard to the energy supply, creating better
13
competitiveness while still achieving decarbonisation – also in a situation where heat savings are not
achieved due to practical or political implementation difficulties.
Key technologies for the new heat supply in HRE-EE 2050
• Heat savings equal to the most ambitious deep renovation space-heating
scenario in the Eurima3 study from 2012. The total heat demand in buildings is
reduced by 34% between 2010 and 2050.
• Expansion of district heating from the present level of 12% to 50% in 2050.
• Combined Heat and Power: increase from 41 GWe in 2010 to 205 GWe in 2050
• Large-Scale Heat Pumps: 0 GWe in 2010 to 40 GWe in 2050
• Thermal Storage: 160 GWh in 2010 and 750 GWh in 2050
• Centralised Boilers: 132 GWth to 532 GWth in 2050 (mostly on Biomass)
• Heat from Waste Incineration: 50 TWh in 2010 and 200 TWh in 2050
• Large-Scale Solar Thermal: 0 TWh in 2010 and 100 TWh in 2050
• Individual Solar Thermal: 22.5 TWh in 2010 and 130 TWh in 2050
• Industrial Excess Heat: 7 TWh in 2010 and 105 TWh in 2050
• Geothermal Heat: 2 TWh in 2010 and 100 TWh in 2050
• Individual Heat Pumps: 40 GWe in 2010 and 175 GWe in 2050
• Wind Power: 150 TWh in 2010 and 1490 TWh in 2050 (this includes the 65 TWh
of additional wind Power in the HRE-EE scenario in 2050)
Key achievements of the HRE-EE 2050 scenario
• Same decarbonisation as in the EU-EE 2050 scenario
• Same use of fossil fuels as in the EU-EE 2050 scenario
14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................................ 15
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 20
1.1
OVERALL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 20
1.2
CURRENT SITUATION IN 2010 .............................................................................................................. 20
1.2.1 ENERGY BALANCE FOR 2010 .......................................................................................................... 20
1.2.2 CURRENT HEAT MARKET CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 21
1.2.3 CURRENT DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEMS BASED ON LOCAL CONDITIONS ....................................... 22
1.2.4 DISTRICT HEATING WITHIN THE CURRENT EU ENERGY POLICY CONTEXT ..................................... 24
2
3
1.3
FUTURE HEAT DEMANDS IN EUROPE................................................................................................... 26
1.4
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 30
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................. 31
2.1
MAPPING ............................................................................................................................................. 31
2.2
MODELLING ......................................................................................................................................... 33
MAPPING FUTURE POSSIBILITIES INCLUDING LINKING .................................................................................................. 36
3.1
LOCATION OF CURRENT HEAT DEMANDS ............................................................................................ 37
3.1.1 LAND USE DATA AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURES .......................................................................... 41
3.2
MAIN STRATEGIC SOURCES OF HEAT SUPPLY ...................................................................................... 44
3.3
FIRST MAIN HEAT SOURCE CATEGORY – EXCESS HEAT ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 44
3.3.1 THERMAL POWER GENERATION .................................................................................................... 45
3.3.2 WASTE-TO-ENERGY (WTE) ............................................................................................................. 45
3.3.3 INDUSTRIAL EXCESS HEAT .............................................................................................................. 46
3.4
15
SECOND MAIN HEAT SOURCES CATEGORY – RENEWABLE HEAT RESOURCES .................................... 47
3.4.1 BIOMASS ......................................................................................................................................... 47
3.4.2 GEOTHERMAL HEAT ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.3 SOLAR HEAT .................................................................................................................................... 51
3.4.4 CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO AVAILABLE LOCAL HEAT RESOURCES ......................................... 53
3.5
POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS OF DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 54
3.6
LINKING TO ENERGY MODELLING ........................................................................................................ 56
3.7
LINKING TO REGIONAL PLANNING ....................................................................................................... 59
3.7.1 THE EXCESS HEAT RATIO – IDENTIFYING NUTS3 REGION HOT SPOTS ........................................... 59
3.7.2 MOST PROMISING NUTS3 REGION HOT SPOTS ............................................................................. 62
3.7.3 EXPANSION ..................................................................................................................................... 63
3.7.4 REFURBISHMENT ............................................................................................................................ 68
3.7.5 NEW DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................................................................... 69
3.7.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 71
4
5
16
REFERENCE SCENARIO FOR 2030 AND 2050................................................................................................................... 72
4.1
EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEM SCENARIOS IN ENERGY ROADMAP 2050 ............................................... 72
4.2
ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO HEAT DEMAND .................................................................................. 76
4.3
MODELLING THE EU-EE SCENARIO IN ENERGYPLAN ........................................................................... 80
NEW HEAT SCENARIO FOR 2030 AND 2050 ................................................................................................................... 82
5.1
INCREASING THE HEAT DEMAND ......................................................................................................... 83
5.2
REPLACING INDIVIDUAL BOILERS WITH DISTRICT HEATING ................................................................ 90
5.3
REPLACING INDIVIDUAL COOLING WITH DISTRICT COOLING .............................................................. 96
5.4
ADDING DISTRICT HEATING PRODUCTION UNITS................................................................................ 99
5.5
ADDING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO SUPPLY HEAT TO THE DISTRICT HEATING
5.6
UTILISING THE SAME AMOUNT OF BIOMASS AS THE EU-EE SCENARIO ............................................ 101
5.7
UTILISING THE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF THE HRE-EE SCENARIO ................................................. 101
5.8
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 103
NETWORK ........ 100
6
ENERGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF THE HRE SCENARIO ...................................................................................................... 105
7
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 112
8
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 116
9
ANNEX I: REVIEW OF EXISTING ENERGY STRATEGIES ................................................................................................... 121
10 ANNEX II: REVIEW OF FUTURE HEAT DEMANDS WITHIN VARIOUS ENERGY STRATEGIES ............................................ 129
11 ANNEX III: PROFILING BOILERS IN THE EU27 AND EVALUATING THE FUTURE HEAT DEMANDS .................................. 144
12 ANNEX IV: LOCAL CONDITIONS ILLUSTRATED BY MAPS ............................................................................................... 175
13 ANNEX V: THE PRIMES MODELLING TOOL ................................................................................................................... 183
14 ANNEX VI: CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUITABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ................................................................. 185
15 ANNEX VII: KEY ASSUMPTIONS WHEN MODELLING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ........................................... 189
16 ANNEX VIII: DATA INPUT FOR MODELLING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ......................................................... 195
17 ANNEX IX: KEY COSTS ASSUMED FOR THE ENERGY SYSTEM ANALYSES ....................................................................... 199
18 ANNEX X: ENERGYPLAN OUTPUT SHEETS ..................................................................................................................... 202
19 ANNEX XI: DATA USED TO CREATE ENERGY-SYSTEMS-ANALYSIS FIGURES................................................................... 211
20 ANNEX XII: AARHUS CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 218
17
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviation
CC
CCS
CEEP
CEWEP
CHP
CORINE
CPI
DH
EC
EEA
EnergyPLAN (EP)
EHI
EPBD
EU
EU-CPI scenario
EU-EE scenario
GHG
GIS
HRE
HRE-CPI scenario
HRE-EE scenario
IEA
ISWA
NUTS
NUTS3
PES
PP
PRIMES
18
Description
Combined Cycle
Carbon Capture and Storage
Critical Excess Electricity Production
Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, located in Brussels.
Combined Heat and Power
The European land cover surveying system.
Current Policy Initiatives, future energy system scenario in the EC
communication Energy Roadmap 2050.
District Heating
European Commission
European Environment Agency, located in Copenhagen.
The energy system analysis tool used in the pre-study.
European Heating Index
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU)
European Union
The future energy system scenario called Current Policy Initiatives (CPI)
from the Energy Roadmap 2050 communication. This scenario was
chosen as the reference scenario in the first pre-study.
The future energy system scenario called the Energy Efficiency scenario
from the Energy Roadmap 2050 communication. This scenario was
chosen as the reference scenario in this pre-study.
Greenhouse Gas
Geographical Information Systems
Heat Roadmap Europe, a label for a planned research project initiated by
this pre-study.
An alternative future energy system scenario for the EU developed in the
first HRE pre-study, which includes district heating in future scenario for
the EU which only includes the implementation of existing policies.
An alternative future energy system scenario for the EU developed in this
study, which contains energy efficiency measures on both the demand
and the supply side (i.e. by using district heating) of the energy system.
International Energy Agency, located in Paris.
International Solid Waste Association, located in Vienna.
Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units, defined by Eurostat; a
hierarchical geographic boundary system for statistical and other
purposes.
The third level of the European NUTS system defining the national
administrative regions.
Primary Energy Supply
Power Plants - plants producing electricity only
The energy systems model used for energy modelling in the EC
RES
WTE
19
communication Energy Roadmap 2050.
Renewable energy sources
Waste-to-energy, label for defining waste incineration plants with energy
recovery
1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
OVERALL CONTEXT
In 2010, about 73% of all 502 million EU27 residents lived in urban areas, according to United Nations
World Urbanization Prospects [2], indicating that a major part of the EU’s buildings are in high heat
density areas. This condition is in itself a strong argument for increased use of district heating in
Europe. The forecast for the future indicates that the urban population fraction in the EU27 will
continue to increase: it is estimated to be 75% in 2020 and 84% in 2050 6, thus highlighting one of the
many reasons for this study which also include:
• The heating sector is almost always modelled and analysed in a simplified way in most future
energy scenarios published concerning the European energy system. Evidence for this
observation is presented in section 1.3 and Annex II of this report. Other parts of the energy
system, such as electricity generation, industry, and transport, have received more attention in
these scenarios.
• When heating is modelled in future energy scenarios, the heat supply is mostly based on
generic options, while locally available options are omitted. Examples of omitted options are
excess heat from thermal power generation, waste incineration, and industrial excess heat
together with renewable sources as biomass, deep geothermal heat and solar heat.
• The future possibilities and economic benefits with more district heating have never been
properly assessed within the European energy system. District heating is seldom seen as a
powerful tool in most future energy scenarios. This observation is further presented in Annex I
of this report.
The first Heat Roadmap Europe pre-study published in 2012 was the first study ever on the EU27 scale
which estimated the future economic benefits with more district heating using local options available.
However, the first pre-study was based on a scenario which only included the implementation of
existing policies in the EU, so there are relatively small changes in the future heat demands for the
residential and service sectors. The key focus of this second pre-study is to estimate the possibilities
and benefits with considerable reductions of the heat demands in the residential and service sectors.
1.2
CURRENT SITUATION IN 2010
The current situation is described by the 2010 energy balance, the heat market context, the district
heating context, and district heating within the EU energy policy context.
1.2.1 Energy balance for 2010
The current energy balance for EU27 is illustrated in Figure 7 by the 2010 energy balance. This energy
balance presents the energy flows from primary energy supply to end use. The final consumption
stacked bar illustrates the energy flows after the conversion losses of the central conversion plants,
mostly for generating electricity. This stacked bar summarises the energy that final consumers buy. The
end use stacked bar illustrates the energy flows after energy conversion at consumer facilities, such as
6
It should be noted that such aggregated estimates for the entire EU27 are to be considered as indicative only.
The reason for this being mainly that no harmonised definition of “urban area” currently is available, so Member
States employ national definitions.
20
local boilers and vehicles. The figure reveals that about half of the primary energy supply is lost before
reaching the end use. The losses are heat losses, mostly in electricity generation and vehicle engines,
when fuel heat contents are converted into mechanical energy.
Fuels used for heating in buildings constitute 18% of the primary energy supply in the EU27, but some
electricity is also used for heating. This electricity use constitutes about 5% of the primary energy
supply. Hence, the EU27 buildings use 23% of the primary energy supply for heating. The main purpose
with this report is to present a robust strategy for reducing the primary energy supply and the
corresponding carbon dioxide emissions, by recycling some the heat losses encountered between
primary energy supply and end use.
Energy Balance for the EU27 in 2010 (EJ)
80
70
60
Non-specified
50
Non-energy use
40
Transport
30
Electricity
Heat for Industry
20
Heat for Buildings
10
0
Primary Energy
Supply
Final Consumption
End Use
Figure 7: The energy balance in three steps during 2010 for EU27. The energy flows labelled as heat for
industry and building include only fuels and district heating. Electricity used for heating is included in the
electric energy flows [3].
1.2.2 Current heat market context
The current heat market for residential and service sector buildings within the EU27 is about 3300
TWh/year according to Figure 8. The market share for district heating in buildings is approximately
13%, giving heat deliveries of about 430 TWh/year. District heat is also used for low-temperature heat
demands in industry. These heat deliveries are about 180 TWh/year. These two major customer groups
add up to the total volume of heat sold from district heating systems of about 620 TWh/year.
Furthermore, 220 TWh/year is delivered from industrial CHP plants to industrial demands. Hence, the
total turnover in the EU27 heat balance for final consumption amounts to about 840 TWh/year. The
exact division between district heating systems and industrial CHP plants is very diffuse in international
heat statistics. Hereby, it is also difficult to identify the real extent of district heating in the EU27, but
the simple division estimated here will be used in this pre-study.
21
Currently, the heat market for buildings is dominated by fossil-fuels in on-site boilers, which according
to Figure 8 account for two-thirds of the heat supply. This gives a future opportunity for CHP, district
heating and the local use of renewables and heat pumps, by substituting fossil fuels to reduce the
primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions. This expansion of district heating can be fulfilled
by expanding heat recycling and renewable energy use in existing and new district heating systems. A
proper assessment by energy modelling is still missing for this possible expansion for the whole EU27.
However, some assessments have been performed for some countries and cities. One national
example is the two Heat Plan Denmark (Varmeplan Danmark) reports for Denmark [4, 5], while one
city example is the renewable plan for the Munich district heating system and geothermal heat [6].
Another purpose with this pre-study is to pave the road for a proper assessment of a future expansion
of district heating within the EU27. The focus is on more heat deliveries to the residential and service
sector buildings.
Heat
13%
Coal and Coal
Products
3%
Petroleum Products
17%
Electricity
12%
Combustible
Renewables
10%
Solar/Wind/Other
1%
Geothermal
0%
Natural Gas
44%
Figure 8: Composition of the origin for heat supply to residential and service sector buildings in EU27 during
2010. Total heat supply was 11.8 EJ (3300 TWh), not including indirect heat supply from all indoor electricity
use. Labels refer to the standard commodity groups used in the IEA energy balances. Heat denotes mainly heat
from district heating systems. Data sources: IEA energy balances for 2010 complemented with some external
estimations.
1.2.3 Current district heating systems based on local conditions
District heating systems can be found all over Europe today, but levels of expansion differ significantly
between the EU27 Member States. Although some national heat market shares are between 40-60% in
some Scandinavian and Baltic Member States, district heating systems only cover 13% of the current
European heat market for buildings in the residential and service sector. The corresponding market
share for the industrial sector is about 9% [7]. European district heating systems have distribution
pipes with a total trench length of almost 200,000 km, and total revenues for heat sold are about
B€30/year.
22
Since district heating is mainly an urban occurrence, due to the dependency on concentrated heat
demands for feasible heat distribution, it is relevant to express levels of expansion in terms of urban
heat market shares. As a European average, district heat constitute about 16% of current urban heat
markets, while these fractions can reach more than 90% in some cities with mature district heating
systems.
The spread and dissemination of European district heating technology can be seen in Figure 9, where
each red dot marks a city with at least one district heating system in operation. The map is based on
the current contents in the Halmstad University District Heating and Cooling Database. Some current
numbers from the database are summarised in Table 1. The database is not complete, since about
6000 district heating systems currently operate in Europe, of which 5400 are located within the EU27.
The deficit consists mainly of small systems in Germany, France and Poland.
This overview shows that it is possible to track European regions which have existing experience of
district heating systems in operation. An expansion of existing systems in these regions should be
possible.
Table 1: Overview of numbers of district heating systems in Europe according to the current content of the
Halmstad University DHC database.
Number of systems
- in cities and towns over 5000 inhabitants
Number of cities concerned
- in cities and towns over 5000 inhabitants
Number of NUTS3 regions concerned
Total number of NUTS 3 areas
23
All Europe
EU27
4209
2793
3766
2447
663
1461
3584
2445
3268
2188
603
1303
Population
concerned
within
EU27,
million
60
Proportion of
population
concerned
within EU27
141
28%
288
500
58%
100%
12%
Figure 9: Cities with district heating systems in EU27 by city size and for cities having more than 5000
inhabitants. The map shows 2188 cities with 2445 systems [8].
1.2.4 District heating within the current EU energy policy context
The European Union does not have many specific energy policies or directives concerning district
heating. However, the specific directives for industrial emissions, emissions trading, energy
performance in buildings, renewable energy, waste management, energy taxation and energy
efficiency are examples of the EU regulatory framework for district heating.
The latest projection within the EU energy policy context concerning future heat deliveries from
district heating systems and industrial CHP plants is the specific Energy Roadmap 2050 communication
[9] published in December 2011. This communication followed the more general communication from
March 2011 called A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 [10]. However,
the description of the heat sector is not complete in this future projection, since some of the energy
for heat is missing in the corresponding impact assessment reports [11, 12].
24
The development of the heat deliveries in each of the seven scenarios elaborated in Energy Roadmap
2050 is presented in Figure 10. The diagram is somewhat confusing with respect to the future
development. The first years in the projection lack some heat deliveries from industrial CHP plants to
industrial purposes since they are based on existing heat statistics lacking these heat deliveries. On the
other hand, the energy modelling from 2015 and onwards includes all CHP heat deliveries. Hereby, the
diagram gives a false optimistic view of the actual expected development. Therefore, we have added
our own estimations of the total heat deliveries for the period of 2002-2008, estimated with additional
input from the specific Eurostat statistical reports concerning CHP heat generation in the EU27. The
average of these years amounts to about 830 TWh/year comparable to the level identified in section
1.2.2.
1 Reference
1B Current Policy Initiatives
2 Energy Efficiency
3 Diversified
4 High RE
5 Delayed CCS
6 Low Nuclear
IEA
EuroStat
Historical and Projected Heat Deliveries in the EU27
(TWh/year)
EuroStat Including Industry
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Figure 10: Expected heat deliveries for each of the seven main scenarios in the Energy Roadmap 2050
communication [40] compared to the heat statistics available from Eurostat and IEA for recent years.
The expected development then becomes an increase of almost 20% by 2030 and almost 40% by 2050
in the Energy Roadmap 2050 reference scenario, indicating an annual expansion rate lower than 1%
per year. However, this expansion is unevenly distributed among the two major customer groups. Heat
deliveries to industrial purposes are expected to increase by 48% until 2030 and by 87% until 2050,
while heat deliveries to residential and service sector buildings are expected to decrease by 13% until
2030 and by 22% until 2050.
Two questions arise directly from analysing the projection of the heat deliveries in Energy Roadmap
2050: Have local synergy options been considered? To what extent has the substitution of electricity
and gas by excess heat recovery been considered?
25
The conclusion is then that the European Commission does not foresee any radical expansion of the
heat deliveries from district heating systems and industrial CHP plants in the future. Since all
decarbonisation scenarios give lower heat deliveries than in the reference scenario, the European
Commission has not identified district heating and industrial CHP as a major future decarbonisation
tool within the energy system. Hence, Energy Roadmap 2050 has not estimated the outcome from a
radical expansion of European district heating systems. It is possible that the benefits of district
heating may have been overlooked in the Energy Roadmap 2050 communication by the PRIMES tool.
As we have identified from studying the background references for Annex V, the PRIMES tool does not
aggregate local conditions to identify the possibilities for expanding district heating systems, thus
missing many of the possibilities and advantages of district heating. This is not unique to the scenarios
in the Energy Roadmap 2050 report, but as discussed in the next section, the recycling of heat is a
common omission in existing energy strategies for the EU27.
1.3
FUTURE HEAT DEMANDS IN EUROPE
A number of reports regarding the decarbonisation of the energy supply and/or increase in the
penetration of renewable energy have been reviewed to present how the heat sector is currently dealt
with in energy scenarios for the EU27. The results are described below and a description of the
different reports (in terms of heat demands) is available in Annex II. The total number of reports
reviewed is 14. In Table 2, the reports and the organization behind them are presented.
The typical goal in the reports is greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions or to increase the share of
renewable energy. The main trend in almost all the reports is that an increased electrification along
with extensive energy savings are considered the main technological change to achieve reduced GHG
emissions within the heating sector. Of course this implies that the electricity sector is made more
efficient and reduces GHG emissions by producing electricity with low-carbon technologies. The heat
demand depends highly on which scenario is followed. Typically electricity is assumed to play the
largest role in the most ambitious scenarios (with a high share of renewable energy and large energy
savings). In general the more ambitious the GHG goals, the larger the focus on electrification is.
Some of the reports indicate the need for further investigations in terms of heating and cooling, which
underlines the relevance of the analysis in this report. One example can be found in the Energy
Technology Perspectives 2012 by IEA which states:
“Heating and cooling remain neglected areas of energy policy and technology, but their
decarbonisation is a fundamental element of a low-carbon economy.”
The same report states that due to the projected urbanisation, district heating will be more feasible
because of shorter distribution networks and more compact heat-generating infrastructure. Besides
this, a compact urban development can compromise the desired use of natural lighting, ventilation and
decentralised use of solar energy, and higher densities limit the potential of ground-source heat
pumps.
Most of the reports do not state the heat demand separately and it is therefore unclear to what extent
the different resources should supply the demand for heating/cooling in general and specially for
26
district heating. In general the heating sector (including district heating) is not “forgotten” in the
reports, but is just not a main focus area. Table 2 indicates the lack of detailed information regarding
the heat demands in the reviewed reports.
The demand for space heating and domestic hot water is mainly supplied by individual ground source,
air to water or air to air heat pumps in the reports. While a heat pump is in fact a heat production unit,
it is in some places described as a heat savings initiative. This is due to the thought that since heat
pumps are deemed to replace (mainly) inefficient oil and gas boilers (and to some extent electrical
heating), the implementation will result in a lower primary energy demand for the building. However
to reach any ambitious GHG targets, the extensive use of heat pumps implies that the electricity sector
in the long run must be based mainly on renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and/or
nuclear power.
In the Energy Roadmap 2050 it is stated that some European long term energy scenarios seem to have
unclear/inadequate assumptions of the necessary investment costs for the electricity distribution grid.
This means that the cost of the increased electrification may actually be higher than what is expected
in these scenarios.
Most reports do mention some district heating in densely populated areas using technologies such as
large scale heat pumps, CHP, biomass, and to some extent solar and geothermal heat. Gas is also
predicted in several reports to act as a replacement for coal and oil – at least in the short to medium
term future. District heating is expected to have an important role, but this is mainly in the less
ambitious scenarios in terms of GHG reductions except from the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012
report from IEA where the importance of CHP and district heating is recognised as fundamental for the
“decarbonisation” of the heating and cooling sector.
One of the main ways to reduce the heat demand and energy demand in general is to include strict
building requirements in all new buildings. After 2020 “nearly zero-energy buildings” are assumed to
be the norm in Europe due to the energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD) [13]. Besides this,
buildings which are subject to “major” renovations should at least live up to the “minimum
requirements”. In the EPBD it is specified that it is the sole responsibility of the Member States to set
minimum requirements for the energy performance of buildings and building elements. In other
words, the responsibility of these savings in the heating of buildings relies on a) the legislation in the
different countries and b) the rate of refurbishment. The latter is in some reports assumed to lead to a
refurbishment of the whole European building stock by 2050. While a typical renovation cycle of
buildings (e.g. around 30-40 years) may make the renovations necessary within the timeframe from
now till 2050, the issue is not only whether or not renovations will occur, but if the energy savings
initiatives will be implemented when the renovations are carried out. In many cases there will be only
one chance to improve the energy performance (i.e. one renovation within the period). Hence the
uncertainty of refurbishment rates to high energy standards also lies within the assumption of the
improvement of all renovated buildings besides the amount of buildings renovated per year.
Nevertheless several reports include high refurbishment rates (to high energy standards) even without
mentioning the share of the building mass which in practice cannot be improved, such as historical
monuments.
27
Table 2: List of reports reviewed, the organization behind the report, and the relation to the heating sector.
Report title
Does the report
analyse the
development in
heat demand?
Is CHP a
part of the
analyses?
Is district
heating
expanded
as part of
the
analyses?
EC Energy
Roadmap 2050
/ Impact
Assessment
EC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
For industry
only, using
industrial
CHP
Roadmap 2050
ECF
No
No
Yes
Yes, but not
quantified in
the text
Yes, but not
quantified
The Energy
Report
/ Re-energising
Europe
WWF
No
No
Not
mentioned
No
No
ETP 2012
IEA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
described
WEO 2012
IEA
No
No
Yes
Yes, but not
quantified in
the text
Deciding the
future
WEC
No
No
Not
mentioned
No
No
Desert Power
2050
Dii
No
No
Not
mentioned
No
No
Policy Report Contribution of
EE measures…
Fraunhofer
ISI
No
No
Not
mentioned
Yes, but not
quantified in
the text
No
Rethinking 2050
EREC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not
described
Yes, but not
quantified
EU Energy Policy
to 2050
EWEA
No
No
Not
mentioned
No
No
Eurima
Space
heating
demand,
yes
Space heating
demand, yes
Not
mentioned
No
Yes, but not
included for
new bldg.
No
No
Not
mentioned
No
Not
described
No
No
Not
mentioned
directly
Yes
Yes, but not
quantified
Renovation
tracks for Europe
up to 2050
Europe’s
buildings under
the microscope
Power choices
28
Organisation
Is the heat
demand
quantified
separately?
Is CHP said
to be
important
to
promote?
BPIE
Eurelectric
Two of the main barriers to achieve the improvements in terms of the heat demand of buildings are
the high investment cost (and long payback time) and the issue that there is often a split of incentives
between tenants and landlords because the person who pays the energy bill is not the same as the one
who would have to invest in building improvements. For this reason and the fact that the present
annual renovation rates in most countries are well below a level which will have all buildings renovated
by 2050 [14], there is an urgent need for political action to address the barriers by implementing
policies and financing models to help overcome high up-front investment costs. The European
Commission recognises the magnitude of this challenge when stating that the Energy Efficiency (EU-EE)
scenario of the Energy Roadmap 2050 “…pushes the limits of what the chosen measures can achieve”.
Actually none of the scenarios in the Energy Roadmap 2050 live up to the energy efficiency 20-20-20
goals 7 [15]: the Energy Efficiency scenario only reaches 18% in 2020. This indicates that fulfilling the
goals will only be that much harder if the measures to obtain them are not launched right away, but
scheduled to be commissioned in the years ahead.
For most of the reports the idea is not to make a forecast of the expected future of the energy system,
but to describe different ways to achieve more or less (or very) ambitious goals in terms of GHG
emission reductions or share of renewables. In other words, the projections should not be seen as the
answer on how to move towards a sustainable future, but as suggestions on how a specific target could
be reached. The idea of HRE is to make a scenario for the European energy system towards 2050 which
will argue that there is another unexplored path towards the energy objectives and that this path can
contribute to address the technological challenges of implementing high shares of renewables and
deep cuts in GHG emissions – even in an economically feasible way.
Concluding from the review of the analyses in the reports mentioned, it can be said that there is a
need for conducting integrated energy system analysis of the electricity and heating sector – also
taking into account refurbishment, energy savings and new building standards. Should the actual
refurbishment rate and energy efficiency improvements not live up to the very ambitious targets for
buildings, the need for other measures in the electricity sector, or transport sector could increase in
order to maintain the overall GHG emission objective. Also CHP and district heating could become a
good option to increase energy efficiency and include more sources for the heat sector.
7
A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels (binding), raising the share of EU energy
consumption produced from renewable resources to 20% (binding) and a 20% improvement in the EU's energy
efficiency.
29
1.4
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Overall, the key focus in this report is to create a new heat strategy for the EU27 primarily based on
heat savings in buildings, the expansion of district heating, more heat recycling, more renewable
energy, and individual heat pumps. The report is structured as follows:
 Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the methodology used in this study.
 Chapter 3 describes the maps that have been created for the EU27, which are used to identify
how district heating can be expanded and what resources can supply heat to district heating
networks in the future.
 Chapters 4, 5, and 6 describe the modelling part of this study:
 Chapter 4 presents the reference scenario, which is used as a starting point in the
energy systems modelling. The reference scenario is based on the Energy Efficiency
(EU-EE) scenario from the EU Energy Roadmap report.
 Chapter 5 describes how the EU-EE scenario is redesigned to include both district
heating and district cooling, along with less heat savings and the same number of
individual heat pumps. This new heat strategy is called the Heat Roadmap Europe
Energy Efficiency (HRE-EE) scenario.
 Chapter 6 presents a comparison between the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios. The
energy consumed, CO2 emissions produced, and the costs of both scenarios are
discussed.
 Chapter 6 discusses the main results from a case study, which has also been completed in this
project based on the city of Aarhus in Denmark. This case study also includes a combination of
mapping and modelling. Different combinations of heat savings, district heating, and individual
heat pumps are compared for the city of Aarhus.
 Chapter 7 presents the main conclusions from this report.
30
2
METHODOLOGY
The methodology utilised in this study is based on a combination mapping and energy system
modelling. The mapping of local conditions reflects the potential to expand district heating in the
future, while the modelling quantifies the effect of including district heating in the EU energy system.
This approach is not completely new: the same methodology was used in the Heat Plan Denmark
(Varmeplan Danmark) project [4, 5] with a very high geographical resolution for the mapping of local
conditions. Below is a brief discussion of both the mapping and modelling methodologies employed in
this study. In addition a case study has been performed for a concrete city, using more site specific
data (see chapter 0 and Annex XII).
2.1
MAPPING
Included in this study is a new methodology to map the heat demand, the potential for district heating,
and the supply from excess heat and renewable energy sources at a desirable higher geographical
resolution on an EU27 scale. The mapping part is then used to estimate the district heating expansion
feasible in the EU in 2030 and 2050, which acts as an input for the modelling part of this study. In the
future, the aim is to explore how this link between mapping and modelling can be even stronger.
The main target area for the analysis is the aggregated area of the European Union with 27 member
states (EU27). Since the mapping of local conditions concerns all countries within the European Union,
the mapping information can be used for a separate analysis of each country. A major setback in
standard generic energy modelling is that national conditions constitute the basis for the analysis. By
such an approach, energy assets, demands, and distribution structures are viewed from an aggregated
perspective not permitting insight into unique local circumstances and conditions. Such perspectives
may be well suited when considering cross-border technologies and energy carriers such as electricity
and gas grids, since such commodity flows are integrated and visible in international energy statistics.
But, for analyses aiming to include genuinely local technologies such as district heating and cooling
systems, such perspectives generally tend to be too blunt to detect and capture synergy options
strictly limited to the local dimension.
The ambitious European targets to increase energy efficiency in future power and heat distribution
and use acts as a force to address local conditions in a more systematic and thorough sense than
previously elaborated. The main reason for this is simply that only local conditions disclose obtainable
synergies between local heat assets and prevailing heat demands. Only at the local level can the excess
heat from various activities and sources be utilised by the recovery and distribution in district heating
systems. For this reason, one fundamental idea for the planned extensive Heat Roadmap Europe
Project is to deliberately break-up national boundaries and use local conditions as a foundation for the
analysis, as it strives to identify, map, and quantify feasible and cost-effective synergy locations in
Europe.
For this purpose, we have used the NUTS3 regions defined by Eurostat as primary level of analysis for
mapping local conditions in order to get relevant input to the energy modelling. These administrative
regions, according to the 2006 NUTS classification with 2008 additions, are available for 34 European
countries with 1461 defined regions. The 27 Member States of the European Union consists of 1289
31
NUTS3 regions, see Figure 11. By using these predefined administrative regions, other statistical
variables are easily available from the Eurostat and other related databases. A wide array of such
publicly available data has been utilised in this study to create a heat atlas identifying the heat
demands in Europe, as well as several other maps to identify resources available for future district
heating systems. In the Heat Roadmap Europe context, these resources are divided into the two main
strategic heat source categories of excess heat and renewable local resources, where the former
includes sources such as thermal power generation plants, waste incineration facilities, and recovery of
excess industrial heat, while the latter refers mainly to biomass, geothermal, and solar thermal heat.
Figure 11: The NUTS3 regions of Europe, of which 1289 are located within the EU27 European territory and 14
are located overseas.
The actual presence of sufficient heat demands in absolute terms and by geographical density is crucial
for an estimate of the potentials for developing future district heating systems. The general aim of the
mapping part of the project is thus to quantify the share and absolute size of heat demand by density,
by population, and relative to the locations of excess heat activities, so that the total amount of district
32
heat to be distributed by the future energy system of Europe is known. The mapping part of the
project thus serves two purposes; first to create a linkage with the energy system modelling part of the
project, which simulates supply and demand on an hourly basis, and, secondly, to provide input and
methodological tools for regional planning of future local European heat markets. The link to the
energy system modelling, where the mapping group provides regional data of probable district heat
volumes, also operates in the opposite direction: the output from the energy systems modelling
indicates the amount of different resources that can be utilised within the energy system.
With reference to the two main strategic sources of heat supply, such indications could – to exemplify
– refer to locations where excess heat recovery from thermal power generation is a priority, or where
rich availability of biomass is a major alternative. At yet other locations, Waste-to-Energy incineration
in combination with significant presence of energy intensive industrial facilities, offers a quite different
set of heat supply options. Mapping of European heat assets by regional resolution provides in this
sense a basis for evaluations of appropriate alternative heat supply compositions, and in extension also
concrete tools for planning of local and regional heat networks.
2.2
MODELLING
After profiling the potential for district heating using the new maps created in this study, the effect of
district heating on the EU energy system is then analysis using an energy systems tool. In this way, the
impact of district heating can be quantified.
EnergyPLAN is an energy system analysis tool specifically designed to assist the design of national or
regional energy planning strategies under the “Choice Awareness” theory [16, 17]. It has been
developed and expanded on a continuous basis since 1999 at Aalborg University, Denmark [18]. As a
result, it is now a very complex tool which considers a wide variety of technologies, costs, and
regulations strategies for an energy system (see Figure 12). The algorithms used to create the tool are
described in detail in the user manual [19].
EnergyPLAN is a user-friendly tool designed in a series of tab sheets and programmed in Delphi Pascal.
The main purpose of the tool is to assist the design of national or regional energy planning strategies
by simulating the entire energy-system: this includes heat and electricity supplies as well as the
transport and industrial sectors. All thermal, renewable, storage/conversion, transport, and costs (with
the option of additional costs) can be modelled by EnergyPLAN. It is a deterministic input/output tool
and general inputs are demands, renewable energy sources, energy station capacities, costs, and a
number of different regulation strategies for import/export and for handling excess electricity
production. Outputs are energy balances and resulting annual productions, fuel consumption,
import/export of electricity, and total costs including income from the exchange of electricity. The
energy system is modelled on an hourly basis over a period of one year, which ensures that the system
can be operated reliable even with high penetrations of intermittent renewable energy. As the model
is based on compiled analytical procedures rather than on the interpretation of model
interdependencies, the computation of one year requires only a few seconds on a normal computer.
Finally, EnergyPLAN optimises the operation of a given system as opposed to tools which optimise
investments in the system.
33
Figure 12: The structure of the EnergyPLAN tool [17].
Previously, EnergyPLAN has been used in a variety of studies at national and European level, including
the Heat Plan Denmark (Varmeplan Danmark) project [4, 5] and the first HRE pre-study [1]. In this
study, the EU energy system has been modelled in EnergyPLAN based on the EU-EE scenario (see
chapter 4). Then, as outlined in Figure 13, the inputs from the mapping work in this study have been
used to replace some of the individual heating in the EU-EE scenario with district heating. This is
combined with a number of other alternations to the heat sector to produce a new HRE-EE scenario
(see chapter 5). Finally, both of these scenarios are compared with one another (see chapter 6).
34
Modelling
Reference
Mapping
(EU-EE Scenario)
Heat Demands
New Heat Strategy
Heat Resources
(HRE-EE Scenario)
Potential District
Heating Expansion
Comparison
(Energy, CO2, Costs)
Figure 13: Linkage between the mapping and modelling in this study.
35
3
MAPPING FUTURE POSSIBILITIES INCLUDING LINKING
In the mapping part of the project, three fundamental categories of information relevant for district
heating expansions are subject for spatial analysis; residential and service sector heat demands, excess
heat activities, and local renewable heat resources. While heat demand is geographically distributed in
terms of climatic location, levels of energy services required by local populations, and by human
settlement patterns (such as rural areas, towns and cities), excess heat activities and local renewable
heat resources are distributed spatially over the continent by influence of e.g. regional levels of
economic activity, availability of raw materials, and general terrain properties.
The main objective of this chapter is thus to map the shares of total EU27 residential and service sector
heat demands that are within reach of district heating; and to geographically quantify the sources of
current and future district heat generation. From a strict heat supply perspective, modern district
heating systems can be viewed as local heat distribution solutions that exploit two main strategic
sources of heat; excess heat and renewable heat resources. Both of these main sources of heat supply
consist of three activity sectors each, according to:
1. Excess heat:
• Thermal power generation
• Waste-to-Energy incineration
• Energy intensive industrial sectors
2. Renewable heat:
• Biomass
• Geothermal
• Solar
The first main heat source category is based on the principle of sequential energy supply, or cascade
coupling, by which rejected heat flows from primary energy conversions are recovered as secondary
heat. Although primary fuel sources in thermal power generation and energy intensive industrial
activities consist of fossil shares, serial utilisation of excess heat improves the general energy efficiency
of these processes. Waste-to-Energy incineration of municipal solid waste and industrial waste
fractions, possibly also containing shares with fossil origin, serves a purpose to reduce landfill deposits,
reduce landfill GHG emissions while simultaneously generating electricity and heat.
The second main heat sources category is based on the principle of utilising local renewable heat
resources available in the ground, on land, or from the sky. As with the first main heat source category,
these assets are heterogeneously spread over Europe depending on e.g. geology, agricultural and
silvicultural management practices, and geographical location. Some European areas are rich in all
three activity sectors, while others have dominant assets to exploit within only one or two of these. As
a general distribution, Northern Member States are richer in biomass, while Central European areas
are richer in geothermal energy. Solar irradiation is about twice as intense in Southern Europe
compared to the Northern parts of the continent, but solar energy is naturally present in all Member
State although at various degrees of intensity and usability.
36
While district heating systems today are supplied with heat originating from both fossil and renewable
heat sources, a future decrease of the fossil content would further improve the sustainability of district
heating. Future possibilities constitute a complex matrix of excess heat activities and renewable heat
resources (including also wind energy converted to heat) heterogeneously distributed amongst city
districts, urban agglomerations, rural regions, and country sides. To decide upon which future solutions
to explore at different locations, a comprehensive mapping of prospective demand and supply is
carried out. To be able to decide and select what options to develop at any given place, sufficient heat
demand density as well as point sources for excess heat and local access to renewable energy sources
has to be quantified by location. A first step to address these challenges and to generate a basic
understanding of this puzzle is therefore to map European heat demands, excess heat activities, and
local renewable heat resources.
In combination with spatial information and geographical data for each locality and activity, the project
aims at finding regions with exceptionally good conditions for establishing new and expanding existing
district heating systems. However, the idea of using GIS based spatial planning for finding district
heating opportunities is not new. This approach was used in Sweden in 2003 in order to identify more
aggregated heat loads for higher utilisation of industrial excess heat and combined heat and power
[20]. The Heat Plan Denmark project in 2008 used an extensive GIS-based heat atlas to identify the
potentials to fully utilise existing district heating systems, and convert individual natural gas to new
district heating on a national scale [5, 21]. A similar project in the UK gathered information about
industrial heat loads [22]. The knowledge gained in that project is now available as interactive Internet
maps for the CHP development [23] and the recently released National Heat Map [24]. A similar
approach has also been used to give an overview of the European power plant infrastructure [25].
Hence, both information availabilities and presentation methods have made it possible to leave
national energy balances in favour of local energy balances in future energy modelling.
3.1
LOCATION OF CURRENT HEAT DEMANDS
A key parameter in the mapping part of the Heat Roadmap project is to produce reliable assessments
of low temperature heat demands for space heating and domestic hot water preparation in each
NUTS3 region, since these heat demands constitute the main target for district heat distribution.
Estimating total NUTS3 region heat demands for space heating and domestic hot water preparation in
residential and service sectors are fairly straight forward, although at a much too coarse resolution for
district heating applications. In aiming to identify and map the proportion of total NUTS3 region heat
demands within reach of current and future district heating systems, i.e. heat demand in areas with
sufficient density quantified by amount and location, the greatest challenge is to map heat demands
with sufficiently high geographical resolution. The aim within the project is to locate heat demands
within a few kilometres distance.
The methodological approach of mapping heat demands is done initially in a top-down manner, where
national level energy statistics allow for the calculation of Member State average per-capita heat
demands, which are subsequently associated to total population counts within each NUTS3 region in
respective country. Per-capita heat demands by country include the levels of energy services available
in the country, such as amount of floor space and indoor climatic comfort levels. It also indicates the
37
technological level of heating, reflected by level of insulation, occupant behaviour, or access to
thermostatic control. Finally, the general climate of each Member State is represented by use of the
European Heating Index (EHI), a concept presented by Werner [26], in order to map sub-national
deviations from national and European heat demand averages. The European heating index is available
as an isoline with values of zero in the far South to 150 in Northern Scandinavia.
Eurostat statistics on NUTS3 region level are the smallest scale of public statistics available for all EU27
countries and contain, among other parameters, data on population and service sector activities. To
achieve the highest possible resolution for mapping, the GEOSTAT European population grid by GISCO,
the European Forum for Geostatistics, containing the 2006 population in one square kilometre grid
cells was used [27]. Comprising of almost two million cells, this data set is assumed to be by far the
best possible input to map high resolution demography in all EU27 Member States. Using the EHIadjusted heat demands per NUTS3 region, as described above, this population grid was converted to a
highly detailed heat atlas for Europe.
The one square kilometre grid that contains heat demand in Tera-joules per square kilometre (TJ/km2)
comprises a heat demand density map which could be the basis for an assessment of district heating
potential by density alone. However, the grid does not allow for mapping coherent areas of similar
heat demand. These are necessary to describe a distribution of heat demand over larger areas, which
can be converted to areas that have a minimum threshold value for heat demand. A focal mean
function in the raster-representation of a geographical information system (GIS) was used to calculate
the average values of heat demand within a radius of one kilometre. The result is a smoothed heat
demand density map; a European heat atlas, as presented in Figure 14. To our knowledge, this kind of
heat atlas has never been published for EU27 before.
In order to present a future heat demand, which takes into account the demographic projections for
the member states, and which is reduced by 34% of the current demand, another version of the heat
atlas was prepared. Population growth by 2030 originates from the PRIMES model, which was
multiplied by the current population count per cell. The future energy demand of 34% was normalised
for all cells dividing by the overall population growth in EU27 of 104%. The resulting heat atlas and
heat demand density map shows that with the same classification, the prospective district heating
potential is reduced significantly.
The heat demand density map by focal mean is found to represent European urban areas and their
suburban fringes very well. On the basis of a classification by Werner, four zones of heat demand
density were modelled: below 15 TJ/km2, 15-50 TJ/km2, 50-150 TJ/km2, and above 150 TJ/km2, which
represent levels of technological development as well as a general classification of areas by feasibility.
The heat demand density class value of each square kilometre grid cell was spatially joined to the heat
atlas, hereby allowing for classification of each individual 1 km2 by heat density. Afterwards the nearly
two million cells were subjected to further processing by means of a pivot table summary, which
specifies the amount of heat demand by density class for all NUTS3 districts, resulting in the
distribution presented in Table 3. The method is generic in a sense that statistical extracts can be made
by several parameters, and for several geographical entities.
38
Figure 14: European Heat Atlas by heat demand density classes based on the GEOSTAT 2006 1 km2 population
grid.
Table 3: Heat demand density classes, current situation (2006) for EU27
Heat demand
density class
2
[TJ/km ]
Population
[106]
Share of
Population
[%]
Total
inhabite
d area
[km2]
Share of
Total
inhabited
area [%]
Avg. heat demand
density [TJ/km2]
Total heat
demand [PJ]
Share of heat
demand [%]
zero
0 - 15
15 - 50
50 - 150
> 150
Total
22.6
155.7
127.4
143.3
53.7
502.6
4
31
25
29
11
100
114924
1665529
121494
39403
5111
1946461
5.9
85.6
6.2
2.0
0.3
100
1.9
2.0
25.0
87.0
243.0
221
3349
3051
3436
1241
11298
2
30
27
30
11
100
It was found that the focal mean density method has a levelling effect and results in lower overall
density values, underestimating the district heating potentials. If using the raw density values however,
the potential is overestimated. This happens because many small areas with higher densities are
39
identified, which often are not connected to larger prospective district heating areas. The solution may
be to use the focal mean and the raw density as thresholds, within which a more realistic potential
may be found. Figure 15 shows the development of these density thresholds by cumulative heat
demand.
Raw density 2010
Raw density HRE-EE
Focal mean 1c density 2010
Focal Mean 1c density HRE-EE
Heat demand density (TJ/km2)
1000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1
0
2
4
6
8
Cumulative heat demand (EJ/year)
10
12
Figure 15: Cumulative heat demand according to the European Heat Atlas in 2010 and in the Heat Roadmap
Europe Energy Efficiency (HRE-EE) scenario, by two different types of heat density calculations. Raw density is
the density calculated in each square kilometre cell, while Focal mean density is the density if calculating the
mean of a cell and its neighbourhood cells, thereby levelling out density values but resulting in more coherent
prospective district heating areas.
Taking Denmark as a case, the abovementioned method was applied to reconstruct the prospective
district heating areas found, and to validate the results of the heat demand calculations. Looking at the
area around the city of Aarhus (which also serves as the location of the case study for a comparison
between district heating and individual heat supply in this report – see chapter 0), it can be seen that
the boundaries of the proposed district heating areas found by the density method correspond very
well with the district heating areas charted by the municipal heat plans, see Figure 16. Of course the
mapping here happens at two different scales. While the existing district heating areas are mapped at
scales between 1:10,000 to 1:25,000, the European heat atlas grid resolution of 1 km2 is equivalent to
scales of 1:250,000 to 1:1,000,000 (this is an approximation; vector scale and raster resolution cannot
directly be compared). The scale or resolution of one square kilometre is sufficient to identify all
district heating areas of more than 1020 TJ of annual heat demand. It can further be seen that there
40
are several smaller district heating areas existing, which however are too small to be identified by the
European model 8.
Figure 16: Comparison of prospective district heating areas found by the density method and existing district
heating areas around the city of Aarhus, Denmark. The method can identify the majority of areas. The
resolution of one square kilometre is just sufficient to identify all district heating areas above 10-20 TJ of
annual heat demand.
3.1.1 Land use data and settlement structures
The main challenges of using uniform values of per-capita heat demands lie in the real-life
heterogeneity of settlement structures, in the differing geography of a country (where particularly
extensive and large countries may have different levels of heating requirements in different parts of
the country), and in varying socio-economic structures – where uneven distributions of e.g. wealth
may have influence on heat demand factors such as specific floor spaces, household sizes, and
affordability of space and hot water heating. Different regional building practices and national building
codes through times add to this complexity. Actual geographical distribution of settlement structures
by type and volume within cities and urban agglomerations is not fully captured by NUTS3 level
information, and rarely so even in data originating from the highest level of resolution in official
European spatial data, i.e. the Local Administrative Units (LAU2, or NUTS5, i.e. municipal level).
Also from a strict district heating perspective, being a local heat distribution technology utilizing local
opportunities, the ability to sub-penetrate national and NUTS3 region information levels is crucial for
8
A comparison between the modelled heat demand and the actually measured demand in the supply area of
Affald Varme Aarhus shows a very good correspondence. While the expected demand in the supply area, based
on several years of recorded data and using a normalised climate profile, is 8363 TJ, the Danish Heat Atlas by
Aalborg University (Möller, 2008) accounts the heat demand to 8597 TJ, while the European Heat Atlas lands at
8731 TJ, which is a difference of less than 2% to the Danish Heat atlas and of 4% if compared to the expected
heat sales, which are subject to some uncertainty.
41
feasibility estimations and practical assessments. Altogether, heat demands, settlement structures,
land use priorities, excess heat activities, local heat resources, and general geographic properties of
any given location need to be analyzed at high spatial resolution to provide sufficient information for
robust assessments. Since heat demands, and e.g. levels of heat demand density concentrations, are
decisive for the feasibility of district heating installations, the approach of combining 1 km2 population
grids with NUTS3 regional data needs therefore – in the extension of the project – to be improved in
ways that allow for the delineation of areas within which there is a certain head demand density and
presence of main strategic heat supplies.
Coincidentally, a wide range of datasets are today publicly available for in-depth geographical and
demographical analyses of local conditions in EU27 Member States. In Figure 17, an example of land
use data from the European CORINE land cover 2000 seamless vector database is depicted with
regards to some chosen land cover types in Belgium. The CORINE 2000 database [28] discretely reveals
heat demand concentrations in urban areas, by label distinctions between e.g. continuous urban
fabric, discontinuous urban fabric and industrial and commercial areas. In the CORINE database, the
complete European land area is defined according to 44 different land cover types, and hence, it offers
the possibility to identify proportions of urban areas within all NUTS3 regions.
Figure 17: Example of land cover data labels for Belgium from the European CORINE land cover 2000 seamless
vector database [28].
A major parameter decisive for the mapping of future district heating is also availability of high
resolution data on European cities and urban agglomerations. Going beyond the CORINE 2000 dataset,
in terms of geographical resolution, the Urban Audit of Eurostat has collected information on larger
EU27 urban areas since late 1990s. As a cooperation between the European Commission Directorate42
General for Regional Policy and the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, with support of
the European Space Agency and the European Environment Agency, the European GMES Urban Atlas
constitute a massive spatial dataset with high resolution data for many but not all European cities,
drawing from the experiences from the Urban Audit scheme. As an example from this dataset, Figure
18 shows a wide set of land cover types for the French capitol Paris and surrounding NUTS3 regions
(EEA, 2010). Using advanced spatial statistics such as cluster and outlier analysis by Morans I, or using
Getis-Ord’s Gi-coefficient for identification of hot spots, the urban land cover maps could be used to
identify coherent areas on the basis of spatial distribution alone. Alternatively, raster-based analysis or
network analysis may be used to model the cost propagation of district heating network by weighted
distance using gravity-based approaches.
Figure 18: Example of land cover and settlement structure data for the French capitol Paris, with surrounding
NUTS3 regions, from the European GMES Urban Atlas dataset [29].
In the extension of the Heat Roadmap project, as the results will be disseminated to regional energy
planners and local authorities, the features of the European CORINE land cover 2000 seamless vector
database, the GMES Urban Altas as well as the GEOSTAT 2006 population grid can provide the basis for
a tool to identify coherent prospective district heating areas. Information on land cover types and especially - urban tissue distribution will be important when sub-penetrating the NUTS3 region level to
out-line feasible distribution distances from available heat sources to existing and future district
43
heating systems. Going one step further, even a model of all urban areas, and their district heating
potentials by amounts and costs can be thought of. By thus offering spatial guidance and geographical
support when identifying and analysing European synergy opportunities and locations, high resolution
geographical and spatial datasets constitute corner-stones in the tool-package of the project.
3.2
MAIN STRATEGIC SOURCES OF HEAT SUPPLY
To provide an alternative projection of future European heat supply in contrast to the generic model
approach of the Energy Roadmap 2050, key parameters to identify in the Heat Roadmap Europe
project will be the availability of current local excess heat streams and alternative local heat resources.
Thus using a bottom-up approach to include local conditions, the project aims at establishing balances
between local heat demands in residential and service sectors and available local excess heat and
renewables heat resources in each NUTS3 region.
A first inspiration for the need of such a bottom-up approach, was presented in the Ecoheatcool study
[30], where future possible heat resources from combined heat and power, Waste-to-Energy,
industrial excess heat recovery, geothermal heat, and biomass was quantified on an aggregated level
for 32 European countries. The findings from this work can be summarised as:
•
•
•
•
•
Approximately 17% of all residual heat from thermal power generation was
recycled into district heating systems or used directly for industrial demands
Only 1% of the European biomass potential was used in district heating systems
for urban heat demands
Approximately 7% of the calorific value of non-recycled waste was utilised as heat
in district heating systems
Only 3% of the direct available industrial excess heat was recycled into district
heating systems
Less than 0.001% of the geothermal resources suitable for direct use were utilised
in district heating systems
Hence, there is no shortage, in absolute terms, of available heat resources in short and medium term.
To identify the relative amount of techno-economically feasible supply, the Heat Roadmap Europe
project aims at finding the locations for these future heat resources in order to facilitate an expansion
of district heating in Europe.
3.3
FIRST MAIN HEAT SOURCE CATEGORY – EXCESS HEAT ACTIVITIES
As mentioned above, modern district heating systems are local heat distribution solutions that exploit
the two main strategic sources of excess heat and renewable heat resources. The first main heat
sources category, excess heat, is found mainly in thermal power generation plants, in waste-to-energy
incineration facilities, and in energy intensive industrial processes. A brief overview is given below in
this sub section with respect to some available information sources about excess heat locations and
annual volumes. Although summoned here mainly per Member State or at EU27 level, the information
44
itself is geo-referenced as point data with coordinates, which has been gathered and generated on
NUTS3 region level and subsequently aggregated for this overview presentation.
3.3.1 Thermal power generation
The possibility of increased combined heat and power generation in the European power balance is
based on an assumed continued future need for thermal power generation. Increased recovery of
excess heat from thermal power generation plants will reduce heat losses to the environment and
substitute the current use of fossil fuels for space heating and hot water preparation in many European
buildings. Given a current ¾ approximate share of power-only operation in European thermal power
generation (2008), there should be future possibilities with increased recovery of excess heat by more
combined heat and power generation.
As presented in Table 5, annual EU27 Member State excess heat volumes from thermal power
generation alone are substantial. If only considering major facilities with installed capacities above 50
MW, as reported in the E-PRTR for the years 2007 to 2009 (and given applied carbon emission factors
and other project assumptions), total EU27 excess heat volumes from these activities sum up to some
7.1 EJ yearly. Although massive, this figure is likely to be an under-assessment, since there is also a
large presence of smaller sized plants throughout the continent. The locations of major thermal power
stations using fuel combustion are presented in Annex IV in Figure 81. However, many of these
installations already operate as combined heat and power plants, and a large share of this generation
capacity is located in more rural areas, at large distances from cities and towns that represent
sufficiently sized district heat sinks.
3.3.2 Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
Waste incineration with energy recovery belongs to the fourth recovery step of the waste
management hierarchy after prevention, re-use, and recycling in the Waste Framework Directive. The
primary purpose with waste incineration is to avoid the environmental problems associated with
landfills, the fifth and final step in the waste management hierarchy. As presented in Figure 19, the use
of landfills is still very extensive for municipal solid waste in many EU27 Member States, since 92
million tonnes of municipal solid waste reached landfills during 2010 according to eurostat [30]. Also
industrial waste streams are available for waste incineration. Less than half of the current waste
supplied to the Swedish WTE plants is municipal solid waste.
The locations of the 407 WTE plants currently operating within EU27 are presented in Annex IV in
Figure 82. These plants receive about 65 million tonnes of waste per year, representing a calorific heat
value of between 650 and 720 PJ. Currently, less than half of this calorific heat value is recovered as
electricity as well as heat. During 2009, only 162 PJ of heat was recycled from these European WTE
plants according to the Eurostat heat balance. Hence, more heat could be recycled from WTE plants,
both from better utilisation of existing plants and establishment of new WTE plants.
45
Composted etc
Energy recovery
Incinerated without energy recovery
Landfilled
Unknown (generated minus treated)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
European Union - 27
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
Malta
Germany
Spain
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Portugal
Finland
Belgium
Sweden
Greece
Slovenia
Hungary
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Poland
Estonia
Latvia
Municipal Solid Waste (kg/person)
Material recycling
Figure 19: Distribution of municipal solid waste treatment in EU27 Member States during 2010 according to
the waste hierarchy order categories [30].
3.3.3 Industrial excess heat
Industrial excess heat is normally recycled from five typical energy intensive industrial sub-sectors
(chemical/petrochemical; iron and steel; non-ferrous metals; non-metallic minerals; and pulp and
paper production) and oil refineries. Current recycling of industrial excess heat is difficult to discover
since it is not reported in international energy statistics. The only bodies that report these heat
streams are national district heating associations gathering own national statistics. An overview of
these heat streams is presented in Persson & Werner [31] for 2008: 1.1 PJ in France, 17.6 PJ in Sweden,
2.9 PJ in Denmark, 3.2 PJ in Germany, and 0.1 PJ in Italy. These volumes add up to 24.8 PJ for the whole
EU27. But this estimation is probably an underestimation, since the situation in many other countries
is unknown.
The locations for major industrial plants within the six sub-sectors mentioned above having excess
heat are presented in Annex IV in Figure 83. Many of these plants are located near urban areas giving
the possibility of transferring the excess heat to heat consumers in district heating systems. Given
applied study recovery efficiencies, reflecting full capacity recovery, total annual excess heat volumes
from EU27 energy intensive industrial sub-sectors are in the vicinity of 2.7 EJ, as detailed in Table 5.
46
3.4
SECOND MAIN HEAT SOURCES CATEGORY – RENEWABLE HEAT RESOURCES
The second main heat sources category, local renewable heat resources are found mainly in biomass
availabilities, in geothermal fields, and in annual solar irradiance. An overview is given below with
respect to available information sources about their locations with respect to NUTS3 regions. A brief
overview is given below with respect to some available information sources about local renewable
heat resources and current and potential annual volumes by location.
3.4.1 Biomass
Biomass is currently used as an original energy source in many European district heating systems. Fuel
sources are mainly forestry and agricultural waste. According to the Eurostat heat balance for 2009,
241 PJ of heat with biomass origin was supplied into district heating systems. Sweden had a lead
position with an input of 86 PJ, while other significant supply appeared in Austria, Denmark, and
Finland.
While biomass may come from different sources, we focus here on the biomass available from
established forestry as part of sustainable forest sources (mostly wastes from forestry operations of
managed forests like thinning and rotation felling). Likewise, biomass from agriculture is included, but
without adding to the available agricultural areas by land use change, and preferably in the form of
wastes such as straw left on the fields. Potentials are limited to the extent of EU27 countries only,
although an increasing proportion comes from import.
Because imported biomass is always available if transport infrastructure exists, but less desirable in a
100% renewable energy scenario [32], we shall aim here to map the EU27 domestic potentials as local
potentials, which take into consideration that forest and agricultural land use, stock and productivity is
preserved in each member state. Furthermore, we are aware of indirect land use change [33] as an
increasing problem that adheres to the production of energy crops. Hence the potentials are mapped
using current stocks, areas and management practices which are believed to have neutral
consequences for carbon emissions (there may however be exemptions in some Eastern and Central
European countries, but on the positive side the accumulation of carbon in Western European forests
is not included either). We are furthermore aware that it is incredibly complex to identify sustainable
forestry and agricultural practices without including the life cycle of forestry and agricultural products.
Finally, we have neglected the technological aspects of biomass use and we merely sketch – but do not
solve – the issue of rational biomass resource allocation by location, scale, and technology of plant. As
a consequence, the availability of biomass resources by geography shall only be made in a qualitative
way. In order to satisfy the desire to map biomass resources by location anyway, a method has been
devised that does the following:
1) Maps the current geographical extent in terms of areas used for forestry and agriculture at a
high spatial resolution.
2) Maps the current management practices in terms of stock and felling in European forests, as
well as cereal productivity on agricultural fields, both on a country scale.
3) Produces qualitative maps on the NUTS3 scale on the availability of biomass from forest and
agriculture under current management regimes.
47
3.4.1.1 Forest biomass
The European forest density maps produced by the European Forestry Institute (EFI) are available as
forest coverage per one square kilometre grid. No distinction is made between deciduous and
coniferous species in the current version. The forest coverage comprises all forests as a percentage per
one square kilometre grid, which translates to the number of hectares per square kilometre if
considering full forest coverage. The percentages can therefore be summarized for each NUTS3 region
using the Zonal Statistics as Table function in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. The result is a table, which can be
joined to a NUTS3 administrative map for visualization and further analysis.
Forest management practices are quantified in the Eurostat Database. Table “for_area“, last updated
on 08-02-2013, shows forest area by member state; forest area of managed forests only (“Forests
available for wood supply”) is used here. Appreciating that forests can have different yield and
management practices, which are determined by geography and by country, another table with wood
volumes “for_vol”, last updated on 08-02-2013, has been used to calculate specific increments and
specific fellings [m3/ha] for each country, again for managed forests only. The resulting specific fellings
and increments have been related to the summarized forest area (now including all forest areas, not
just managed forests) from the EFI forest density map per NUTS3 region.
3.4.1.2 Biomass from agriculture
As a spatial data input for agricultural area, the 2006 Corine data set by the European Environmental
Agency was used, which in its raster version allows for mapping land use in a 100m grid, i.e. each grid
cell represents land use per one hectare. The land use classes for arable land (211, 212 and 213) were
recoded to a grid with value “1”, and summarized by NUTS3 region as the number of hectares of arable
land. Because agricultural yield, like forest biomass yield, is a function of management practices as well
as climate, the spatial dataset was enriched with statistical data from Eurostat. Table “tag00006” with
the area of cereals grown as well as table “tag00031” with the annual cereal yield, both for 2011, were
used to calculate the specific yield in tonnes/hectare by country. As cereals are the most widely used
crop, and have similar characteristics to many energy crops, specific cereal yield was used as a proxy
for agricultural productivity, which can be applied as a qualitative measure for straw yield or the
amounts of energy crops by multiplying the total area of arable land with the cereal productivity.
Hence, the method describes the potential for energy crops if all arable land was used for this. Caveats
in this method are that the current agricultural productivity may be higher or lower than in a situation
where agriculture for energy may become intensified, and that we only look at cereals, where a shift in
current crops of different kind to cereals or energy crops may be an option. However, we believe that
the combination of arable land availability and productivity is feasible as a means to qualitatively
assess the geographical distribution of agricultural wastes and dedicated energy crops.
48
3.4.1.3 Qualitative overlay by means of multi-criteria modelling
In order to combine agricultural and forestry biomass resources in one map, which can be used to
visualize the relative biomass resource, a multi-criteria model has been applied which uses the inputs
given in Table 4.
Table 4: Forestry and agriculture input data for multi-criteria modelling
Biomass origin
Forestry
Agriculture
Criterion per NUTS3 district
Forest coverage, %
Forest increment, m3
Forest felling, m3
Arable land, ha
Cereal productivity, ton/ha
Justification for biomass availability
High availability of forest
Sustainable forest management
Presence of forest industry
High availability of arable land
Intensity of agriculture
Weight
20%
15%
15%
20%
30%
The justification of the five criteria follows rational reasoning. A high availability of forest is a
precondition to actually use forest products, and to run a forest industry that accumulates sufficient
volumes of wood. Forest increment is used as an indicator for sustainable forest management. Low or
even negative values indicate areas which are unlikely to deliver additional forest biomass. High felling
rates suggest there are established forest industries in the area, which positively influence the biomass
availability. In terms of agriculture the absolute amount of arable land is a driver for biomass. Finally,
an important factor is the cereal productivity, which indicates agricultural intensity. The presence of
intensive agriculture is related to the availability of agricultural wastes such as straw, and a generally
positive attitude to growing energy crops. A possible alternative to this approach could be the
calculation of likely yield minus the actual yield in order to identify idle resources (land and
management) for growing energy crops.
A multi-criteria model allows for the comparison of what otherwise is incomparable, and is a shortcut
to a more elaborate account for resources and implementation of management practices. In this prestudy it was deemed feasible to qualify those NUTS3 regions, which, by the nature of their silvio- and
agricultural management of natural resources, may score high in a European context. Each of the five
criteria was based on Eurostat statistics, see above, and converted to a 5 grade scale (1 worst, 5 best)
by means of a classification that uses a geometrical interval in order to manage the large differences in
area and volumes adherent to agricultural and silviocultural statistics.
The result is a map, presented in Figure 85 of Annex IV, where each NUTS3 region has a score of 1 to 5,
depending on the availability of either woody biomass or agricultural residues or energy crops, which
where weighted 50/50. It can be seen that both the areas with high intensity forestry as well as high
intensity agriculture achieve a moderately high score of around 3, while a few regions score highly in
both disciplines, resulting in high overall scores. Low scores are the result of this model in areas with
high population densities, dry climates and low agricultural and silviocultural productivity. The
potentials derived from current statistics and land use mapping are subject to change if particularly the
agricultural sector is subject to change, and if forestry is oriented towards energy production.
3.4.2 Geothermal heat
European Geothermal Energy Council (EGEC) reported recently [34] that 212 district heating systems in
Europe use partly input from geothermal heat. According to Eurostat energy statistics, systems in
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, and Slovakia utilised 2.5 PJ during 2009. But
49
2011
2014
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Georgia
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Lithuania
FYRO Macedonia
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
Bosnia-Herz.
Bulgaria
Croatia
Ireland
Norway
Spain
Number of geothermal district heating systems
systems also appear in France, Poland, Romania, and United Kingdom. The French systems used 2.9 PJ
during 2009 according the national SNCU statistics. About thirty of them are situated in the Paris
region. New major geothermal projects are implemented in Paris in France, Den Haag in Netherlands,
and Vienna in Austria. EGEC foresees an expansion in many countries until 2014 according to Figure 20.
Figure 20: Number of geothermal district heating systems in Europe by country: Firstly as existing systems in
2011 and secondly as planned additions for 2014 [34].
The geothermal conditions vary by location in Europe. The estimated temperatures at a depth of 2000
metres are presented by NUTS3 region in Annex IV in Figure 84. By joining population statistics with
Figure 84, we can conclude that 4 % of the EU27 population live in NUTS3 regions with geothermal
temperatures above 200 ºC. The corresponding population proportions are 8 % for temperatures
between 100 and 200 ºC and 20% for temperatures between 60 and 100 ºC. With an urban population
of 73%, the proportion of the EU27 population that can be reached with a geothermal district heating
systems is about 26%. These areas include major cities such as Aalborg, Hamburg, Berlin, Munich,
Frankfurt am Main, Hanover, Stuttgart, Groningen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg,
Madrid, Barcelona, Budapest, and Bratislava.
Another way to illustrate the future possibilities with geothermal heat in European district heating
systems is to consider the shares and volumes of geothermal heat at currently best practice locations.
One such region is found in the French NUTS3 region FR107 Val-de-Marne, located just south of the
French capitol Paris (geothermal temperatures between 60 and 100 ºC at 2000 metres depth).
50
Figure 21: Cities with district heating and geothermal heat in French NUTS3 region FR107 Val-de-Marne [34].
If the level of geothermal heat utilisation in district heating systems as found in the major cities of this
NUTS3 region (18% share of total city heat demands in 2011, according to [34], were to be reached by
similarly large European cities in NUTS3 regions with geothermal temperatures at 2000 meters at or
above 60 ºC, an estimated 430 PJ could be harnessed annually by 2050 9.
3.4.3 Solar heat
Some solar thermal installations in conjunction to district heating systems appear in Denmark,
Germany, Austria, and Sweden. Denmark had a lead position with a solar heat supply of 0.11 PJ during
2009 according to the Eurostat heat balance. Denmark has also seen an increasing interest in more
installations according Figure 22. This large Danish interest has given lower installations cost for large
solar collector fields, giving the possibility for other countries to benefit from this trend. The regional
conditions for solar district heating depends on the location in Europe, since the global solar irradiation
is about twice in Southern Europe compared to Northern Europe. The global irradiation for optimal
angle by NUTS3 region is presented in Annex IV in Figure 86.
9
This future projection for geothermal heat in EU27 is based on the assumption that all cities with more than
20000 inhabitants, within identified 461 NUTS3 regions in 17 Member States, that has geothermal heat at 2000
meters with temperature levels at or above 60 °C, will exploit these heat assets in 2050 by the same rate and
extent as is currently being done in FR107.
51
Figure 22: Overview of existing and planned solar collector fields connected to district heating systems in
Denmark [35].
As can be seen in Figure 22, the Danish town of Marstal, with approximately 2200 inhabitants and a
total district heat supply of 100 TJ/a (2004 [36]), hosts one of the largest solar district heating schemes
in Denmark. Adding to an original 18000 m2 solar collector field from 2003, an extension of 15000 m2
in 2010 increased the total field area to 33000 m2 (the extended scheme also contains a 75000 m3
seasonal pit heat storage). Before the extension, the annual solar heat contribution to the district heat
supply was 29 TJ per year. In the new system configuration, this volume has increased to
approximately 47 TJ annually [37].
The local renewable heat resource of solar irradiation is unique in the sense that it is available for all,
although large scale solar heat in district heating systems – as opposed to individual solar panels – is
considered most suitable in smaller towns and rural areas. The main reason being that all three activity
sectors within the first main strategic heat supply source are more frequent in urban regions, why
large scale solar heat would constitute undesired competition in such areas, particularly during
summer. Another reason being that large scale solar thermal solutions require accessibility to relatively
large land areas for collector fields and storages.
As in the case of a geothermal potential for future European district heating above, a corresponding
projection was made with regard to solar thermal possibilities. Based on the above reasoning, all EU27
cities with a population within the interval of 2000 ≤ n ≤ 10,000 (close to 19,000 cities and a total 84
million people) were assigned an expected solar heat per-capita value reflecting partly the solar
irradiation intensity of the location (see Figure 86 in Annex IV for a map on EU27 solar irradiation
52
intensity levels), and partly the average solar heat generation capacity at the original Marstal field (low
projection) and at the extended Marstal field (high projection).
In short, the large scale solar thermal potential for EU27 ranges by this assessment between 1250 PJ to
2060 PJ annually, although relatively lower heat demands in Southern European Member States were
not considered in this assessment.
3.4.4 Conclusion with respect to available local heat resources
The main conclusions and central message from this brief overview of information sources, annual
volumes, and potentials, for the two main strategic sources of heat supply is that it is possible to
gather information on excess heat and renewable local heat resources by NUTS3 regions. Hereby, as a
fundamental basis for calculating and assessing expansion possibilities for future European district
heating systems, the balance of total main strategic heat supplies per NUTS3 region and total heat
demands per NUTS3 regions can be established.
In the mapping part of the project, this data assembly constitute a matrix of 1289 rows, one for each
included NUTS3 region 10. In Table 5 this information, quantified with regards to the first main strategic
heat supply source only, has been aggregated to Member State and EU27 total levels.
10
Of 1303 EU27 NUTS3 regions, according to the 2006 classification, a total of 14 regions are excluded in the
Heat Roadmap project. Four French NUTS3 regions refer to Caribbean islands, eight Spanish regions refer to
Atlantic islands and North Africa coastal regions, and two Portuguese regions refer to Atlantic islands.
53
Table 5: Annual volumes of excess heat by activity sector and totals, Member State total heat demands in
residential and service sectors, and assessed National excess heat ratios [38-40].
Member
State
1
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
EU27
Sum of excess heat per EU27 Member State
by activity sector and total [PJ/a]
TPG1
51
152
122
27
215
1774
105
46
291
544
48
208
107
88
821
10
8
13
358
684
104
173
12
35
32
1049
7076
W-t-E
13
19
5
153
22
16
2
78
3
1
42
1
61
0
8
37
1
41
503
IHR
75
115
22
4
64
525
13
3
56
226
82
302
27
13
315
21
4
1
160
149
53
75
97
4
51
252
2708
Total
139
286
144
31
284
2451
140
49
347
786
132
588
136
103
1178
30
13
1
13
579
833
166
248
146
39
84
1342
10287
Sum of heat demand
per EU27 Member
State [PJ/a]
National
excess heat
ratio [-]
Total
248
342
65
10
236
2716
183
39
157
519
196
1704
221
119
1113
57
19
59
2
501
708
101
293
254
39
109
1439
11449
Avg.
0.56
0.83
2.23
3.04
1.20
0.90
0.77
1.25
2.21
1.51
0.67
0.35
0.62
0.86
1.06
0.54
0.66
0.02
7.74
1.16
1.18
1.65
0.85
0.57
1.00
0.77
0.93
0.90
Excess heat from current combined heat and power activities recorded as “Steam and air conditioning supply” in the E-PRTR dataset was not
included in this assembly focusing on future potential. By this exclusion, estimated to approximately 500 PJ/a, significant existing excess heat
recovery volumes from TPG in e.g. Poland, Germany, Finland, and Sweden are omitted in this analysis.
3.5
POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS OF DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEMS
As presented in Figure 9, district heating is widely used in Europe today, although typically at moderate
expansion levels. But, the wide presence of district heating systems today acts in favour of future
extensions of existing systems, since it is a greater leap to introduce a completely new technology than
it is to extend and expand an existing one. Technology know-how, component manufacturers, and
business models are already present in many EU27 Member States, why possible extensions of current
district heating systems are to be considered achievable from a pure practical point of view.
Additionally, from an economic point of view, it has been established in a recent work that urban
district heating can threefold at competitive and directly feasible conditions from current urban heat
market shares of approximately 20% up to market shares of 60% [41]! In this work, focusing on city
areas in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium, the current average urban district heating
heat market share (21%) was slightly higher than the EU27 average (15%), indicating that average
European extension possibilities are greater still. The main study result from Persson & Werner [41] is
54
depicted in Figure 23, where it can be seen that beneficial extension possibilities up to 60% urban
district heating heat market shares are equally present in all four studied Member States. This high
level of district heating extension further corresponds to a marginal distribution capital costs of only
2.1 €/GJ (7.6 €/MWh).
One of several important aspects of the methodology in Persson & Werner [41] is that it utilises local
conditions, e.g. population and heat densities on sub-city district levels, to produce the resulting
estimates of specific investment costs for district heat distribution. By this methodology feature, high
resolution modelling of feasible extensions or new establishments of district heating systems can be
performed for unique city districts, where the concentration of residential and service sector heat
demands are taken into account for each assessment.
In conjunction with information from the Eurostat Urban Audit, the European CORINE 2000 database
(mentioned in section 3.2.1), and other relevant data sources, modelling of specific investment costs
for district heating systems are made possible by this methodology.
Marginal Distribution Capital Cost (€/GJ)
France
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
Grand total
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Share of Total Heat Market
80%
90%
100%
Figure 23: Current marginal distribution capital cost levels and corresponding urban district heating heat
market shares in four studied European countries in 2008 [41].
55
Why do Europeans prefer imported energy instead of heat
recycled from their neighbour?
Heat Delivery Cost (€/MWh)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Crude Oil
Natural Gas
Heat Distribution
(average annual cost)
Figure 24: The simple socio-economic comparison between current import prices of fossil fuels and the heat
distribution cost for connecting heat surpluses with heat demands. Current import price of crude oil has been
set to US$110/barrel.
It is interesting to compare this suggested average annual cost of 2.1 €/GJ (7.6 €/MWh) for feasible
and competitive urban district heat distribution to other individual heating solutions. This specific
investment cost represents a high level of European district heating extension and it can be compared
to the current cost of heat from oil and natural gas. Given the current crude oil price for import to
EU27 (April 2012) of 110 US$/barrel, the corresponding heat costs for imported crude oil and natural
gas are presented in Figure 24. These import costs are substituted, when heat are recycled into district
heating systems. The annual average cost for heat distribution according to Persson & Werner [41] is
included as the third bar in Figure 24. Hence, this cost for connecting heat sources with heat demands
is much lower than the substituted costs, giving a very profitable situation. When comparing the
investment cost for heat distribution with the substituted costs, the socio-economic payback becomes
only 2-3 years.
3.6
LINKING TO ENERGY MODELLING
The Heat Roadmap Europe 2050 project unites the properties of both top-down modelling and
bottom-up mapping (see Figure 13). By this combination of dual methodological perspectives, the
project aims at identifying genuinely local heat synergy opportunities often ignored in generic energy
modelling. The linkage to the energy modelling part of the project consists of volume confirmations
and geographical determinations of model estimates and calculations. As detailed in above sections,
current total EU27 heat demands in residential and service sectors have been spatially distributed in
the European heat atlas (see Figure 14), as well as specified for each included NUTS3 region.
56
Regarding the main strategic sources of heat supply, a quantitative representation of current excess
heat volumes recovered and rejected from thermal power generation activities, Waste-to-Energy
facilities, and energy intensive industrial sub-sector activities, have been established based primarily
on emission data from the E-PRTR dataset from the EEA, other complementary data sources, and
according to corresponding project assumptions of carbon dioxide emission factors and excess heat
recovery efficiencies. This data has been assembled and is available at NUTS3 region level, although
presented here at EU27 Member State level for the sake of overview, see Table 6.
Table 6: Summary table of EU27 Member State heat demands, excess heat activities, and associated excess
heat volumes (EH) and excess heat ratios (EHR) [38-40].
Member State
1
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Grand Total
No exclusions
Difference
NUTS3 regions
In
study
35
44
28
1
14
429
11
5
51
51
20
96
20
8
107
10
1
6
2
40
66
28
42
21
12
8
133
1289
1303
141
With
EHR
20
29
17
1
14
202
11
3
20
42
15
79
10
7
86
4
1
1
1
27
49
15
25
20
6
7
77
789
800
11
Excess heat facilities
In
study
63
87
34
5
77
476
56
8
39
222
85
335
37
21
305
5
7
3
2
100
149
43
67
132
7
31
282
2678
2705
27
Considered
55
86
25
5
49
434
56
6
39
221
51
313
31
21
301
5
7
2
2
95
110
38
57
91
7
26
194
2327
2678
3512
CO2 & Excess heat
CO2
[Mt/a]
29
51
27
5
61
464
24
9
63
131
33
117
23
16
186
5
2
0
2
94
167
32
46
40
8
20
216
1873
2012
139
EH
[PJ/a]
139
286
144
31
284
2451
140
49
347
786
132
588
136
103
1178
30
13
1
13
579
833
166
248
146
39
84
1342
10287
10370
83
Heat demand
In study
[PJ/a]
248
342
65
10
236
2716
183
39
157
519
196
1704
221
119
1113
57
19
59
2
501
708
101
293
254
39
109
1439
11449
11470
21
With EHR
[PJ/a]
190
283
38
10
236
1635
183
24
108
484
176
1552
141
106
996
35
19
8
2
385
549
71
194
250
26
98
942
8742
8763
21
Excluded NUTS3 regions refer to Atlantic and Caribbean islands of French, Spanish, and Portuguese origin.
Excluded or Non-considered excess heat facilities refer mainly to mining, quarrying, and extraction plants on land or in the North Sea, and to
existing combined heat and power facilities sorted under the NACE main economic activity name category label “steam and air conditioning
supply” in the E-PRTR dataset.
2
For local renewable heat resources, qualitative maps of current availabilities have been complemented
with hands-on projection estimates for future potentials based on e.g. currently best practice
examples. These potentials have been assessed to provide indications to the modelling group
regarding model projected volumes of e.g. geothermal and large scale solar thermal heat resources.
57
In this sense, the link to the energy modelling group can be presented in a table format, see Table 7,
where the assessed and projected annual heat supply contributions from each of the six heat source
activities in the mapping part of the project, is matched to the corresponding annual volumes
produced by the energy modelling group. The table specifies annual volume shares from each heat
supply, given current and expected total district heating shares of total heat EU27 heat demands (in
parenthesis).
As the current geographical database of the Heat Roadmap Europe 2050 project can be scaled and
structured to any spatial subdivision, the link to energy systems analysis can be adjusted to future
energy models, which may incorporate a division of Europe into several subsystems.
Table 7: Annually delivered district heating volumes to residential and service sectors in EU27 for current
situation (2010), 2030, and 2050, by strategic heat supply sources, as modelled by the energy modelling group
(EM) and resource potential assessed by the mapping group (Map).
Potential
2010
(13% DH)
2030
(30% DH)
2050
(50% DH)
Map
EM
EM
EM
Fossil fuel power generation excess heat and heat
from boilers
7075
1120
2410
1540
Waste-to-Energy incineration excess heat
500
501
330
585
Industrial excess heat
2710
25
205
385
250
325
810
Main strategic heat sources (PJ/year)
2
Biomass heat
n/a
Geothermal heat
430
7
190
370
Solar thermal heat
1260
0
180
355
Large-scale heat pumps
n/a
0
1290
1875
Total district heating in modelling
11975
1460
4930
5920
1
Total heat delivered from waste in 2010 was 170 PJ. However, only 50 PJ/year is assumed to go to the residential and services sectors due to
the assumptions used to remove industry from the Energy Roadmap 2050 projections.
2
The biomass potential is not established in this context, but modelled levels correspond to volumes used in the reference scenario.
As outlined in Table 7, there is more surplus heat available in the EU27 than utilised in the 2050
scenario proposed here in the energy modelling. There is slightly more heat from waste incineration
utilised as this was deemed a conservative estimate. The 2010 IEA energy balance for the EU27
indicates that 182 TWh of waste was consumed to produce 36 TWh of electricity and 47 TWh heat,
corresponding to the efficiencies of 20 and 26% respectively. The remaining 54% became heat losses.
Currently 65 million tons of waste is directed to waste incineration, while approximately 90 million
tons is put into landfills. Approximately 50 million tons could be used in new waste incineration plants,
so in the future 115 million tons of waste could be direct towards waste incineration, corresponding to
a fuel heat value of 330 TWh. Assuming a future heat efficiency of 60%, then the total heat supply from
waste would be 200 TWh (720 PJ), which is 150 TWh of additional heat compared to 2010. There are
other factors which will affect the heat available from waste incineration, particularly the assumptions
relating to increasing or declining waste volumes in the future. Here we assume the current volume as
a compromise, making additional heat of 150 TWh/year possible.
58
3.7
LINKING TO REGIONAL PLANNING
A central objective in the Heat Roadmap Europe project is to outline and map synergy opportunities
within European NUTS3 regions with respect to local heat resources and excess heat recovery in
district heating systems. In the context of this second pre-study, this objective is pursued by combining
data on available heat resources with low temperature heat demands in residential and service
sectors, hereby identifying European excess heat ‘hot spots’ for further analysis and evaluation. The
key questions to be answered in this analysis are:
•
•
Which European NUTS3 regions or agglomerations of NUTS3 regions have large
volumes of excess heat and local heat resources?
Which European NUTS3 regions or agglomerations of NUTS3 regions have large
volumes of low temperature heat demands in residential and service sectors?
Hence the hot spots can be used as a point of departure for local case studies, which would include
more elaborate analysis of the utilisation of low temperature heat sources for the development of
district heating.
In the extension of the project, follow-up questions to be asked in relation to these topics are at what
acceptable investment cost levels for district heating systems identified excess heat and local heat
resources in chosen NUTS3 regions will be recoverable and possible to utilise? Also, what is the
magnitude of fossil fuel substitution by this excess heat recovery and local heat resource utilisation,
and what are the resulting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Furthermore, by spatial allocation
of low temperature heat resources to distributed heat demands by least cost, shortest distance or
lowest CO2 content, the potentials for low temperature heat supply can be refined to actually comprise
least-cost solutions for any of the identified hot spots or for larger regions in general. But, at this stage
first, a means by which to identify excess heat and district heating opportunity regions need to be
developed; the excess heat ratio.
3.7.1 The excess heat ratio – identifying NUTS3 region hot spots
The definition of the excess heat ratio concept takes departure from a related identity known as heat
utilisation rate (ξheat), first defined and elaborated in a recent study that analysed general conversion
and recovery efficiencies in the EU27 energy balance [31]. The heat utilisation rate reveals the extent
by which recovered excess heat is utilised by establishing the proportion of recovered excess heat in
any given total heat demand. The heat utilisation rate is expressed as:
𝜉ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 =
𝐸ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡
𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡
[%]
Where the term Eheat (J) refers to recovered (utilised) excess heat and the term Qtot (J) refers to low
temperature heat demands in residential and service sector buildings. In analogy with this definition of
the heat utilisation rate, the excess heat ratio (ξheat,o) can be defined in a principally similar way:
𝜉ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑜 =
59
𝐸ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑜
𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡
[%]
Where Eheat,o (J) refers to theoretically recoverable (potentially utilisable) excess heat from any given
excess heat activity. A corresponding concept referring to local renewable heat resources, i.e. a
renewable heat ratio could principally be established in a similar way.
In this context, the recoverable volume of excess heat from any given excess heat activity has been
established by use of the following condition:
𝐸ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡,𝑜 = 𝐸𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑚,𝑎𝑐𝑡 ∙ 𝜂ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡
[J]
Where the annual primary energy input (Eprim,act) to any given excess heat activity was calculated by
applying carbon dioxide emission factors 11 to reported total annual carbon dioxide emission volumes
from each considered excess heat activity [38], and recovery efficiencies were chosen to reflect
complete realisation of conceivable excess heat recovery from the considered activities. For each
NUTS3 region, the total sum of available excess heat were then related to total low temperature heat
demands in residential and service sectors, to produce the distribution of EU27 NUTS3 region excess
heat ratios as shown in Figure 25.
11
Carbon dioxide emission factors used in this context were based on IPCC standard values for stationary
combustion of fuels in corresponding activity sectors, and further adjusted to constitute unique Member State
values by reflecting fuel supply compositions within national excess heat activities, as reported in the IEA Energy
Balances for the year 2010 (IEA, 2012).
60
Figure 25: EU27 NUTS3 regions by their excess heat ratio, i.e. their share of excess heat relative their share of
low temperature heat demands in residential and service sectors.
In Figure 25, the 789 EU27 NUTS3 regions with an excess heat ratio value above zero are distinguished
from the grey colour label of “no activity” and assigned a colour according to the level of excess heat
by heat demands in the region at hand. It is noticeable that excess heat volumes in many instances are
larger than current heat demands, i.e. excess heat ratios being above one. Yet, in some occasions,
EU27 NUTS3 region excess heat volumes are found at above ten times the magnitudes of
corresponding heat demands! This confirms that many excess heat activities are located remotely to
urban areas. On the other hand, five hundred NUTS3 regions have no recorded excess heat activities
within the activity sectors considered in his project at all, and hence, have excess heat ratios equal to
null. A conclusion must be that while the NUTS3 regions form a good spatial reference for access to
statistical data, as administrative units they are rather arbitrary when it comes to the spatial structure
of cities, industry and the power sector, where major activities not necessarily follow administrative
boundaries. Also, the map of Europe reveals that the NUTS system has led to an uneven division into
areas (compare e.g. France and Germany), which means that they are less suitable as containers for
61
the distributed heat demand and the point locations of excess heat, which may require an even higher
spatial resolution.
However, since the main objective by using the excess heat ratio is to provide a tool to identify NUTS3
regions where recovery and utilisation of existing excess heat is reasonable – and not just any NUTS3
region with larger volumes of excess heat than prevailing heat demands – the excess heat ratio needs
to be complemented with manual evaluations regarding the possibilities in each case. As an example, a
high excess heat ratio is in itself not sufficient enough an indicator of heat synergy opportunities, since
the total volumes at hand might be of insignificant magnitudes. Hence, the excess heat ratio is suitable
as a preliminary indicator of likely synergy regions selectable for deeper analysis and evaluation.
3.7.2 Most promising NUTS3 region hot spots
Based on data analyses and thorough evaluation of found excess heat ratio values, all NUTS3 regions
that were found to have excess heat available were sorted by ratio magnitude and by Member State
belonging. By hereafter performing complementary manual analyses of total volumes of excess heat
and heat demands in found NUTS3 regions, combined with experience based considerations of e.g.
district heating developments, technology preferences, and future prospects, an exclusive list of most
promising NUTS3 region hot spots were extracted from the mapping work results (see Table 8 for a
summary and Annex IV a full list).
Table 8: Selection of most promising EU27 NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots by population, total heat
demand, and excess heat volumes, per Member State
Member States
FR
AT
BE
CZ
DE
IT
PL
UK
Grand Total
Count of NUTS3 regions
6
2
9
2
29
9
4
7
68
Total population [Mn]
9.2
0.8
3.9
2.1
11.1
11.5
2.7
2.6
43.9
Heat demand [PJ]
254
24
126
47
359
245
51
60
1166
Excess heat [PJ]
345
42
231
180
973
142
188
288
2389
This selection resulted in the identification of 68 promising NUTS3 regions, depicted in Figure 26,
where initiative and efforts for increased heat synergy projects are considered most optimal.
62
Figure 26: Selection of most promising EU27 NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots.
As a general reference of classification for this selection, all identified NUTS3 region hot spots were
sorted in three descriptive regional labels indicating current levels of district heating technology use.
These three labels, i.e. “Expansion”, “Refurbishment”, and “New developments”, are also used as subheadings in the following section where some NUTS3 region hot spots characteristic for these labels
are presented in more detail.
3.7.3 Expansion
Four EU27 Member States with favourable expansion possibilities for district heating are France,
Austria, Italy, and Germany. Already today district heating is well established in many towns and city
districts in these countries, but considering current moderate average heat market shares for district
heating in general, there is opportunity for expansions within these nations. As an example, the single
French NUTS3 region of FR232 Seine-Maritime, one of six identified French NUTS3 region excess heat
hot spots in the pre-study, shows a strong geographical resemblance with regard to excess heat
activities and larger urban agglomerations, see Figure 27, which constitute ideal basic conditions for
excess heat recovery and utilisation by means of district heating systems.
63
Figure 27: Example of Expansion NUTS3 region hot spots: French NUTS3 region of FR232 Seine-Maritime at the
Atlantic coast.
Annual excess heat volumes from excess heat activities in Seine-Maritime are found at 95.6 PJ,
according to the pre-study investigation. At an annual heat demand in residential and service sectors
of only 35.0 PJ, the corresponding excess heat ratio in the French coastal region is as high as 2.7. The
strong coherence of industrial activity locations and urban settlements is noticeable in this case.
Another example where excess heat activities and vicinities to larger urban agglomerations are
possible to identify is found in the twin Austrian NUTS3 regions of AT315 Traunviertel and AT312 LinzWels, as illustrated in Figure 28. These regions show similar properties as the French example,
although at slightly lower excess heat ratios of 1.8 in both instances, and constitute most beneficial
expansion regions in Austria. Another common feature for both of these country examples are also
relatively low NUTS3 region population densities (< 350 n/km2), although population and heat density
concentrations within urban areas are significantly higher.
64
Figure 28: Example of Expansion NUTS3 region hot spots: twin Austrian NUTS3 regions of AT315 Traunviertel
and AT312 Linz-Wels.
The two other EU27 Member States that were considered to suit well into the Expansion group for
future district heating are Italy and Germany. Within both of these, larger clusters of NUTS3 region
excess heat hot spots were identified in the analysis, see Figure 29 and Figure 30. As can be seen, these
kinds of highly populated, as well as highly developed, regions, offer extended expansion possibilities
for excess heat recovery and utilisation of renewable heat resources by district heat distribution – here
there are possibilities for regional heating networks exploiting a rich variety of present heat sources!
65
Figure 29: Example of Expansion NUTS3 region hot spots: large clusters of NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots
in the Milan region in Italy.
None of the Italian NUTS3 hot spot regions have very high excess heat ratios (typically between 0.2 and
0.9), but both excess heat and heat demand volumes are often large. As an example, the NUTS3 region
of Milan itself, holds a total population of 3.9 million people, generating a total low temperature heat
demand of roughly 83 PJ per year, to which a total annual excess heat volume of 28 PJ could be
utilised.
In the German example, the Ruhr region stands out as perhaps the most significant excess heat and
heat synergy opportunity region in all of EU27 today. There are already plenty of district heating
networks distributing heat in this region, but to recover more of all available excess heat in the region,
future expansions are a likely option. Basic hot spot data for all NUTS3 regions within the Ruhr cluster
are presented in Table 9.
66
Figure 30: Example of Expansion NUTS3 region hot spots: large clusters of NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots
in the Ruhr region of Germany.
Table 9: 20 NUTS3 region hot spots in the Ruhr region of Germany, per NUTS3 region
67
NUTS3
region
NUTS3 region
Name
Population
[Mn]
Land area
[km2]
Population
density
2
[n/km ]
Heat demand
[PJ]
Excess heat
[PJ]
Excess heat
ratio [-]
DEA11
DEA12
DEA13
DEA14
DEA17
DEA19
DEA1A
DEA1C
DEA1D
DEA1F
DEA23
DEA24
DEA27
DEA31
DEA32
DEA36
DEA51
DEA54
DEA55
DEA5C
Total
Düsseldorf, Kreisfreie Stadt
Duisburg, Kreisfreie Stadt
Essen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Krefeld, Kreisfreie Stadt
Oberhausen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Solingen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Wuppertal, Kreisfreie Stadt
Mettmann
Rhein-Kreis Neuss
Wesel
Köln, Kreisfreie Stadt
Leverkusen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Rhein-Erft-Kreis
Bottrop, Kreisfreie Stadt
Gelsenkirchen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Recklinghausen
Bochum, Kreisfreie Stadt
Hamm, Kreisfreie Stadt
Herne, Kreisfreie Stadt
Unna
0.58
0.49
0.58
0.24
0.22
0.16
0.35
0.50
0.44
0.47
1.00
0.16
0.46
0.12
0.26
0.64
0.38
0.18
0.17
0.42
7.82
217
233
210
138
77
90
168
407
576
1042
405
79
705
101
105
760
145
226
51
543
6279
2697
2118
2748
1712
2789
1803
2091
1223
769
452
2460
2041
659
1168
2488
834
2595
805
3234
765
18.8
15.9
18.7
7.6
6.9
5.2
11.4
16.1
14.2
15.1
32.1
5.2
14.9
3.8
8.5
20.5
12.2
5.9
5.4
13.5
252.2
10.3
107.3
5.6
1.2
5.9
1.7
7.4
5.4
203.9
37.1
37.9
3.8
191.1
0.9
63.5
31.0
1.3
24.7
16.5
55.7
812.2
0.5
6.8
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.3
14.3
2.4
1.2
0.7
12.8
0.3
7.5
1.5
0.1
4.2
3.1
4.1
3.7.4 Refurbishment
The second label, Refurbishment, indicates district heating opportunities in the form of
decarbonisation efforts of heating markets by extended use of excess heat and local renewable heat
resources. To exemplify this kind of future opportunity conditions, two examples are drawn, one from
Poland and one from the Czech Republic, see Figure 31 and Figure 32.
In the Polish case, the NUTS3 region of Sosnowiecki in the southern part of the country has a high
excess heat ratio well above 5 (5.6) due to large shares of thermal power generation activities and a
relatively small population (0.71 million). Not far away, close to the Czech border, the neighbouring
region of Katowicki, has less excess heat but considerably higher population concentrations than
Sosnowiecki, indicating generally better conditions for large scale heat recovery and distribution.
Figure 31: Example of Refurbishment NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots: PL22A Katowicki and PL22B
Sosnowiecki in Southern Poland.
Similar to the Polish example, the Czech Republic NUTS3 region of CZ042 Ústecký kraj harbours a total
of astonishing 135 PJ per annum of excess heat mainly from thermal power generation and energy
intensive industrial activities. At very sparsely populated land areas (population density of only 160
n/km2), this serves as a good example that not even very high excess heat ratios (in this case at 7.1)
automatically signals absolute recovery possibilities. Once again, within urban agglomerations, the
conditions for network heat distribution can be expected to be most beneficial – but how far are they
from the plentiful excess heat sources in this case?
68
Figure 32: Example of Refurbishment NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots: Czech Republic NUTS3 region of
CZ042 Ústecký kraj.
3.7.5 New developments
If not considering the fourth label category sometimes mentioned in this context (the fourth label
being; “Further developments”, mainly considering mature district heating markets and current
developments to 4th generation heat distribution technology), the third and final category to exemplify
in this section is the New Development cases. Quite naturally, these new development examples come
from EU27 Member States currently in the midst of integrating concepts such as district heating and
cooling solutions in a broader sense than previously.
Due to many reasons, e.g. different preferences regarding low temperature heating options in
different regions of Europe, district heating have not been broadly recognised in these New
Development regions before. But now, many new initiatives are being made all around Europe, to
harvest the benefits of low carbon and energy efficient district heating in communities and regions
acting for a more sustainable way of providing space and hot water heating.
To exemplify, the twin NUTS3 regions of UKC12 South Teesside and UKC11 Hartlepool and Stocktonon-Tees, up on the east United Kingdom coast, together with Belgian cluster of NUTS3 regions
surrounding the big city of Antwerp, constitute such new development regions see Figure 33 and
Figure 34. Both of these examples share common features such as high presence of excess heat
activities, large populations, and high heat densities.
69
Figure 33: Examples of New Development NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots: twin United Kingdom NUTS3
regions of UKC12 South Teesside and UKC11 Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees.
70
Figure 34: Examples of New Development NUTS3 region excess heat hot spots: Belgian twin NUTS3 regions of
BE236 Arr. Sint-Niklaas and BE211 Arr. Antwerpen.
3.7.6 Conclusion
To conclude, the mapping part of the second pre-study of the Heat Roadmap Europe 2050 project, has
performed a bottom-up analysis and a spatial mapping of EU27 heat demands in residential and
service sectors, of excess heat activities within thermal power generation, Waste-to-Energy
incineration, and energy intensive industrial sub-sectors, together with projections and potential
estimates of local renewable heat resources, to provide a linkage to the modelling team of the project.
By this linkage, proposed future levels of heat demands and district heating deliveries from the
modellers have been balanced against the anticipated corresponding levels found by spatially mapping
the distributions of these local opportunities.
By development of theoretical concepts to describe excess heat availabilities in relation to local and
regional heat demands, the mapping group has performed a selection of EU27 NUTS3 regions
according to their excess heat ratios and complementary conditions, by which three distinguished
categories of European district heating progression has been exemplified. For the next phase of the
project, a renewable heat ratio should be established as well, which in combination with the excess
heat ratio, would allow for a single “heat ratio” to be calculated for all NUTS3 regions of EU27. Unlike
the excess heat ratio, which of course has a zero value for regions without excess heat activities, a
renewable heat ratio would have a positive value for all EU27 NUTS3 regions. Hence, there is a “heat
ratio” waiting to be established for all regions in Europe!
71
4
REFERENCE SCENARIO FOR 2030 AND 2050
In this chapter the reference energy system that serves as the basis for creating new scenarios for
Europe are constructed. First the energy systems scenarios in Energy Roadmap 2050 [9] are described
in general and specifically with regards to the heat demands. Finally based on this, the reference
energy systems used in this study is described.
4.1
EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEM SCENARIOS IN ENERGY ROADMAP 2050
The EC published in 2011 Energy Roadmap 2050 [9], which analysed cost-effective ways of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. It contains six different scenarios for the future of
the EU energy system. In the first pre-study for Heat Roadmap Europe (HRE1) [1], the Current Policy
Initiatives (CPI) scenario from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report was used as a reference. The CPI
scenario is based on the assumption that there will be no changes in European energy policies beyond
the publication of the Energy Roadmap 2050 report. It is described not as a forecast, but as a
projection of what will happen if the market forces at all times determines the energy solution in the
present economic, technological and political situation. The PRIMES model – which is described in
Annex V – was used to develop the projections in Energy Roadmap 2050. The CPI scenario was utilised
in HRE1 since the aim was to investigate if the addition of district heating can improve the EU energy
system, compared to a scenario which only includes the implementation of existing policies. In this
study, the aim is
To improve the methodologies developed in the first pre-study [1] for mapping and modelling district
heating in the EU energy system and subsequently, to investigate if the addition of district heating can
improve the EU energy system in combination with significant heat reductions in the residential and
services sectors. Furthermore, in this study electric heating and district cooling are also considered.
In line with this, the EU Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) scenario from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report is
used as a reference in this report. “This scenario is driven by a political commitment of very high
primary energy savings by 2050 and includes a very stringent implementation of the Energy Efficiency
plan” [11]. In addition to a number of common proposal for all of the decarbonisation scenarios in the
Energy Roadmap 2050 report, the EU-EE scenario includes the following policies also [12]:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
72
Additional strong minimum requirements for appliances
High renovation rates for existing buildings due to better/more financing and planned
obligations for public buildings (more than 2% refurbishment per year)
Passive houses standards after 2020
Marked penetration of ESCOs and higher financing availability
Obligation of utilities to achieve energy savings in their customers' energy use over 1.5% per
year (up to 2020)
Strong minimum requirements for energy generation, transmission and distribution including
obligation that existing energy generation installations are upgraded to the best available
technology every time their permit needs to be updated
Full roll-out of smart grids, smart metering
Significant renewable energy sources (RES) with highly decentralised generation
As a result, the gross inland consumption is approximately 10% and 30% lower in the EU-EE scenario
than in the CPI scenario in the years 2030 and 2050 respectively (see Figure 35). Furthermore, there is
more renewable energy utilised in the EU-EE scenario in 2050 than in the CPI scenario.
Solids
Oil
Natural gas
Nuclear
RES
Gross Inland Consumption (TWh)
20,000
16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000
0
EU-CPI
EU-EE
2010
EU-CPI
EU-EE
2030
EU-CPI
EU-EE
2050
Figure 35: Gross inland consumption in the EU-CPI scenario from the first pre-study [1] and the EU-EE scenario
used in this study. Note: electricity is excluded from this diagram since it only represents the net annual
exchange which is less than 0.25% of the total in all years.
This is also reflected in the installed electricity capacities for both scenarios. As outlined in Figure 36,
there is more solar and wind power in the EU-EE scenario than the CPI scenario, primarily at the
expense of gas-fired power plants and some nuclear power.
73
1,600
1,400
Electricity Capacity (GW)
1,200
Geothermal heat
Biomass-waste fired
1,000
Oil fired
Gas fired
800
Solids fired
Other renewables
600
Solar
Wind
400
Hydro
Nuclear
200
0
EU-CPI EU-EE EU-CPI EU-EE EU-CPI EU-EE
2010
2030
2050
Figure 36: Electricity capacity by fuel in the EU-CPI scenario from the first pre-study [1] and the EU-EE scenario
used in this study.
A more detailed breakdown of electricity production is available in Figure 37, which also indicates that
in 2050 there is three times more electricity from CCS plants in the EU-EE scenario than in the CPI
scenario, while electricity production from CHP plants is approximately 33% less. In summary, the EUEE scenario has a lower energy consumption, more intermittent renewable energy, more electricity
from CCS, less electricity from nuclear, and less electricity from CHP than the CPI scenario. This means
that the EU-EE scenario will require more flexibility than the CPI scenario since there is more baseload
power in the form of CCS and more intermittent electricity in the form of wind and solar.
74
2010 EU-EE
2050 EU-CPI
2050 EU-EE
Indicators for gross electricity production (%)
70
64
60
49
50
40
45 45
40
30
28
25
20
15
21
18
21
20
14
8
10
0
0
Nuclear in
Efficiency for CHP indicator CCS indicator
(% of electricity (% of electricity
electricity
thermal
from CHP)
from CCS)
generation (%)
electricity
production (%)
Renewable
energy in
electricity
generation (%)
Figure 37: Indicators for gross electricity production in the EU-CPI scenario from the first pre-study [1] and the
EU-EE scenario used in this study.
Looking at the EU-EE scenario in more detail, it is clear from Figure 38 that the transport and industry
sectors will continue to be the largest energy consumers between now and 2050. Due to the largescale implementation of energy efficiency measures, the residential and services sector only represent
32% of the total consumption in 2050 compared to 39% in 2010. This is important to consider here
since this study will focus on the heat demands for the residential and services sectors.
Indicators for gross electricity
production (%)
2010
2030
2050
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Industry
Residential
Services
Agriculture /
Fishing
Transport
Figure 38: Final energy consumption by sector in the EU-EE scenario for the years 2010, 2030, and 2050.
75
4.2
ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO HEAT DEMAND
Since this study will focus on the heat sector for the residential and services sector, the assumptions
used for the future heat demand in the EU-EE scenario are of critical importance. In Heat Roadmap
Europe 1, the results indicated that under existing policies (i.e. the CPI scenario), the heat demand will
be sufficient for district heating to be implemented at a cheaper cost than using the technologies being
pursued by existing policies. Hence, a key motivation for choosing the EU-EE scenario in this study was
to investigate the feasibility of district heating if the heat demands are reduced significantly compared
to the heat demand expected under existing policies only. To begin, the first step is to analyse exactly
how much the heat demand for the residential and services sectors is being reduced in the EU-EE
scenario.
As outlined in Figure 39, the total heat demand in the EU-EE scenario is expected to drop by
approximately 60% between 2015 and 2050. This is a much larger reduction than in the CPI scenario:
by 2050, the total heat demand in the EU-EE scenario is approximately 50% of the heat demand in the
CPI scenario.
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands
(TWh/year)
EU-CPI Scenario
EU-EE Scenario
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 39: Total heat demand for the residential and services sectors in the EU-CPI scenario from the first prestudy [1] and EU-EE scenario used in this study for 2015-2050.
This total heat demand can be broken down into a number of key sectors: firstly the heat demand
provides two distinct services, hot water and space heating. Figure 40 outlines how the total heat
demand in the EU-EE scenario is divided between these two services, which indicates that the space
heating demand is expected to drop by approximately 60% and the hot water demand by 55%
between 2015 and 2050.
76
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands in the
EU-EE Scenario (TWh)
Space Heating
Hot Water
Total
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 40: Space heating and hot water demand for the residential and services sectors in the EU-EE scenario
between 2015 and 2050.
Secondly, the heat demand can be divided in terms of two distinct sectors, residential and nonresidential/services. Figure 41 indicates that the heat demand will reduce by approximately 60-62% in
both of these sectors between 2015 and 2050, similar to the overall trend in the total heat demand.
However, it is important to recognise that there are other dynamics involved in these changes also
such as the population and the building stock.
77
Residential
Services
Total
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands in the
EU-EE Scenario (TWh)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 41: Heat demand for the residential and services sectors separately in the EU-EE scenario between 2015
and 2050.
Table 10: Population assumptions in the Energy Efficiency scenario between 1990 and 2050 [9].
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Population
(Million)
470.4
477.0
481.1
489.2
499.4
507.7
513.8
517.8
519.9
520.7
520.1
518.4
515.3
Population 1-Year
Change (%)
Start
0.28%
0.17%
0.34%
0.41%
0.33%
0.24%
0.15%
0.08%
0.03%
-0.02%
-0.07%
-0.12%
Population 5-Year
Change (%)
Start
1.4%
0.9%
1.7%
2.1%
1.7%
1.2%
0.8%
0.4%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.6%
Population 20Year Change (%)
Population 40Year Change (%)
Start
Start
4.1%
-0.9%
3.2%
While the heat demand is reducing in the EU-EE scenario, both the population and the building stock
experience an increase. Table 10 summarises the changes assumed in population in the EU-EE
scenario, suggesting a 3.2% overall growth in population between 2010 and 2050. Table 11 presents
similar statistics for the building stock in Europe: the total building stock is expected to grow by 35%
between 2015 and 2050, which includes a growth of 42% for the residential sector and 32% for the
services sector.
78
Table 11: Estimated building floor area for the residential and non-residential/service sectors in the EU27
between 2015 and 2050.
Residential Floor Area
Period
PRIMES
Estimate*
[9]
Ecofys
Estimate
[42]
Residential
floor area
Residential
floor area
NonResidential
floor area
NonResidential
floor area
(mio. m )
21724
20152020
23579
%/year
Start
1.7%
1.2%
1.0%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
(mio. m )
2
8642
9398
9870
10343
10815
11288
11760
12233
%/year
Start
1.7%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
2
2015
20202025
25066
20252030
26387
20302035
27343
20352040
28053
20402045
28515
20452050
28730
*In 2050, Ecofys estimated a residential floor area 15% lower than PRIMES.
This data is significant since it means that the specific heat demand reductions (i.e. kWh/m2) are even
larger than the absolute heat demand reductions portrayed in Figure 40 and Figure 41. Overall, Figure
42 shows that the specific heat demand reduction is very similar for both services and both sectors
considered here, with a 70% reduction (+/-3%) for each between 2015 and 2050.
Space Heating
Hot Water
Total
Residential
Services
Specific Heat Demands in the EU-EE
Scenario (kWh/m2)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 42: Specific heat demand in the EU-EE scenario for the residential and services sectors, as well as for the
space heating, hot water, and total heat demand.
79
4.3
MODELLING THE EU-EE SCENARIO IN ENERGYPLAN
The PRIMES tool is an annual energy balance tool which forecasts the development of the EU energy
system over 5-year periods (see Annex V). In contrast, the EnergyPLAN tool is an hourly energy-systemanalysis tool which focuses on the integration of intermittent renewable energy (see section 2.2 and
Annex VI). Therefore, a number of issues are naturally encountered when data from the PRIMES tool is
interpreted for the EnergyPLAN tool. During this process, a number of issues have been identified
which are discussed in detail in Annex VII, along with an explanation of the assumptions made to
overcome them.
By modelling the EU-EE scenario in EnergyPLAN using these assumptions, it is possible to replicate the
original projections created by the PRIMES model. As outlined in Figure 43, the PES is almost exactly
the same in 2010, 2030, and 2050 in both the reference EU-EE scenario and the EnergyPLAN EU-EE
scenario. The minor differences in 2030 (<0.5%) occur since the CHP plants cannot operate as much as
the initial projections suggest. Due to a combination of a small heat demand, a high share of
intermittent renewable energy, and a lack of flexibility in the system, the boiler needs to provide heat
instead of the CHP plants more than the projections suggest. Since the boilers primarily use gas, there
is a slightly higher gas consumption in the EnergyPLAN model. Similarly, since the CHP plants use
considerable amounts of coal and biomass, due to a lower number of operating hours, there is a
slightly lower coal and biomass consumption in the EnergyPLAN model.
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste
RES
21,000
120
18,000
100
15,000
80
12,000
60
9,000
40
6,000
20
3,000
0
0
Electricity Exports (—, TWh/year)
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
Nuclear
-20
Reference
EnergyPLAN
2010
Reference
EnergyPLAN
2030
Reference
EnergyPLAN
2050
Energy Efficiency Scenario
Figure 43: Primary energy supply by fuel and the net electricity exports for the EU-EE scenario from the original
‘reference’ projections and the EnergyPLAN model.
For 2050, the minor differences (<2.5%) seem to be caused for two reasons. Firstly, due to the same
reason outlined for the year 2030 i.e. the CHP units do not operate as much as the projections suggest.
Secondly, there is a larger electricity export in the EnergyPLAN model than in the original EU-EE
80
projections. The original EU-EE projections had a net electricity export of 31 TWh in 2050 whereas the
EnergyPLAN model produces a net electricity export of 100 TWh (see Figure 43). This additional 70
TWh is evident in the EnergyPLAN tool since it considers the hourly balance between demand and
supply for electricity, heat, and gas, which may be overlooked by the PRIMES tool, which primarily
focuses on the annual energy balance.
The overall difference for both 2030 and 2050 is so small that it can be concluded that the EU-EE
scenario has been successfully replicated in the EnergyPLAN tool based on the key assumptions
discussed in Annex VII. A full breakdown of the original EU-EE projections, how they have been
interpreted to create a reference, and the results from the EnergyPLAN model is provided in Annex
VIII.
81
5
NEW HEAT SCENARIO FOR 2030 AND 2050
After creating a model of the EU-EE scenario in EnergyPLAN, the Heat Roadmap Europe (HRE-EE)
scenario could be created. The HRE-EE scenario contains a number of specific alterations for the space
and hot water demands to residential and services buildings in the EU27 for the years 2030 and 2050.
In summary, the key changes made to the EU-EE scenario when creating the HRE-EE scenario are as
follows:
1. The heat demand is increased as the reductions identified in the EU-EE scenario seem very
difficult to implement and they are very expensive. The hot water demand is increased by 16%
compared to 2010 in the HRE-EE scenario, which is in line with a growth in population and
building stock. The space heating demand is reduced by 47% in comparison to 2010 in the HREEE scenario. In comparison, the EU-EE scenario has a reduction of 55% in hot water demand
and 62% in space heating demand between 2010 and 2050. Since there are less energy
efficiency measures implemented in the HRE-EE scenario, the costs for energy efficiency are
also reduced.
2. Individual boilers are replaced by district heating. In 2030, district heating meets 30% of the
heat demand and in 2050 it meets 50% of the heat demand in residential and services
buildings. Individual coal, oil, gas, biomass, and direct electric heating systems are replaced,
but individual heat pumps are not since these are also considered a key technology to
decarbonise the EU energy system. It is assumed here that these individual heat pumps are
installed outside the urban areas that contain district heating.
3. Individual cooling units are replaced with district cooling. 10% of the cooling demand for
residential and services buildings is provided using district cooling in 2030 and 20% in the year
2050. District cooling is supplied from both natural cooling and from absorption heat pumps,
which require heat from the district heating network.
4. To supply the heat for these new district heating demands, new production units are added to
the HRE-EE scenario. Some existing condensing power-plants are converted to CHP plants and
new decentralised natural gas plants are constructed. Centralised boilers, heat pumps, and
thermal storage facilities are also constructed.
5. With district heating now installed, additional resources can be utilised in the HRE-EE scenario
that could not be utilised in the EU-EE scenario. These include more wind power of the largescale heat pumps, large-scale solar thermal plants, geothermal heat, surplus industrial heat,
and heat from waste incineration. Therefore, heat from each of these resources is also added
to the HRE-EE scenario.
6. After these measures are implemented, the HRE-EE scenario consumed slightly less biomass
than the EU-EE scenario. Therefore, the biomass consumption was increased in the HRE-EE
scenario until it was at the same level as the EU-EE, by replacing some natural gas in the
centralised district heating boilers.
7. Finally, the HRE-EE scenario is more flexible than the EU-EE scenario since it integrates the
electricity and heating sectors. To exploit the benefits of this, wind power is increased in the
HRE-EE scenario until there is the same level of critical excess electricity production (CEEP) in
the HRE-EE scenario as the EU-EE scenario.
The assumptions used and results obtained during each of these steps is described in more detail in
the rest of this chapter.
82
5.1
INCREASING THE HEAT DEMAND
The heat demand in the EU-EE scenario has already been presented and discussed in section 4.2. In
summary, the reductions identified in the EU-EE scenario seem very ambitious and they are likely to be
extremely difficult to implement. For example, the most ambitious scenario for heat savings in
buildings presented in a recent report by EURIMA (European insulation Manufacturers Association)
[42], outlines that with deep renovations in the EU27, a space heating reduction of 47% or specific
space heating demand (i.e. kWh/m2) reduction of 62% will be feasible between 2015 and 2050 12. In
comparison, the EU-EE scenario achieves corresponding reductions of 62% and 72% respectively. Since
energy efficiency measures in buildings typically become more expensive as larger savings are
achieved, the additional measures in the EU-EE scenario are likely to be extremely expensive.
Comparing the cost of the energy efficiency measures in EU-EE scenario with those in the EURIMA
report also suggest this. The cost of the energy efficiency measures in buildings in the EU-EE scenario
are estimated at an annual average cost of B€295/year [9]. In contrast, the annual average investment
costs for the energy efficiency measures in the Deep Renovation scenario completed by Ecofys for
EURIMA are approximately B€160/year, although as outlined in Figure 44 these vary over the 45-year
period including a steep drop in the last few years (which occurs because the whole building stock is
then retrofitted). It is difficult to make a definite conclusion from this comparison since there are a lot
of unknown assumptions behind the cost data in the EU-EE scenario. For example, the EU-EE scenario
includes the following energy efficiency measures, with some of them occurring in other sectors such
as electricity and transport:
a. More stringent minimum requirements for appliances and new buildings;
b. Energy generation, transmission and distribution;
c. High renovation rates for existing buildings;
d. The establishment of energy savings obligations on energy utilities;
e. The full roll-out of smart grids, smart metering and significant and highly decentralised RES
generation
The costs for the EU-EE scenario are then divided into three types:
• Capital
• Energy purchases
• Direct efficiency investments
It is assumed here that a lot of the energy efficiency costs are accounted for under capital costs rather
than direct efficiency investments. For example, better appliances, new electric grids, the smart grid,
and more renewable energy generation are assumed to be under capital costs. Hence, it is assumed
that direct efficiency investments relates to the implementation of space and hot water savings in the
buildings sector, which amounts to B€295/year. This may not be the case so the cost of energy
efficiency measures may be over-estimated based on this. In any case, other reports based on the
Danish building stock also report a significant increase in energy efficiency costs when you reach this
scale of energy savings [43] (which is presented in more detail later). Therefore, the costs assumed
here may not be correct, but the scale of the costs for energy efficiency measures seems to be correct.
12
The specific heat reduction (i.e. kWh/m2) is greater than the absolute reduction (i.e. kWh) in space heating
since the building area increases in combination with a decrease in the absolute heat demand.
83
The aim in designing a new "enhanced energy efficiency" scenario in this report is to identify if the
same objectives in the EU-EE scenario, in terms of energy and emission reductions, can be achieved in
a way that is both cheaper and easier to implement. To achieve such an objective, the strategy is to
replace some of the energy efficiency measures in buildings, which are either very expensive and/or
difficult to implement, with a heat supply from units such as district heating or individual boilers. In
line with this, the following two subjects have been investigated further in the EU-EE scenario:
• The high reductions in the hot water end use seem very difficult to implement.
• The reduction per unit of space heating demand, below a total average reduction of 40-50% of
the existing level, seems to be very ambitious in terms of implementation and also very
expensive.
Target Scenario - Deep Renovation
Traget Scenario - Shallow Renovation + REN
Annual investment costs for insulation and
windows (B€/year)
Shallow Renovation
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 44: Annual investment costs for insulation and windows in the three scenarios created by Ecofys for
energy efficiency in the EU27 [42].
Firstly to account for this, the hot water demand is not reduced in the HRE-EE scenario for the
following reasons:
1. Table 10 and Figure 45 indicate that population will grow by 3.2% between 2010 and 2050.
2. According to a number of interviews with industry experts, people tend to wash more today
than they did in the past, which is likely to continue into the future. In other words, individuals
are likely to take more showers and baths in the future than they do today.
3. People are not expected to live with one another as much in the future. Hence, there will be a
larger number of people living in their own houses rather than living together. This is also
expected to increase the demand for hot water for an individual.
4. At present, there are regions in Europe where the use of hot water is limited due to technical
and financial limitations. As these regions become wealthier, the demand for hot water is
expected to rise in these regions.
5. The building area for residential and non-residential buildings is expected to grow by 32% and
42% respectively between 2015 and 2050 (see Table 11).
84
For these reasons, the hot water demand is not expected to decrease in this study, even with
appliances that use less water, pipes with more insulation, and better hot water management in
buildings. Therefore, it is assumed here that the hot water will increase rather than decrease. It is
unlikely that the hot water demand will increase as fast as the building area, since people will live in
larger houses and use the hot water more efficiently. However, it is unlikely that the hot water
demand will increase at a lower rate than the population, for the reasons outlined in 1-4 above.
Therefore, it is assumed here that the hot water demand will grow at a rate between the residential
floor area and the population.
Residential floor area
Non-Residential floor area
Population
EU-EE Hot Water
HRE-EE Hot Water
Annual Average Growth Rate (%/year)
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 2040-2045 2045-2050
Figure 45: Average annual growth rates for the residential floor area, non-residential floor area, population,
the original EU-EE scenario hot-water demand, and the new hot water demand assumed for the HRE-EE
scenario (which is based on the average annual growth rate for the residential floor area and the population).
The new hot water demand grows by 16% between 2015 and 2050 instead of reducing by 55% as in
the original hot water demand projection for the EU-EE scenario, as outlined in Figure 46. The specific
hot water demand now drops from approximately 27 kWh/m2 in 2015 to 23 kWh/m2 in 2050, instead
of from 27 kWh/m2 to 9 kWh/m2 as in the EU-EE scenario.
85
HRE-EE Hot Water
EU-EE Hot Water
HRE-EE Hot Water
Hot Water Demand (TWh/year)
1,000
800
30
814
853
883
908
925
936
942
943
24
674
600
586
18
565
514
465
400
417
364
12
6
200
0
Specific Hot Water Demand (---, kWh/m2)
EU-EE Hot Water
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 46: Original hot water demand in the EU-EE scenario and the new hot water demand for the HRE-EE
scenario, along with the corresponding specific hot water demands (dotted lines).
For the space heating demand, the reductions achieved in the Deep Renovation scenario of the
EURIMA report [42] are likely to cost significantly less than those proposed in the EU-EE scenario.
Hence, a reduction of 47% in the total space heating demand is assumed here, instead of 62%. It is
important to note that one significant difference between the Deep Renovation scenario and the EUEE scenario is the space heating demand in 2015. As outlined in Figure 47, this is approximately 2,600
TWh in the Deep Renovation scenario, but it is approximately 3,200 TWh in the EU-EE scenario.
Looking at actual historical data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the total
heat demand for both space heating and hot water in 2010 was approximately 3,300 TWh (as
displayed in Figure 8). Data from the EU-EE scenario indicates that the hot water demand is
approximately 800 TWh in 2015 (see Figure 46). Assuming the same hot water demand is the same in
the IEA 2010 data, then the space heating demand for the EU27 was approximately 2,700 TWh in 2010.
Although this means that the heat demand in the Deep Renovation scenario is more likely closer to the
current situation in Europe than the EU-EE scenario, the HRE-EE heat demand created for this study
uses the same starting point as the EU-EE scenario. This is to make the results of this study comparable
to the analysis in the EU-EE scenario since the principal objective here is to compare a scenario with
energy efficiency only to a scenario with both energy efficiency and district heating. The final space
heating demand assumed in the new HRE-EE scenario is outlined in Figure 47.
86
Deep Renovation (Ecofys)
EU-EE Scenario
HRE-EE Scenario
Space Heating Demand (TWh/year)
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
IEA 2010*
2015
2030
2050
Figure 47: Space heating in the EU-EE scenario from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report [9], the Deep Renovation
scenario form Ecofys [42], and the new space heating demand assumed in the HRE-EE scenario. *This space
heating demand is estimated based on the total heat demand from the 2010 EU27 IEA Energy Balance minus
the hot water demand identified from the PRIMES data for 2015.
The final total heat demand for the new HRE-EE scenario assumed in this study is outlined in Figure 48:
there is a total reduction of 34% between 2015 and 2050 in the HRE-EE scenario instead of 61% as
originally proposed in the EU-EE scenario.
HRE-EE Scenario
EU-EE Scenario
Total Heat Demand (TWh/year)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Figure 48: Total heat demand for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for 2015-2050.
87
2050
The cost for the energy efficiency measures also need to be adjusted downwards from the B€295/year
in the EU-EE scenario, since there are now less energy efficiency measures in the HRE-EE heat demand
forecast. To do so, an energy efficiency cost curve, which is displayed in Figure 49, has been utilised.
This cost curve was developed based on data from the Danish Research Building Institute [43] and a
Danish Heat Atlas [44, 45]. The costs reflect the ‘additional’ cost of energy efficiency measures, which
means that they are implemented at the same time as other renovations which are taking place in the
building. Assuming a 3% interest rate and an average lifetime of 30 years for these energy efficiency
measures, indicative annual costs of implementing energy efficiency measures in the EU27 have been
estimated in Figure 50. These are indicative only since they reflect total energy savings and not the
reduction in specific heat demand. However, these results demonstrate how the unit cost of energy
savings increases as more savings are implemented. For example, the first B€200/year on energy
savings in Europe will achieve savings of approximately 53%, while investments of B€400/year will only
achieve 22% more at 75%.
Additional Cost of Energy Efficiency
Measures (€/kWh Saved)
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Heat Demand Reduction (%)
60%
70%
80%
Figure 49: Additional costs for energy efficiency measures that reduce the heat demand by different
percentages based on Danish buildings (scenario C) [43]. ‘Additional’ means it is assumed that these are the
extra costs of completing the energy efficiency measures at the same time as implementing other building
refurbishments.
88
Annual Additional Costs of Energy Savings
in the EU27 (B€/year)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Heat Demand Reduction (%)
60%
70%
80%
Figure 50: Annual ‘additional’ costs for energy efficiency measures that reduce the heat demand by different
percentages based on Danish buildings (scenario C) [43], an interest rate of 3%, and assuming an average
lifetime of 30 years. These are indicative only as they not consider the change in specific heat demand, but
instead it considers the change in total heat demand.
As displayed in Figure 40, there is a total reduction of approximately 70% in the specific heat demand
in the EU-EE scenario, equating to total savings of 2,460 TWh. Assuming a cost of €2.4/kWh (18
DKK/kWh) based on the data in Figure 49, a 3% interest rate, and an average lifetime of 30 years for
the energy efficiency measures, the annual costs of implementing the energy efficiency measures in
the EU-EE scenario are calculated as approximately B€303/year. This is very similar to the costs
suggested in the EU Energy Roadmap report of B€295/year, although as mentioned previously the
B€295/year may include savings in other sectors such as electricity and transport.
Using the same assumptions, the costs for the energy efficiency measures in the new heat demand
scenario can also be estimated. In the HRE-EE scenario, there is a 51% reduction in the specific heat
demand between 2015 and 2050, equating to a total energy saving of 1,215 TWh. Assuming a cost of
€1.9/kWh (14 DKK/kWh), this means that the total annual costs for energy efficiency measures in this
scenario are approximately B€133/year. Comparing this to the annual investment costs estimate by
Ecofys in the EURIMA report [42] suggests that this is a 17% underestimation of the total energy
efficiency costs required. As displayed earlier in Figure 44, the average annual investments required in
the Deep Renovation scenario (for a 47% reduction in space heating) are approximately B€160/year.
This difference warrants further investigation in the future, but based on these comparisons, the
indicative costs provided by the unit costs in Figure 49 are deemed an adequate representation of the
variation in costs as more energy efficiency measures are implemented.
Overall, the EU-EE scenario is extremely ambitious in terms of energy efficiency, since it will be
extremely difficult and expensive to achieve. Hence, a new heat demand has been created for this
89
study, which is also very ambitious in terms of energy efficiency since it follows the space heating
recommendations of the Deep Renovation scenario created for EURIMA [42]. This new HRE-EE heat
demand will be used to investigate the feasibility of district heating in an EU energy system with very
low heat demands for residential and services buildings.
5.2
REPLACING INDIVIDUAL BOILERS WITH DISTRICT HEATING
After creating a new heat demand for the HRE-EE scenario, individual boilers could then be replaced
with district heating. In the EU-EE scenario, district heating provides 12.8% of the heat demand for
residential and services buildings in 2030 and 13.3% in 2050 [12]. In the HRE-EE scenario, the share of
district heating is increased to 30% in 2030 and 50% in 2050, as outlined in Table 12.
Table 12: Individual and district heating demands in the EU-EE and HRE-EE (before and with the district heating
expansion) scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Scenario
Individual Heat
Demand (TWh)
District Heating
Production (TWh)
Total Heat
Demand (TWh)
2,445
District Heating
Heat Demand
(TWh)
2030
270
EU-EE
337
2,715
HRE-EE Before the
DH Expansion
HRE-EE
3,131
346
431
3,477
2,434
1,043
1,268*
3,477
2050
EU-EE
1,426
159
180
1,584
HRE-EE Before the
DH Expansion
HRE-EE
2,383
265
301
2,648
1,324
1,324
1,571*
2,648
*Includes an additional 17% in network losses for all new district heating systems.
It is assumed here that individual heat pumps are not replaced by district heating since these are also
considered a key decarbonisation technology for the EU27 energy system. Therefore, there is the same
amount of individual heat pumps in the EU-EE scenario as in the HRE-EE scenario. There is an
underlying assumption here that individual heat pumps are also placed outside the urban areas where
district heating is implemented. Inside the urban areas, it is assumed that coal, oil, gas, biomass, and
electric boilers are replaced by district heating. As a result, Figure 51 indicates that there is a lower
fossil fuel and biomass consumption for individual boilers in the HRE-EE scenario than in the EU-EE
scenario, even though the heat demand is larger in the HRE-EE scenario. The volume of each type of
boiler that is replaced by district heating is currently unclear, so in the HRE-EE scenario the different
boilers have been replaced by district heating proportional to the heat demand they satisfy.
90
Fuel Demand for Heating Individual
Residential and Services Buildings
(TWh/year)
3,000
2,500
2,000
Electricity
Solar
1,500
Biomass
Gas
1,000
Oil
500
Solids
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 51: Fuel consumption by individual boilers in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and
2050.
The cost of transforming individual boilers into district heating is estimated here based on the number
of boilers replaced, the size of these boilers, and the heat demand replaced. The number of boilers has
been estimated using the BEAM tool developed by Ecofys (see Annex III). Table 13 displays the number
of residential boilers in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050, while Table 14
displays the number of services boilers for the same. Both Table 13 and Table 14 illustrate the
decrease in the total number of individual boilers in the HRE-EE scenario, the same number of heat
pumps in both the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenario, and the increase in the number of district heating
substations in the HRE-EE scenario.
Table 13: Number of residential boilers (million units) for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030
and 2050
(Million)
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
EU-EE
HRE-EE
91
Oil
Gas
Pellet/
Coal
Direct
Electricity
Air Heat
Pump
Brine
Heat
Pump
District
Heating
Substation
Total
13.618
9.608
62.719
44.252
28.475
20.091
9.630
6.795
10.610
10.610
26.582
26.582
16.848
50.545
168.483
168.483
5.977
1.882
52.253
16.454
39.946
12.579
18.561
5.845
15.803
15.803
47.408
47.408
19.994
99.971
199.942
199.942
Table 14: Number of services boilers (million units) for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and
2050.
(Million)
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Oil
Gas
Pellet/
Coal
Direct
Electricity
Air Heat
Pump
Brine
Heat
Pump
District
Heating
Substation
Total
1.375
0.978
4.559
3.244
1.893
1.347
0.626
0.446
0.659
0.659
1.855
1.855
1.219
3.656
12.185
12.185
0.432
0.136
3.779
1.190
2.889
0.910
1.342
0.423
1.143
1.143
3.429
3.429
1.446
7.230
14.461
14.461
Since the HRE-EE scenario has a higher heat demand than the EU-EE scenario, the individual heating
systems are assumed to have larger heat capacities in the HRE-EE scenario. As the specific heat
demand is also reducing over time in both the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios, the individual boiler
capacities are reduced between 2010 and 2050. Similarly, the investment costs for individual boiler
units are lower in the EU-EE scenario than the HRE-EE scenario. The final average boiler capacities and
investment costs assumed are outlined in Table 15 for residential boilers and Table 16 for services
boilers. These have been estimated based on previous Danish experiences [4, 5] and inputs from
Ecofys (see section 1.2 in Annex III).
Table 15: Average thermal capacities and corresponding investment costs assumed for residential boilers in
the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Oil
Gas
Pellet/
Coal
Air Heat
Pump
Brine Heat
Pump
District
Heating
Substations
12.9
10.5
12.9
10.5
2012
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
2050
HRE-EE
2050
12.9
10.5
12.9
10.5
Average Size of Residential Boilers (kWth)
12.9
10.8
10.8
10.5
9.4
9.4
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.3
10.3
11.5
11.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
2012
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
2050
HRE-EE
2050
3.8
3.1
5.6
4.5
3.4
5.0
6.2
12.4
15.5
9.2
5.9*
2.3
3.5
4.3
9.6
11.2
6.4
5.0*
2.6
3.8
4.8
10.6
12.3
7.0
5.2*
Specific Investment for Residential Boilers (k€/unit)
7.0
13.0
17.3
10.3
5.6
11.3
14.1
8.4
*Includes the cost of a meter and a branch pipe from the district heating network to the building.
92
Direct
Electricity
6.2*
5.6*
Table 16: Average thermal capacities and corresponding investment costs assumed for services boilers in the
EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
2012
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
2050
HRE-EE
2050
Oil
Gas
Pellet/
Coal
Air Heat
Pump
263
263
263
263
263
263
289
289
289
264
263
263
263
289
289
289
Brine Heat
Pump
Direct
Electricity
District
Heating
Substations
263
263
250
250
264
289
275
240
240
263
250
264
264
289
275
Average Size of Services Boilers (kWth)
240
240
240
240
Specific Investment for Services Boilers (k€/unit)
2012
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
2050
HRE-EE
2050
26.3
26.3
13.6
13.6
45
45
240
240
264
264
175
175
21.5*
21.5*
28.9
15.0
49
264
290
192
23.3*
26.3
13.6
45
240
264
175
21.5*
28.9
15.0
49
264
290
192
23.3*
*Includes the cost of a meter and a branch pipe from the district heating network to the building.
93
To annualise the boiler costs, technical lifetimes were also assumed for each type of boiler as outlined
in Table 17. In addition, Table 17 indicates the fixed and marginal O&M costs assumed for each type of
boiler.
Table 17: Other financial assumptions for residential and services boilers for both the EU-EE and HRE-EE
scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
Oil
Technical lifetime
(years)
Fixed O&M
(€/unit/year)
Variable O&M
(€/MWh)
Technical lifetime
(years)
Fixed O&M
(€/unit/year)
Variable O&M
(€/MWh)
Gas
Pellet/
Coal
Air Heat
Pump
Brine Heat
Pump
Residential Boilers
20
20
Direct
Electricity
District Heating
Substations
30
20
20
22
20
270
46
25
135
135
50
150
0
7.2
0
0
0
0
0
20
25
20
Services Boilers
20
20
30
20
1,0
00
0
1,5
40
7.2
3,465
400
400
4,000
150
0
0
0
0
0
Direct electric heating is also replaced by district heating in this study. These systems do not have
central heating systems in the buildings already, so the additional cost of the central heating system
also needs to be considered in the economic calculations. The costs assumed for central heating
systems are outlined in Table 18.
Table 18: Costs assumed for central heating systems in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and
2050.
Cost
Specific investment (1000€/unit)
Technical lifetime (years)
Fixed O&M (€/unit/year)
Variable O&M (€/MWh)
Residential
5.4
40
70
0
Services
15
40
70
0
The costs assumed for the district heating network are outlined in Table 19. It is assumed that all
district heating proposed in the EU-EE scenario is conventional district heating, since there is no
increase in the market share for district heating in the EU-EE scenario. However, from a cost point of
view, all additional district heating constructed in the HRE-EE scenario is assumed to be lowtemperature district heating [44] (see Table 20). As presented in Table 19, this means that the
additional district heating in the HRE-EE scenario has investment costs over 7 times more per unit of
heat demand met than the conventional district heating used today. Hereby, the highest marginal cost
for the expansion is used as an estimate for the average cost of the whole expansion. This very
94
conservative assumption is made, since we have not yet completed a thorough assessment of the
actual investment cost for the future heat distribution from the European heat atlas in Figure 14. In
reality, if the HRE-EE scenario is implemented, then there will be an expansion of both conventional
and low-temperature district heating in the future, so this can be seen as a worst case scenario in
terms of the district heating pipeline costs. Although low-temperature district heating is not in use
today, it is expected to grow in the future since the heat demands in the buildings will reduce and also,
so that low-temperature heat sources can be utilised by district heating networks.
Table 19: Financial assumptions for conventional and low-temperature district heating assumed in the EU-EE
and HRE-EE scenarios [45].
Specific Investment costs*
(1000 €/TWh of heat demand)
Technical lifetime (years)
Average Fixed O&M (€/TWh/year)
Variable O&M (€/MWh)
Conventional District Heating
Network for a heat demand
of >120 TJ/km2
72,000
Low-temperature district
heating for a heat demand of
20-48 TJ/km2
522,000#
40
900,000
40
3,960,000
0
0
*Branch pipes to the buildings are not included here, but instead are included in the district heating substation costs.
#This cost represents the price per unit of heat delivered. It is important to recognise that the difference between conventional and lowtemperature district heating is very large since low-temperature district heating is assumed to supply buildings with lower heat demands.
Therefore, the cost per metre of district heating pipelines is not reflected here, but the cost per unit of heat supplied.
Table 20: Type of district heating assumed in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Heat Demand (TWh)
EU-EE 2030
HRE-EE 2030
EU-EE 2050
HRE-EE 2050
Conventional District
Heating Network for a heat
demand of >120 TJ/km2
270
346*
159
265*
Low-temperature district
heating for a heat demand of
20-48 TJ/km2
0
697
0
1,059
Total
270
1,043
159
1,324
*Conventional district heating supplies the same market share in the HRE-EE scenarios as in the EU-EE scenario, but the heat demand is
higher since there are less energy efficiency measures.
Based on these assumptions, the annual investments and operation costs for heating networks and
consumer installations for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios are displayed in Figure 52. The investment
costs for the individual boiler units are the dominant cost in all scenarios considered, representing
approximately 70% of the total costs on average. This is followed by the central heating system costs,
which represent approximately 25% of the total costs in all scenarios. Although the costs assumed for
the district heating network in the HRE-EE scenario are very high (see Table 19), these only represent
approximately 10% of the total costs in 2050 when there is a 50% district heating market share.
However, the total annual costs are still higher in both HRE-EE scenarios and the costs of the
production units still need to be added to these scenarios.
95
Annual Costs for Heating Networks and Consumer
Installations (B€/year)
Residential Individual Units
Residential Central Heating Systems
Services Individual Units
Services Central Heating Systems
District Heating Network
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2030
2050
EU-EE
2030
2050
HRE-EE
Figure 52: Annual investment and operation costs for heating networks and consumer installations for the EUEE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
5.3
REPLACING INDIVIDUAL COOLING WITH DISTRICT COOLING
The cooling demand in the EU-EE scenario is approximately 15% of the heat demand between 2010
and 2050, so less emphasis is placed on cooling in this report. However, based on a forecast from the
EU project RESCUE [46], it is assumed here that district cooling can supply 10% of the cooling demand
in 2030 and 20% in 2050 in the HRE-EE scenario (see Figure 53). No information was identified or
developed in this study to specify exactly how this district cooling would be provided. Therefore, it is
simply assumed that 50% of the district cooling is from natural cooling and 50% is from absorption
heat pumps.
96
Cooling Demand for Residential and
Services Buildings (TWh)
Electricity
Natural Cooling
Absorption Cooling
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 53: Cooling demand by fuel source for residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and HRE-EE
scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Fuel Demand for Cooling Residential
and Services Buildings (TWh)
It is assumed that the compression heat pumps have a COP of 2 [45], and so the electricity demand for
cooling is half the cooling demand (see Figure 54). However, the absorption heat pumps only have a
COP of 0.6 [47] and so there is an additional heat demand of 30.5 TWh in 2030 and 54 TWh in 2050
from the district heating network.
Electricity
Natural Cooling
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Heat for Absorption Cooling
250
200
150
100
50
0
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 54: Fuel demand for cooling residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the
years 2030 and 2050.
The costs for district cooling are difficult to estimate since there is currently very little data available
for cooling demands. However, since the cooling demand is very small compared to the heating
97
demand, the costs are also less significant. For cooling that is provided by electricity, it is assumed that
an air-to-water heat pump is utilised with the investment costs outlined in Table 21.
Table 21: Financial assumptions for air-to-water heat pumps which use electricity to provide cooling in the EUEE and HRE-EE scenarios.
Individual heat pump
air-to-air
267
240
20
400
0
Average Size (kWcooling)
Specific investment (1000€/unit)
Technical lifetime (years)
Fixed O&M (€/unit/year)
Variable O&M (€/MWh)
The number of cooling units has been estimated for 2010 based on an assumed average cooling
capacity of 267 kWcooling/unit and a total estimated cooling capacity in the EU of 275 GW [48]. Then, the
total cooling capacity is increased proportionately to the cooling demand for the years 2030 and 2050,
as displayed in Table 22. Similarly, it is then assumed that the number of individual heat pump units
replaced in the HRE-EE scenario is proportionate to the cooling demand replaced with district cooling.
Table 22: Assumptions used to estimate the number of individual cooling units and the capacity of individual
heat pumps in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Total Cooling Demand (TWh)
323
365
326
Estimated Cooling Capacity Installed in 2010 (MWCooling)
Cooling Capacity of a Heat Pump (kWCooling)
Number of Heat Pumps Required in the EU-EE scenario
District Cooling in the HRE-EE scenario (%)
District Cooling in the HRE-EE scenario (TWh)
Number of Heat Pumps Replaced with District Cooling in the
HRE-EE scenario
Individual Heat Pump Capacity Replaced with District Cooling
(kWCooling)
Centralised Absorption Heat Pump Capacity Required in the
HRE-EE scenario (kWCooling)
275,000
267
1,031,250
0%
0
0
311,024
267
1,166,339
10%
37
116,634
245,692
267
921,346
20%
65
184,269
0
31,102
49,138
0
23,327
36,854
The cost of natural cooling is assumed to be 150% of the cost for conventional district heating
networks, while the additional district heating demand for absorption cooling is provided by lowtemperature district heating (see Table 19). It is not possible to be specific about the breakdown of
cooling units used for district cooling since it is often composed of backup chillers and absorption heat
pumps. Therefore, here it is assumed that 75% of the individual heat pump capacity replaced by
district cooling is rebuilt as centralised absorption heat pumps (see Table 22) using the costs outlined
in Table 23.
98
Table 23: Financial assumptions for the centralised absorption heat pumps used to provide district cooling in
the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios: based on the costs for thermal absorption heat pumps in [45].
Specific investment (M€/MWCooling)
Lifetime (years)
Fixed O&M (% of Investment)
0.97
20
5.00%
The costs assumed here will need to be investigated in more detail in the future, but it is a sufficient
proxy for this study since the cooling systems costs (Figure 55) are less than 10% of the heating system
costs (Figure 52).
Annual Costs for Cooling Networks and
Consumer Installations (B€/year)
Individual Units
District Cooling Network
District Cooling Production Plants
25
20
15
10
5
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 55: Annual cooling system costs for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
5.4
ADDING DISTRICT HEATING PRODUCTION UNITS
Now the total district heating demand has been defined for the HRE-EE scenarios, which includes
district heating for hot water and space heating (section 5.1) as well as district heating for absorption
heat pumps for district cooling (section 5.2). The next step is to define the capacities for the production
units in the HRE-EE scenarios, which are displayed in Table 24.
It is assumed that half of the district heating expansion in the HRE-EE scenarios will be decentralised
and so, this will require the construction of new relatively small CHP plants. These are assumed to be
10-100 MW gas power plants with an average electrical efficiency of 50% and an average thermal
efficiency of 40% [47]. The remaining district heating is provided by centralised CHP plants that either
already exists or are created by converting existing electricity-only power plants. It is assumed that the
fuel mix for these power plants in the HRE-EE scenarios are the same as the fuel mix already defined
for CHP plants in the EU-EE scenarios for 2030 and 2050.
99
Table 24: District heating production unit capacities assumed in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the
residential and services sectors for the years 2030 and 2050.
Assumed Efficiencies [47]
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
EU-EE
HRE-EE
District Heating
Production for Boiler
Only Systems (TWh)
n/a
55
70
11
19
Boilers for Boiler Only
Systems (MWth)
2030: ηthermal = 80%
2050: ηthermal = 81.5%
17,089
21,750
3,190
5,364
Other District Heating
Production (TWh)
n/a
282
1268
169
1,571
33,570
103,570
25,916
205,916
CHP (MWe)
Centralised:
2030 ηelec=40% &
ηthermal=45%
2050 ηelec=45% and
ηthermal=45%
Decentralised: ηelec=50%
and ηthermal=45%
Backup Boilers* (MWth)
ηthermal=90%
105,150
472,850
57,250
532,230
Heat Pumps (MWe)
COP = 3
0
26,000
0
40,000
Thermal Storage# (GWh)
n/a
130
600
80
750
*Assuming a boiler capacity that is 20% greater than the maximum heat demand.
#
Assuming a thermal storage capacity that is 17% of the average daily heat supply into the network [49].
5.5
ADDING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO SUPPLY HEAT TO THE DISTRICT HEATING
NETWORK
By adding district heating networks to the energy system, it is possible to utilise a number of additional
resources that could otherwise not be utilised. As displayed in Figure 56, the following additional heat
production is provided by unconventional resources in the HRE-EE scenario:
• Industrial surplus heat: 100 TWh/year
• Direct geothermal heat: 100 TWh/year
• Waste incineration: 150 TWh/year
• Large-scale solar thermal: 100 TWh/year
These values have been determined based on the mapping discussed in chapter 3. This is a
conservative estimate of the additional heat that could be utilised for district heating in the future. It
does not consider the surplus heat that is likely to be available from a number of new technologies
such as bioethanol plants, biomass gasification facilities, and large-scale electrolysers. The costs
assumed for the unconventional resources utilised in the HRE-EE scenarios are outlined in Table 25.
100
Heat Available from Unconventional
Resources due to District Heating*
(TWh/year)
Industry
Waste Incineration^
Geothermal
Large-Scale Solar
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
2030
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 56: Heat from unconventional resources in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
*In the Energy Efficiency scenario it is assumed that these resources will remain the same as 2010 levels, since
there is no growth in district heating. ^Includes waste incineration heat for industry.
Table 25: Unit cost for the unconventional resources added to the HRE-EE scenario.
Industrial Surplus Heat
Direct Geothermal Heat
Waste Incineration
Solar Thermal
Investment Costs
(M€/TWh)
40*
216*
250#
440*
Annual Fixed O&M Costs
(% of investment)
1
2.4
1.8
0.001
Lifetime
(years)
30
25
20
20
*These investment costs are expressed in terms of the heat delivered.
#
These investment costs are expressed in terms of the input resource.
5.6
UTILISING THE SAME AMOUNT OF BIOMASS AS THE EU-EE SCENARIO
Biomass will be a very valuable resource in future sustainable energy systems [50] since it is a limited
resource and also, the only renewable energy than can directly substitute all forms of fossil fuels:
biomass for coal, biogas for natural gas, and biofuels for oil. The HRE-EE scenario uses less biomass in
individual boilers than the EU-EE scenario, which was already displayed in Figure 51. However, the
same amount of biomass is utilised in the HRE-EE scenario as in the EU-EE scenario by converting
centralised boilers for district heating from natural gas to biomass.
5.7
UTILISING THE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY OF THE HRE-EE SCENARIO
The EU-EE scenario has a small share of district heating (10-15% of the heat demand), but otherwise
the electricity and heat sectors are not significantly interconnected. As a result, the energy system in
the EU-EE scenario is more segregated like the energy system displayed in Figure 57.
101
Resources
Conversion
Exchange and
Storage
Demand
Mobility
Power
Exchange
Fuels
Power-Only
Plants
Electricity
Cooling
Heat-Only
Boilers
Heating
Figure 57: Interaction between sectors and technologies in segregated energy systems [51].
In contrast, the energy system in the HRE-EE scenarios contains a lot of district heating with thermal
storage facilities and large-scale heat pumps. As a result, the electricity and heat sectors are more
interconnected like the energy system displayed in Figure 58. This means that the overall system is
more flexible and it can accommodate larger amounts of intermittent renewable energy such as wind
power.
102
Resources
Conversion
Relocation
Exchange
and Storage
Demand
Fuel Storage
Wind etc.
Mobility
Fluctuating
Electricity
Power
Exchange
Electricity
Electricity
Storage
Fuels
CHP
(or Quad)
Cooling
Heat Pump
Thermal
Storage
Heating
Solar etc.
Fluctuating
Heat
Figure 58: Interaction between sectors and technologies in a future sustainable energy system [52].
Critical excess electricity production (CEEP) measures the amount of intermittent renewable energy
that cannot be utilised on an annual basis in an energy system. It occurs when there is an over
production of electricity from intermittent electricity resources such as wind power and photovoltaic
units during different hours of the year. In the HRE-EE scenarios, these hours can be accommodated
more often than in the EU-EE scenario, since the HRE-EE scenario contains large-scale thermal storage
and heat pumps in the district heating system. To reflect this, the wind power capacity is increased in
the HRE-EE scenario until the level of CEEP is the same as in the EU-EE scenario.
5.8
SUMMARY
The HRE-EE scenario has a higher heat demand than the EU-EE scenario and it utilises more district
heating and cooling instead of individual units in 2030 and 2050 (see Figure 59 and Figure 53
respectively). As a result, Figure 51 indicates that the HRE-EE scenario uses less fuel for heating
residential and services buildings, but Figure 60 shows that there is more much more fuel consumed
for district heating production in the HRE-EE scenario. Furthermore, Figure 52 and Figure 55 show that
the cost of the heating and cooling systems is now higher in the HRE-EE scenario than the EU-EE
scenario, and these costs do not include for the production units for district heating discussed in
section 5.3. Therefore, the energy system analysis, which is discussed in chapter 6, will indicate if this
reduction in fuel costs in the HRE-EE scenario along with a reduction in energy efficiency costs will
offset the increase in the investment costs for the heating and cooling system as well as for the district
heating production units. In this way, the final HRE-EE scenario is a mix of energy efficiency and district
heating, which aims to produce a similar level of CO2 emissions as the EU-EE scenario.
103
Heat Demand for Residential and Services
Buildings (TWh/year)
4,000
3,500
Geothermal
3,000
Heat Pumps
2,500
Direct Electricity
2,000
Solar
Biomass
1,500
Gas
1,000
Oil
Solids
500
District Heating
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 59: Heat demand by fuel for residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the
years 2030 and 2050.
District Heating Supply for Residential
and Services Buildings (TWh/year)
1,800
1,600
1,400
Industry
1,200
Waste
1,000
Geothermal
800
Solar
600
Heat Pumps
400
Boiler
200
CHP
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
HRE-EE
EU-EE
2050
Figure 60: District heating production by plant type in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and
2050. Note: some of the district heating is used by absorption heat pumps to provide cooling as discussed in
section 5.2.
104
6
ENERGY SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF THE HRE SCENARIO
The energy systems analysis considers the design of the heating system in the context of the whole
energy system. In future sustainable energy systems this is an essential consideration as integrating
the different sectors (i.e. electricity, heat, and transport) can provide excellent opportunities for
integrating intermittent renewable energy such as wind and solar (see Annex VI).
Using the EnergyPLAN tool discussed in section 2.2, the primary energy supply (PES) and the CO2
emissions have been estimated for both the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
As displayed in Figure 61, the PES is slightly larger in the HRE-EE scenario (~2%), but the fossil fuel and
biomass consumption in both scenarios is the same (<1% difference). As a result, the carbon dioxide
emissions in both scenarios are also the same. The slightly larger PES in the HRE-EE scenario is due to
the additional resources utilised in the district heating network such as waste incineration, geothermal,
and large-scale solar thermal (see Figure 56). The HRE-EE scenario can also utilise approximately 5%
more wind power than the EU-EE scenario due to the additional flexibility introduced into the system
by integrating the electricity and heat sectors (see section 5.6).
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste
RES
18,000
3,000
15,000
2,500
12,000
2,000
9,000
1,500
6,000
1,000
3,000
500
0
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (X, Mt/year)
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
Nuclear
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 61: Primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years
2030 and 2050.
Figure 62 presents the PES for heating and cooling in buildings separate to the rest of the energy
system. Once again, these results indicate that both the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios have the same
105
level of biomass and fossil fuel consumption in 2030 and 2050, so the additional heat demands in the
HRE-EE scenario are met using CO2 neutral resources.
The HRE-EE scenario utilises a lot of large-scale heat pumps in the district heating system since there is
a very large amount of surplus electricity production in the original EU-EE scenario. It is likely that
there would be fewer large-scale heat pumps in a system optimised for the integration of intermittent
renewable energy.
Primary Energy Supply for Heating and Cooling
in Residential and Services Buildings (TWh/year)
6,000
5,000
Industry Surplus Heat
Geothermal for DH
4,000
Surrounding Heat for HPs
Solar Thermal
3,000
Wind Power
Waste
2,000
Biomass
Gas
1,000
Oil
Coal
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 62: Primary energy supply for heating and cooling in residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and
HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
Figure 63 indicates that the HRE-EE scenario has lower annual costs than the EU-EE scenario, while
achieving the same level of PES and CO2 emissions. Both scenarios have very similar fuel, O&M, and
CO2 emission costs, but the HRE-EE scenario reduces the investment costs by approximately 10%.
106
Investment
Fuel
Fixed O&M
Variable O&M
CO2
1,400
Total Costs (B€/year)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 63: Total annual energy system costs for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
The source of these investment savings is more evident when the costs for heating and cooling
buildings are separated from the whole energy system costs (see Figure 64). The HRE-EE scenario saves
a lot of money on energy efficiency investments, which result in higher heat demands. However, to
overcome these savings the HRE-EE scenario has higher shares of district heating and cooling, larger
individual boilers, and it produces more heat. Therefore, the heating system, cooling system, and fuels
are more expensive in the HRE-EE scenario than the EU-EE scenario. However, Figure 64 indicates that
these additional costs are offset by the reduced energy efficiency investments, so the total cost of
heating and cooling for buildings in the HRE-EE is ~15% cheaper than in EU-EE scenario.
107
Total Costs for Heating and Cooling in the
Residential and Services Sectors (B€/year)
End-Use Energy Efficiency Investments
Cooling System Investments
Fuel
Heating System Investments
Centralised Electricity & Heat Plants
CO2
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2050
Figure 64: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the EU-EE and
HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
As discussed in section 5.1, the investment costs for energy efficiency measures are very difficult to
estimate, particularly for the entire EU27. In this study, a cost curve has been used based on Danish
experiences to estimate the cost of the energy efficiency measures in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios
created (see Figure 49). Afterwards, these estimates have been validated based on data in the Energy
Roadmap 2050 report [9] and based on inputs from Ecofys [42]. Since the energy efficiency measures
are the primary source of savings in the HRE-EE scenario, it is important to recognise that the energy
efficiency costs assumed in this study are ‘additional’ costs. In other words, it is assumed that all of
these energy efficiency measures are carried out at the same time as other renovations are taking
place in the building. If these energy efficiency measures cannot be carried out at the same time as
other renovations, then they are referred to as direct costs. As outlined in Figure 65, the cost per unit
of heat saved is approximately double for direct energy efficiency measures as for additional energy
efficiency measures. If these costs were assumed in this study, then the investment costs for energy
efficiency measures in the EU-EE scenario would be approximately B€600/year instead of B€300/year.
In reality, it is likely that the actual costs for energy efficiency measures will be somewhere between
these two cost curves. In the beginning there will be a lot of opportunities to implement energy
efficiency measures so these can be done at the same time as the buildings are renovated for other
purposes. Fewer opportunities will be available as more buildings are renovated and eventually, it is
likely that buildings will have to be renovated specifically for the purpose of energy efficiency
measures. Hence, the costs will move from additional costs to direct costs. This is also highlighted in
the EU Energy Roadmap report, which concludes that “A clear result concerning the strategic energy
efficiency direction is that a substantial speeding up of energy efficiency improvements from historical
trends is crucial for achieving the decarbonisation objective” [12]. Therefore, the key point here is that
108
the costs assumed for energy efficiency measures in this study can be considered conservative,
especially for the EU-EE scenario.
Additional Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures (€/kWh)
Direct Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures (€/kWh)
6.00
5.00
Cost (€/kWh)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Heat Demand Reduction (%)
60%
70%
80%
Figure 65: Additional and direct costs for energy efficiency measures that reduce the heat demand by different
percentages based on Danish buildings (scenario C) [43].
Similarly, low-temperature district heating in low heat density areas is assumed when estimating the
distribution cost of all additional district heating added to the HRE-EE scenario (see Table 20). The
highest marginal distribution cost for low-temperature district heating is approximately seven times
more expensive per unit of heat delivered than conventional district heating (see Table 19). Even with
substantial energy savings, many high-density urban areas will have heat demands which are similar to
those in conventional district heating networks today (see Figure 15). Therefore, the costs of these
district heating networks are likely to be much lower than assumed in this study, so this can also be
considered as a very conservative estimate from a HRE-EE perspective.
To illustrate these sensitivities, the heating and cooling costs have been recalculated assuming an
equal share of additional and direct energy efficiency measures in 2050, along with a higher share of
conventional district heating: it has been increased from a share of 20% in the original HRE-EE scenario
to a share of 40% based on the heat densities forecasted for the EU27 using the European Heat Atlas
(see Figure 14). This reduces the cost of district heating pipes in the HRE-EE scenario by 20%, but since
the district heating pipes account for a relatively small proportion of the total heating costs (see Figure
52), the overall heating system costs are only reduced by 2%. Based on this sensitivity analysis, the
results presented in Figure 66 indicate that:
109
Total Costs for Heating and Cooling in the Residential and Services
Sectors (B€/year)
1. The total heating and cooling costs savings reported here for the HRE-EE scenario are
conservative: in 2050 the HRE-EE scenario is ~15% but with a more pessimistic outlook
for energy efficiency costs and optimistic outlook for district heating costs, the cost
savings in the HRE-EE scenario would be ~22%.
2. The total heating and cooling costs are very sensitive to variations in the costs for energy
efficiency, but very robust against costs for district heating pipelines. Therefore, utilising
a combination of energy efficiency and district heating reduces the economic risks for the
EU27.
Energy Efficiency Investments
Heating System Investments
Cooling System Investments
Centralised Electricity & Heat Plants
Fuel
CO2
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
No DH Expansion
High DH Expansion
Costs#
No DH Expansion
Realistic DH Expansion
Costs^
Marginal Efficiency
Costs
Marginal Efficiency
Costs
Direct & Marginal
Efficiency Costs*
Direct & Marginal
Efficiency Costs*
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Original Scenarios
Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 66: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the EU-EE and
HRE-EE scenarios in 2050 for different energy efficiency and district heating cost assumptions. *Represents a
scenario with 50% additional energy efficiency costs and 50% direct energy efficiency costs (see Figure 65).
#
Assumes that all additional district heating in the EU27 is in areas with a heat density less than 50 TJ/km2.
^Based on forecasted heat densities in the European Heat Atlas (Figure 14).
Finally, from a technical point of view, the HRE-EE scenario also provides a more robust alternative. In
the EU-EE scenario, the CO2 emission target for 2050 is highly dependent on the implementation of
significant energy savings. As outlined in the EU Energy Roadmap report, “Energy efficiency tends to
show better results in a model than in reality. Energy efficiency improvements are often hampered by
split incentives, cash problems of some group of customers; imperfect knowledge and foresight
leading to lock-in of some outdated technologies” [11]. This indicates that the EU-EE scenario will be
extremely difficult to implement in reality. In contrast, the HRE-EE scenario will rely on putting district
heating in the houses as well as energy efficiency measures. Therefore, if the district heating targets
110
cannot be achieved, then more energy efficiency measures can still be implemented. Similarly, if the
energy efficiency measures cannot be achieved, then more district heating can be added. As discussed
in sections 3.4 and 5.4, there is potentially more heat available from unconventional heat resources
such as large-scale solar thermal and geothermal than is utilised in the HRE-EE scenario here. If more
district heating is required, there are thus a number of opportunities still available to supply this heat
with carbon neutral resources. In this way, the HRE-EE scenario is a technically a more reliable and
easier solution to implement than the EU-EE scenario.
Aarhus case study
The case study quantifies the energy flows and costs related to establishing an individual or collective
heating supply system in the Danish city of Aarhus. This was done by using GIS data on the existing
supply system, demands and buildings in combination with related cost data. The analyses were
carried out in four scenarios; two district heating and two individual heating scenarios. Another
difference between the scenarios was the extent to which heat savings were implemented, with either
55% or 77% reductions in the annual building heat demands. They were labelled as:




Scenario 1: District heating with 55% reduction
Scenario 2: Individual heating with 55% reduction
Scenario 3: District heating with 77% reduction
Scenario 4: Individual heating with 77% reduction
The results show that, with a reduced heat demand, the extent to which CHPs can be used in district
heating areas is reduced, minimizing the benefits of district heating. On the other hand, the electricity
demand is not reduced to the same extent, giving an additional demand of electricity production
capacity in all scenarios. This is especially seen in the individual scenarios in which compression heat
pumps are added to cover the heat demand. The overall fuel consumption is therefore lower in the
two district heating scenarios, with the lowest consumption in Scenario 3 due to the larger heat
reductions. These demand reductions are, however, associated with a higher investment cost than the
reductions in Scenario 1.
Therefore, the main result shows that implementing heat savings is feasible to some degree in
combination with district heating, but the benefits achieved by applying Scenario 3 are more costly
than Scenario 1. The individual scenarios are both more costly than the district heating scenarios, due
to the large investments in individual heat pumps and additional electricity production capacity. There
is, however, a tendency that, with large reductions in heat demand, heat pumps become a more
attractive solution, but this is still more costly than the district heating scenarios.
The Aarhus case study underlines some of the points made in the main Heat Roadmap Europe study:
1. District heating is an attractive solution in areas with a high heat density.
2. District heating can be seen as an efficiency measure similar to reductions in heat demand,
because it enables the use of fuels in a more efficient way.
3. Heat reductions in buildings can be combined with district heating in a way which makes it
competitive with individual solutions both in regard to resource use and costs.
111
7
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the urban heat densities identified in the new EU Heat Atlas developed in this study (see
Figure 14), a district heating share of 50% is feasible for buildings in the EU by 2050. This is even
feasible if significant heat savings are implemented in the buildings. Overall, in the EU-EE scenario
considered in this study, there is a 60% reduction in space heating and a 55% reduction in hot water
demand between 2015 and 2050 (see Figure 40). These heat demand reductions will be very difficult
to implement in reality, which is also acknowledged in the Energy Roadmap 2050 report:
“Energy efficiency tends to show better results in a model than in reality. Energy efficiency
improvements are often hampered by split incentives, cash problems of some group of customers;
imperfect knowledge and foresight leading to lock-in of some outdated technologies” [11].
This level of energy efficiency measures will also be very expensive to implement. In this study, an
indicate cost curve is created to estimate these costs based on previous work by the Danish Building
Research Institute (Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut) for Danish buildings [43]. Using this curve, the
estimated cost of the 60% reduction in the heat demands implemented in the EU-EE scenario is
~B€300/year (which is approximately €600/person in Europe each year). Since these energy efficiency
measures will be difficult to implement and they are relatively expensive, the idea of this study HRE-EE
is to illustrate and quantify how the same goals for CO2-emssion reductions can be reached by
replacing some of the most expensive and most difficult energy conservation measures by district
heating efficiency measures, which is both cheaper and easier to implement. Two expensive
conservation measures have been identified in the EU-EE scenario:
One is the assumed reduction in the hot water demand of Europe for the following reasons:
 The EU population will grow by 3.2% between 2010 and 2050.
 According to a number of interviews with industry experts, people tend to wash more today
than they did in the past, which is likely to continue into the future. In other words, individuals
are likely to take more showers and baths in the future than they do today.
 People are not expected to live with one another as much in the future. Hence, there will a
larger number of people living in their own houses rather than living together. This is also
expected to increase the demand for hot water for an individual.
 At present, there are regions in Europe where the use of hot water is limited due to technical
and financial limitations. As these regions become wealthier, the demand for hot water is
expected to rise in these regions.
The building area for residential and non-residential buildings is expected to grow by 32% and 42%
respectively between 2015 and 2050.Therefore, in the new heat demand for the HRE-EE scenario, the
hot water demand is not reduced, but instead it is increased by ~15% between 2015 and 2050.
The second change is that the space heating demand is not reduced as much in the HRE-EE scenario as
in the EU-EE scenario. The most ambitious energy efficiency scenario from a recent report carried out
by Ecofys for EURIMA, which is called the ‘Deep Renovation’ scenario, concluded that a 47% reduction
in EU space heating demands is feasible between 2010 and 2050 [42]. Therefore, a 47% reduction in
112
space heating is assumed here instead of the 62% reduction assumed in the EU-EE scenario. The
energy efficiency measures in the HRE-EE scenario are still extremely ambitious, but less than in the
EU-EE scenario. Based on these new assumptions, the total heat demand in the HRE-EE scenario is
~70% more in 2050 than in the EU-EE scenario (see Figure 48). However, since the heat demand is
higher, the cost of the energy efficiency measures in the HRE-EE scenario is only B€130/year, instead of
the B€300/year for the EU-EE scenario.
The HRE-EE scenario has higher heat demands than the EU-EE scenario, but in doing so, the HRE-EE
scenario has saved ~B€170/year. The key challenge now is to establish if these savings can be spent on
new production technologies elsewhere in the energy system to enable the same reductions in CO2
emissions as the original EU-EE scenario. The supply side of the heating system for residential and
services buildings have therefore been redesigned in the HRE-EE scenario by carrying out the following
steps:
1. Individual boilers are replaced by district heating. In 2030, district heating meets 30% of the
heat demand and in 2050 it meets 50% of the heat demand in residential and services
buildings. Individual coal, oil, gas, biomass, and direct electric heating systems are replaced,
but individual heat pumps are not since these are also considered a key technology to
decarbonise the EU energy system. It is assumed here that these individual heat pumps are
installed outside the urban areas that contain district heating.
2. Individual cooling units are replaced with district cooling. 10% of the cooling demand for
residential and services buildings is provided using district cooling in 2030 and 20% in the year
2050. District cooling is supplied from both natural cooling and from absorption heat pumps,
which require heat from the district heating network.
3. To supply the heat for these new district heating demands, new production units are added to
the HRE-EE scenario. Some existing condensing power-plants are converted to CHP plants and
new decentralised natural gas plants are constructed. Centralised boilers, heat pumps, and
thermal storage facilities are also added.
4. With district heating now installed, additional resources can be utilised in the HRE-EE scenario
that could not be utilised in the EU-EE scenario. These include more wind power of the largescale heat pumps, large-scale solar thermal plants, geothermal heat, surplus industrial heat,
and heat from waste incineration. Therefore, heat from each of these resources is also added
to the HRE-EE scenario.
5. After these measures are implemented, the HRE-EE scenario consumed slightly less biomass
than the EU-EE scenario. Therefore, the biomass consumption was increased in the HRE-EE
scenario until it was at the same level as the EU-EE by replacing some natural gas in the
centralised district heating boilers.
6. Finally, the HRE-EE scenario is more flexible than the EU-EE scenario since it integrates the
electricity and heating sectors. To exploit the benefits of this, wind power is increased in the
HRE-EE scenario until there is the same level of critical excess electricity production (CEEP) in
the HRE-EE scenario as the EU-EE scenario.
After implementing these changes, the primary energy supply (PES) and the CO2 emissions can be
compared between the HRE-EE scenario in the years 2030 and 2050. As displayed in Figure 61, the PES
is slightly larger in the HRE-EE scenario (~2%), but the fossil fuel and biomass consumption in both
scenarios is the same (<1% difference). As a result, the carbon dioxide emissions in both scenarios are
also the same. The slightly larger PES in the HRE-EE scenario is due to the additional resources utilised
113
in the district heating network such as waste incineration, geothermal, and large-scale solar thermal. If
district heating is not included in the EU energy system, these resources will be wasted. The HRE-EE
scenario can also utilise approximately 5% more wind power than the EU-EE scenario due to the
additional flexibility introduced into the system by integrating the electricity and heat sectors.
Even though the heat demands in buildings are much higher in the HRE-EE scenario (see Figure 48),
these additional heat demands can be met using CO2 neutral resources, as outlined in Figure 62. Once
again, these results indicate that both the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios have the same level of biomass
and fossil fuel consumption in 2030 and 2050, so the additional heat demands in the HRE-EE scenario
are met using heat from waste incineration, industry, geothermal, large-scale solar thermal, and heat
pumps.
As already discussed, the HRE-EE scenario has lower investment costs in energy efficiency measures
than the EU-EE scenario. However, these savings then need to be reinvestment in redesigning the
heating sector in the HRE-EE scenario, so the same CO2 reductions can be obtained as the EU-EE
scenario. However, these reinvestments in the HRE-EE scenario are less than the initial savings realised
due to less energy efficiency measures, which means that the overall energy costs for the EU energy
system are reduced by approximately 7-8% (see Figure 63). For the heating and cooling of buildings,
the total costs are reduced in the HRE-EE scenario by ~15% compared to the EU-EE scenario (see Figure
64).
The cost savings realised in the HRE-EE scenario are very dependent on the costs assumed for the
energy efficiency measures, which will need to be investigated in more detail in the future. However,
the conclusion in this study is relatively robust since the energy efficiency costs assumed here are
relatively low and the district heating costs assumed are relatively high. In contrast, the costs assumed
for district heating are relatively high in the HRE-EE scenario. To illustrate this, a sensitivity analysis is
completed assuming more probably costs for both energy efficiency and district heating. The results in
Figure 66 indicate that the savings for the heating and cooling sector would be ~22% if these costs
assumptions are used instead. Therefore, the cost savings for the original HRE-EE scenario can be
considered as conservative.
Although the EU27 is a very large area, the results presented here have also been supported using on a
specific case study based on the city of Aarhus in Denmark. This results from this case study, which
allows for more specific demand, supply and cost data to be considered, also indicate that a
combination of district heating and energy efficiency is a very efficiency and cost-effective heating
strategy. The case study also compared district heating to individual heat pumps in urban areas, which
included detached houses, concluding that district heating is a more efficiency and cheaper solution.
To conclude, the key points from this study can be summarised as follows:
1. This first pre-study indicates that by adding district heating to a ‘business-as-usual’ EU energy
system (i.e. the CPI scenario which only includes the implementation of existing policies), it is
possible to reduce the primary energy supply, reduce CO2 emissions, and reduce energy
system costs.
114
2. This second pre-study indicates that by adding district heating to an EU energy system with
very low heat demands, it is possible to use the same amount of fossil fuels and biomass as the
EU Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) scenario in the Energy Roadmap 2050 report, but the total energy
system costs will be approximately 7-8% lower.
3. Energy efficiency measures will provide essential heat demand reductions in buildings in the
future EU energy system, but at a certain point, these will become very difficult to implement
and very costly. Ambitious energy efficiency targets should be pursued in the EU, but not to
the extent that the EU-EE scenario suggests.
4. The HRE-EE scenario uses energy efficiency on both the demand and supply side of the energy
system. By adding district heating for buildings, it is possible to utilise surplus heat from power
plants, industry, and waste incineration, while also using more renewable energy such as wind
power, large-scale solar thermal, and geothermal.
5. The EU-EE scenario relies heavily on heat savings in buildings to reach its CO2 reduction
targets. By introducing more district heating as an alternative energy efficiency measure, the
HRE-EE scenario is a safer and more realistic alternative: there are more technologies to
choose from, more renewable energy resources to utilise, and the heat demand does not need
to be reduced as much.
In future research, more information will need to be obtained about the specific energy efficiency
measures that are necessary in the EU, the energy efficiency costs, profiling the cooling system, and
cooling system costs. Also, a district heating scenario will need to be compared to an all-electric
heating scenario and there are many opportunities that could be explored for increasing intermittent
renewable energy (such as reducing baseload CCS and nuclear).
115
8
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
116
REFERENCES
Connolly D, Mathiesen BV, Østergaard PA, Möller B, Nielsen S, Lund H, Trier D,
Persson U, Nilsson D, Werner S. Heat Roadmap Europe: First pre-study for EU27.
Aalborg University, Halmstad University, and Euroheat & Power, 2012. Available
from: http://vbn.aau.dk/.
Population Division, Department of Economic and Social affairs, United Nations.
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. (Data in digital form POP/
DB/WUP/Rev.2009). . Population Division, Department of Economic and Social
affairs, United Nations, 2010. Available from: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm.
International Energy Agency. Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries. International
Energy Agency, 2012. Available from: http://www.iea.org/.
Dyrelund A, Lund H. Heat Plan Denmark 2010 : a road map for implementing the EU
directive on renewable energy (Varmeplan Danmark). Rambøll and Aalborg University,
2010.
Available
from:
http://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/varmeplan-danmark2010%280480328d-8f23-45d5-804f-90dde1f5cde6%29.html.
Dyrelund A, Lund H, Möller B, Mathiesen BV, Fafner K, Knudsen S, Lykkemark B,
Ulbjerg F, Laustsen TH, Larsen JM, Holm P. Varmeplan Danmark (Heat plan for
Denmark). Ramboll Denmark and Aalborg University, 2008. Available from:
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/16591725/Varmeplan_rapport.pdf.
Stadtwerke München. Fernwärmeversorgung bis 2040 zu 100% aus erneuerbaren
Energien. Euroheat & Power 41:4, 32-34, 2012.
Persson U. Realise the potential! Cost effective and energy efficient district heating in
European urban areas. Licentiate thesis, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2011. Available from: http://urn.kb.se/.
Werner S, Persson U. Halmstad University District heating and Cooling Database.
Halmstad University, 2013.
European Commission. Energy Roadmap 2050. European Commission, 2011. Available
from: http://ec.europa.eu/.
European Commission. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy
in
2050.
European
Commission,
2011.
Available
from:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112:EN:NOT.
European Commission. Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Energy
Roadmap 2050 (Part 1/2). European Commission, 2011. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/.
European Commission. Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Energy
Roadmap 2050 (Part 2/2). European Commission, 2011. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/.
European Commission. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. European
Commission, 2010. Available from: http://europa.eu/.
Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Europe’s buildings under the microscope:
Country-by-country review of the energy performance of Europe's buildings. Buildings
Performance Institute Europe, 2011. Available from: http://www.bpie.eu/.
European Commission. Energy efficiency: delivering the 20% target. European
Commission, 2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/.
Lund H. Renewable Energy Systems: The Choice and Modeling of 100% Renewable
Solutions. Academic Press, Elsevier, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA, 2010. ISBN:
978-0-12-375028-0.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
117
Aalborg University. EnergyPLAN: Advanced Energy System Analysis Computer
Model. Available from: http://www.energyplan.eu/ [accessed 14th September 2010].
Lund H, Munster E. Modelling of energy systems with a high percentage of CHP and
wind power. Renewable Energy 2003;28(14):2179-2193.
Lund H, Aalborg University. EnergyPLAN: Advanced Energy Systems Analysis
Computer
Model.
Aalborg
University,
2008.
Available
from:
http://energy.plan.aau.dk/manual.php.
Sundlöf C. Svenska Värmenät - Potential för utökat värmeunderlag för kraftvärme och
spillvärme genom sammanbyggand av fjärrvärmenät (Swedish Heat Grids - Potential
for more aggregated heat loads for higher utilisation of combined heat and power and
industrial excess heat by extended heat grids). The Swedish District Heating
Association, 2003. Available from: http://www.svenskfjarrvarme.se/.
Möller B, Lund H. Conversion of individual natural gas to district heating:
Geographical studies of supply costs and consequences for the Danish energy system.
Applied Energy 2010;87(6):1846-1857.
McKenna RC, Norman JB. Spatial modelling of industrial heat loads and recovery
potentials in the UK. Energy Policy 2010;38(10):5878-5891.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK). UK CHP Development Map.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK), 2012. Available from:
http://chp.decc.gov.uk/developmentmap/.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK). UK National Heat Map. Department
of
Energy
and
Climate
Change
(UK),
2012.
Available
from:
http://ceo.decc.gov.uk/nationalheatmap/.
Kjärstad J, Johnsson F. The European power plant infrastructure—Presentation of the
Chalmers energy infrastructure database with applications. Energy Policy
2007;35(7):3643-3664.
Werner S. ECOHEATCOOL: The European Heat Market. Euroheat & Power, 2006.
Available from: http://www.euroheat.org/ecoheatcool.
GISCO. GEOSTAT 2006 grid dataset. European Commission (Eurostat, Joint Research
Centre and DG Regional Policy - REGIO-GIS), 2012. Available from:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
European Environment Agency. Corine land cover 2000 (CLC2000) seamless vector
database.
European
Environment
Agency,
2012.
Available
from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/.
European Environment Agency. The GMES Urban Atlas. European Environment
Agency, 2012. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urbanatlas.
eurostat. Landfill still accounted for nearly 40% of municipal waste treated in the EU27
in 2010. eurostat, 2012. Available from: http://europa.eu/.
Persson U, Werner S. District heating in sequential energy supply. Applied Energy
2012;95(0):123-131.
Bentsen NS, Felby C. Biomass for energy in the European Union - a review of
bioenergy resource assessments. Biotechnology for Biofuels 2012;5(25).
Lund H, Mathiesen B, Christensen P, Schmidt J. Energy system analysis of marginal
electricity supply in consequential LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 2010;15(3):260-271.
European Geothermal Energy Council. Deep Geothermal Market Report. European
Geothermal Energy Council, 2011. Available from: http://egec.info/.
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
118
Trier D. Overview of existing and planned solar collector fields connected to district
heating
systems
in
Denmark.
PlanEnergi,
2013.
Available
from:
http://www.planenergi.dk/.
Östergaard JS, Ulbjerg F, Danish Technological Institute. Store solvarmeanlaeg med
höje daekningsgrader (Large solar heating systems with high degree of coverage).
Danish Technological Institute, 2005.
Sunstore 4. The existing and the new energy system in Marstal (The SUNSTORE 4
Concept). Sunstore 4, 2010. Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/.
European Environment Agency. The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
(E-PRTR).
European
Environment
Agency,
2012.
Available
from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/.
International Energy Agency. Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries. International
Energy Agency, 2010. Available from: http://www.iea.org/.
International Energy Agency. Energy Balances of OECD Countries. International
Energy Agency, 2010. Available from: http://www.iea.org/.
Persson U, Werner S. Heat distribution and the future competitiveness of district
heating. Applied Energy 2011;88(3):568-576.
Boermans T, Bettgenhäuser K, Offermann M, Schimschar S. Renovation Tracks for
Europe up to 2050: Building renovation in Europe - what are the choices? Ecofys, 2012.
Available from: http://www.eurima.org/.
Kragh J, Wittchen KB. Danske bygningers energibehov i 2050 (Danish Buildings
Energy Demand in 2050). Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut (Danish Building Research
Institute), Aalborg University, 2010. Available from: http://www.sbi.dk/.
Dalla Rosa A, Li H, Svendsen S. Method for optimal design of pipes for low-energy
district heating, with focus on heat losses. Energy 2011;36(5):2407-2418.
Danish Energy Agency and Energinet.dk. Technology Data for Energy Plants:
Individual Heating Plants and Technology Transport. Danish Energy Agency and
Energinet.dk, 2012. Available from: http://www.ens.dk/.
Tvärne A, Frohm H. Why Europe Needs to Consider District Cooling. Euroheat &
Power (Eng. ed) 2013;10:38-41.
Danish Energy Agency and Energinet.dk. Technology Data for Energy Plants:
Generation of Electricity and District Heating, Energy Storage and Energy Carrier
Generation and Conversion. Danish Energy Agency and Energinet.dk, 2012. Available
from: http://www.ens.dk/.
Riviere P. ENTR Lot 6 – Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems: Executive
Summary. MINES ParisTech, BRE, and VHK, 2012. Available from:
http://www.ecohvac.eu/.
Gadd H, Werner S. Daily Heat Load Variations in Swedish District Heating Systems. In
Review 2013.
Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D. Limiting biomass consumption for heating in
100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2012;48(1):160-168.
Blarke MB, Lund H. The effectiveness of storage and relocation options in renewable
energy systems. Renewable Energy 2008;33(7):1499-1507.
Blarke MB. Towards an intermittency-friendly energy system: Comparing electric
boilers and heat pumps in distributed cogeneration. Applied Energy 2012;91(1):349365.
E3MLab of the Institute of Communication and Computer Systems at the National
Technical University of Athens. PRIMES Model: Version used for the 2010 scenarios
for the European Commission including new sub-models. European Commission, 2011.
Available
from:
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
119
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1569_2_prime_model.p
df.
Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Applied
Energy 2010;87(4):1059-1082.
National Technical University of Athens. Energy - Economics - Environment Modelling
Laboratory Research and Policy Analysis. Available from: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/
[accessed 26th April 2009].
Capros P, Mantzos L, Papandreou V, Tasios N. Energy and Transport Outlook to 2030 Update
2007.
European
Communities,
2008.
Available
from:
http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/reports/energy_transport_trends_2030_update_2007_en.pdf.
Commission of European Communities. Impact Assessment: Package of
Implementation measures for the EU's objectives on climate change and renewable
energy for 2020. Commission of European Communities, 2008. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_ia_en.pdf.
Bulteel P, Belmans R, Dolben G, Garcia Madruga M, Kallstrand B, Lace I, Livrieri A,
Nahon C, Virkkala Nekhaev E, Papageorgi A, Saraiva F, Stridbaek U, Theis K, Van
Vliet E, Wunnerlich M. The Role of Electricity: A New Path to Secure, Competitive
Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World. eurelectric, 2007. Available from:
http://www2.eurelectric.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=730.
Capros P, Kouvaritakis N, Mantzos L. Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission
Reduction Objectives for Climate Change: Top-down Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Possibilities in the EU. National Technical University of Athens,
2001. Available from: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/reports/Topdown.pdf.
Connolly D, Mathiesen BV, Dubuisson X, Lund H, Ridjan I, Finn P, Hodgins J.
Limerick Clare Energy Plan: Climate Change Strategy. Aalborg University and
Limerick Clare Energy Agency, 2012. Available from: http://www.lcea.ie/.
Herold A. Comparison of CO2 emission factors for fuels used in Greenhouse Gas
Inventories and consequences for monitoring and reporting under the EC emissions
trading scheme. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change, 2003. Available
from: http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/.
Danish Energy Agency, Energinet.dk. Technology Data for Energy Plants. Danish
Energy Agency, Energinet.dk, 2010. Available from: http://ens.dk/daDK/Info/TalOgKort/Fremskrivninger/Fremskrivninger/Documents/Teknologikatalog%2
0Juni%202010.pdf.
Lund H, Möller B, Mathiesen BV, Dyrelund A. The role of district heating in future
renewable energy systems. Energy 2010;35(3):1381-1390.
Gonzalez A, Ó'Gallachóir B, McKeogh E, Lynch K. Study of Electricity Storage
Technologies and Their Potential to Address Wind Energy Intermittency in Ireland.
Sustainable
Energy
Authority
of
Ireland,
2004.
Available
from:
http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Renewable_Energy_RD_D/Projects_funded_to_date/Wind/St
udy_of_Elec_Storage_Technologies_their_Potential_to_Address_Wind_Energy_Interm
ittency_in_Irl.
Pöyry Energy Consulting. Low Carbon Generation Options for the All-Island Market.
EirGrid, 2010. Available from: http://www.eirgrid.com/.
International Energy Agency. ETSAP: Energy Technology Systems Analysis
Programme. Available from: http://www.etsap.org/index.asp [accessed 22nd February
2009].
COWI. Alternative drivmidler. Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Agency), 2012.
Available from: http://www.ens.dk/.
[68]
120
Danish Energy Agency. Forudsætninger for samfundsøkonomiske analyser på
energiområdet (Assumptions for socio-economic analysis on energy). Danish Energy
Agency, 2011. Available from: http://www.ens.dk.
9
ANNEX I: REVIEW OF EXISTING ENERGY STRATEGIES
In the following pages is seen a description of a selection of some of the most recent energy scenarios.
Title:
Energy Roadmap 2050
Year of publication:
Organization:
2011
European Commission
Outlook year:
COM (2011) 885
2050
Objective:
The scenarios in Energy Roadmap 2050 investigate the possibilities for moving towards “decarbonisation” of
the energy system. The Energy Roadmap 2050 does not replace national, regional and local improvements of
the energy supply, but seeks to develop a technology-neutral framework and argues that compared to parallel
national schemes, a European approach to the energy challenge will increase security and solidarity and lower
costs by providing a wider and flexible market for new products and services.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Short-term opportunity to reduce emissions is first and foremost through improvement of the energy
performance of buildings. The analysis shows that emissions in this area could be reduced by around 90% by
2050. New buildings built from 2021 onwards should be nearly zero-energy buildings.
Heat pumps and storage heaters based on electricity and renewable energy such as solar heating, biogas and
biomass also provided through district heating systems, should be used.
How district heating is mentioned:
Energy Roadmap 2050 describes seven scenarios. Two of them assuming current trends and fixed political,
economic, and technical limitations. These are called current trend scenarios. The other five are called
“decarbonisation scenarios” and use different measures to reduce the greenhouse emissions of Europe.
The report focuses on electricity to play a much greater role in all scenarios. However it states that future
modelling improvements could consider better representation of the impacts of climate change itself, as well
as energy storage and smart grid solutions for distributed generation. CHP and district heating are only
mentioned briefly.
In the “decarbonisation” scenarios there is seen a transition of the energy system from low capital costs and
high fuel and operational costs to high capital costs and low fuel costs. The increase of capital costs is due to
investments in power plants and grids, industrial energy equipment, smart meters, insulation material, more
efficient low carbon vehicles, RES equipment (such as solar collectors) etc.
Link to report:
121
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF
Title:
Impact assessment – accompanying document to Energy Roadmap 2050
Year of publication:
Organization:
2011
European Commission
Outlook year:
SEC(2011) 1565
2050
Objective:
(Energy Roadmap 2050)
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Coal and oil hold a share of around 25% of final energy used for heating and cooling of the built environment.
In the reference scenario this decreases to around 15% in 2050 and practically disappears in the
decarbonisation scenarios. Gas decreases from around 45% today to around 30% by 2050 in the
decarbonisation scenarios in the context of global climate action. The share of electricity increases from
currently less than 10% to more than 20% in the decarbonisation scenarios, and the share of biomass from
currently over 10% to over 25%. Due to the efficiency gains the increase of biomass corresponds more or less
to a stagnation of biomass used for space heating in absolute terms. Distributed heat maintains its current
share of less than 10% by 2050. 13
How district heating is mentioned:
District heating is not included in detail (e.g. described by fuel type) in the modelling. It is stated in the Impact
Assessment document accompanying the report A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy
in 2050 [51] that potential break-through technologies depending on unforeseeable structural change have not
been taken into account. A particular example is the limitations in terms of modelling energy storage and smart
grid solutions that would enable very wide scale deployment of distributed generation.
However district heating represents different actual quantities of energy depending on the scenario, but is in
general not considered playing a major role in the residential and service sector in the long run.
A table from the report shows that there is not that big a difference in the share of district heating for this
sector in the scenarios. However it is important to note that the energy consumption is not the same in the
different scenarios. The final energy demand is in the decarbonisation scenarios 8%-14% lower in 2030
compared to the reference and 34%-40% lower in 2050.
Share of distributed heat in total heating for residential and tertiary:
Year
2020 2030 2050
CPI
11.6% 12.0% 12.0%
Energy Efficiency
12.0% 12.8% 13.3%
Div. Supply Technology
11.6% 12.4% 13.4%
High RES
11.6% 11.4% 8.5%
Delayed CCS
11.6% 12.4% 12.4%
Low Nuclear
11.6% 12.5% 13.7%
Link to report:
13
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_1565_en.pdf
This is from the Impact Assessment document (report reference no. SEC(2011) 288) accompanying the report
A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050, but though they are separate documents,
they are referring to the same scenarios and are all published by the European Commission in 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0288_en.pdf.
122
Title:
Roadmap 2050 – A practical guide to prosperous low-carbon Europe – Technical analysis
Year of publication:
Organization:
2010
The European Climate Foundation (ECF),
McKinsey & Company,
KEMA,
The Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College London,
Oxford Economics
Outlook year:
2050
Objective:
The mission of the “Roadmap 2050” project is to provide a practical, independent and objective analysis of
pathways to achieve a low-carbon economy in Europe, in line with the energy security, environmental and
economic goals of the European Union. The focus is on the description of a plausible way to realize an economywide GHG reduction of 80%, and the development and assessment of pathways to decarbonize the power sector.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
The report mentions that an urgent implementation challenge is to make a large scale fuel shift possible. In terms
of the building sector it suggest more heat pumps both for individual and in district heating applications, and
district heating based on industry excess heat, biomass or alternatively geothermal heat.
How district heating is mentioned:
The report addresses the implications of electrification in buildings and transport on the final energy demand.
However it does not provide a detailed analysis on the issues. The report does mention district heating as part of
the system and discuss the entire emission scope in general, but focuses particularly at the power sector.
Out of scope is i.a. detailed trade-offs in the decarbonisation of building heat via electrification, biomass/biogas,
zero carbon district heating schemes or other options.
District heating with large scale heat pumps is assumed where building density is high. Alternatives are biomass
or biogas fired CHP or district heating plants, or biogas fired boilers in homes.
Link to report:
123
http://www.roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/Volume1_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Title:
Governing the transition to low-carbon futures:
A critical survey of energy scenarios for 2050
Year of publication:
Organization:
2011
Luleå University of Technology – Economics Unit
Outlook year:
Lund University – Dept. of Political Science and Environmental,
Energy System Studies and AgriFood Economics Center
2050
Objective:
The article addresses the role of energy future studies in providing insights on the societal transitions that are
implied by contemporary visions of low-carbon futures. The analysis is based on a critical review of 20 scenario
exercises of relevance for meeting long-term (i.e., 2050) climate policy objectives.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Not described.
How district heating is mentioned:
District heating, cogeneration and CHP are not mentioned directly.
Link to report:
Title:
-
Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power (part I and II)
Year of publication:
Organization:
2010
Stanford University – Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Outlook year:
University of California at Davis – Institute of Transportation
Studies
2050
Objective:
In the article the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation,
heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) is analyzed.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
The article proposes air- and ground-source heat-pump water and air heaters and electric resistance water and
air heaters. For high-temperature industrial processes, we propose that energy be obtained by combustion of
electrolytic hydrogen. It is assumed that 5% of fuel use for space heating and 20% of fuel use
for ‘‘appliances’’ (mainly cooking) are not electrified.
How district heating is mentioned:
The article focuses distinctly on electricity and does not cover district heating.
Link to report:
124
-
Title:
The energy report – 100% renewable energy by 2050
Year of publication:
Organization:
2011
WWF International
Outlook year:
ECOFYS
2050
OMA (Office for Metropolitan Architecture)
Objective:
WWF has a vision of a world powered by 100% of renewable energy sources by the middle of this century.
The Energy Scenario in the report includes an energy system (global) with 95% of renewable energy in 2050.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Existing buildings should be insulated and new buildings should be constructed to use as little energy as
possible. Heating needs can be reduced by 60% in all existing buildings by 2050 if 2-3% of the total floor area is
retrofitted with extra insulation each year. Solar and geothermal sources, as well as heat pumps should provide
a large share of heat for buildings and industry. Almost no energy will be needed for heat and cooling in all new
buildings by 2030.
How district heating is mentioned:
The report only mentions district heating briefly when referring to the potential of geothermal heating. In does
not mention large scale CHP and focuses mainly on electricity.
In the scenario geothermal and solar are mentioned in a general way without going into details if it implies
large or small scale units.
The report describes a scenario where the world as far as possible use electrical energy rather than solid and
liquid fuels. Wind, solar, biomass and hydropower are the main sources of electricity, with solar and
geothermal sources, as well as heat pumps providing a large share of heat for buildings and industry.
Link to report:
125
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/101223_energy_report_final_print_2.pdf
Title:
Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 – Scenario and strategies to 2050 (part 1 and 2)
Year of publication:
Organization:
2010
IEA (International Energy Agency)
Outlook year:
2050
Objective:
The goal of the book is to contribute to the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by acting as a reference point
for (among others) policy makers who need to be able to identify the role of new technologies, potential
technical and political barriers, and to provide the measures to overcome them.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
In the short run low-cost energy efficiency options will reduce carbon dioxide emissions caused by the building
sector. In the longer term highly efficient heat pumps for heating and cooling, solar thermal space and water
heating, and small scale CHP systems with hydrogen fuel cells are some of the main technologies to
decarbonise the energy consumption of buildings. The book states that CHP can be an attractive abatement
option in buildings, but that the use of it depends on the application and location.
How district heating is mentioned:
The book examines the fuels and technologies that are likely to be important in a) a “Baseline scenario” and b)
in a range of scenarios, in which global carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 50% from 2005 levels by 2050,
called “the BLUE Map scenario” and a series of variants of it.
However district heating is only occasionally mentioned and CHP/district heating is described as playing an
important, but small role.
The use of CHP approximately triples in the BLUE Map scenario in absolute terms between 2007 and 2050. The
share of CHP in power generation increases to 13% over this period, up from 10% in the Baseline scenario.
It is mentioned that Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands already have high share of CHP and that many
other countries have significant potential to expand their use of CHP, if they take steps to address barriers such
as unfavourable regulatory frameworks in the form of buy-back tariffs, exit fees, and backup fees, challenges in
locating suitable heat users, and the relative cost-ineffectiveness of CHP units of less than 1 MW capacity.
The book describes that thermal storage is likely to become increasingly important in the long term as thermal
loads begin increasingly to use electricity generated through heat pump technologies and as CHP plays a
stronger role. Besides this, it explains that for CHP plants the desired energy output can be difficult to control
since the ratio of electricity and heat most often is not perfectly matching the demand. However CHP units can
store excess heat energy for use at a later time in response to heat demand by responding to electricity system
signals.
Link to report:
126
http://www.iea.org/media/etp2010.pdf
Title:
World energy outlook – 2011
Year of publication:
Organization:
2011
IEA (International Energy Agency)
Outlook year:
2035
Objective:
The IEA World Energy Outlook scenarios are in general in accordance with the Energy Technology Perspectives
(ETP). However compared to ETP 2010, the scenarios in this version of the WEO are updated, i.a. to include the
most recent policies (and in one scenario to assume that announced political commitments will be enforced
though not finally decided yet). The most ambitious scenario is called the 450 Scenario, which sets out an
energy pathway consistent with the goal to limit the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to
450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent and the increase in global temperature to 2 °C.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Not described in detail.
How district heating is mentioned:
Not mentioned in detail.
Link to report:
-
Title:
Deciding the Future – Energy Policy Scenarios to 2050
Year of publication:
Organization:
2007
World Energy Council (WEC)
Outlook year:
2050
Objective:
The study seeks to
- better understand possible energy futures
- assess the challenges presented in these energy futures
- identify the role that policy may play to help or hinder the achievement of WEC’s Millennium Goals of
Accessibility, Availability, and Acceptability.
It is not a theoretical study, but a product of several workshops held to discuss energy policies for different
regions of the world.
How buildings are insulated/heated:
Advanced building technologies produce major energy savings and buildings might even become net energy
producers rather that consumers. However these technologies have not been implemented in old buildings and
in the developing world, either because the technology has not been made available or it is too expensive.
127
How district heating is mentioned:
District heating, cogeneration and CHP are not mentioned directly.
Link to report:
128
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/scenarios_study_online_1.pdf
10 ANNEX II: REVIEW OF FUTURE HEAT DEMANDS WITHIN VARIOUS ENERGY
STRATEGIES
10.1 ENERGY ROADMAP 2050 (EU COMMISSION)
Heat sector
in general
The main focus is on electrification, the use of heat pumps and extensive savings in the demand.
There will be a need for significant increase in capital costs for the energy system due to
investments in power plants and grids, in industrial energy equipment, heating and cooling
systems (including district heating and cooling), smart meters, insulation material, more efficient
and low carbon vehicles, devices for exploiting local renewable energy sources (solar heat and
photovoltaic), durable energy consuming goods etc.
In the table below is seen the development in heat demand for the residential and service sector
compared to 2015 for the different scenarios. It is seen that there is a decrease of 53-60% from
2015-2050 in “decarbonisation scenarios” (all but the reference and CPI scenario).
Heat savings
Heat demand development
2020
2030
2040
2050
Reference
-3%
-14%
-19%
-24%
CPI
-13%
-19%
-22%
-26%
Energy Efficiency
-17%
-31%
-45%
-60%
Diversified Supply Technology
-12%
-24%
-37%
-55%
High RES
-12%
-21%
-34%
-53%
Delayed CCS
-12%
-24%
-41%
-55%
Low Nuclear
-12%
-25%
-37%
-55%
The prime focus is on energy efficiency. Higher energy efficiency in new and existing buildings is
essential in the “decarbonisation” scenarios. Nearly zero energy buildings are assumed to
become the norm after 2020. Besides this, products and appliances will have to fulfil highest
energy efficiency standards (which reduces the total energy demand of the residential sector, but
does not decrease the need for heating).
The energy efficiency scenario includes more stringent minimum requirements for appliances and
new buildings, high renovation rates of existing buildings and establishment of energy savings
obligations on energy utilities. This is expected to lead to a decrease in energy demand of 41% by
2050 as compared to the peaks in 2005-2006.
Incentives to change behaviour (e.g. taxes, grants or on-site advice by experts) are required in
order to make households and companies invest in the energy system transformation. Greater
access to capital for consumers and innovative business models are needed. With “smart meters”
and “smart technologies” the energy consumption will be a continuously “hands-on-experience”
for the consumers.
Sufficient interconnection capacity and a smarter grid to manage the variations of wind and solar
power could diminish the need for storage, backup capacity and baseload supply.
129
How is the
heat
produced?
In all scenarios electricity plays a much greater role than now (almost doubling its share in final
energy demand to 36-39% in 2050) and contributes to the decarbonisation of transport and
heating/cooling.
Renewables is assumed to move from small-scale, subsidised technology developments to
competitive, large-scale mass production in the entire energy system. This requires changes in
policies parallel to their further development.
In terms of heating and cooling, a shift in energy consumption towards low carbon, locally
produced energy sources (incl. the use of heat pumps and storage heaters) and renewable energy
such as solar heating, geothermal, biogas and biomass are needed (i.a. included through district
heating systems).
In the short to medium term gas is assumed to help reduce emissions and the consumption stays
high in the power sector over longer period – until at least 2030-2035. Though the gas
consumption in the residential sector is believed to decrease in some member states, it is said to
have a possible growth potential in others due to the higher energy efficiency compared to
electric heating (based on fossil fuels) or other types of fossil fuel heating.
10.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ENERGY ROADMAP 2050
Heat sector
in general
As mentioned for the Energy Roadmap 2050, electricity becomes in general the most important
final energy source. The goal of decarbonisation in 2050 requires an almost carbon free electricity
sector in the EU, and around 60% CO2 reductions by 2030.
Heat savings
Since the space demand is assumed to increase (from 2.4 inhabitants per household in 2005 to
2.0 in 2050 and from 87 m2 per household to 113 m2 in the same period) the savings have to be
made through changes in a) the energy efficiency of the building itself (particularly in the thermal
insulation) and b) the efficiency and fuel mix of the heating and cooling equipment for buildings.
The Efficient Energy scenario is driven by a political commitment of very high primary energy
savings by 2050. It includes further and more stringent minimum requirements for
• appliances and new buildings (all new houses after 2020 comply with passive house
standards – around 20-50 kWh/m2 depending on the country).
• energy generation (e.g. obligation of utilities to achieve energy savings in their
customers' energy use – over 1.5% per year up to 2020).
• transmission and distribution (all scenarios will reflect significant development of
electrical storage and interconnections).
• high renovation rates for existing buildings (due to better/more financing tools and
planned obligations for public buildings).
• the establishment of energy savings obligations on energy utilities.
• the full roll-out of smart grids, smart metering and highly decentralised RES generation
to build on synergies with energy efficiency.
How is the
130
In the report’s own words the high renovation rates for existing buildings which in the Energy
Efficiency scenario is (more than 2% refurbishment per year) “pushes the limits of what the
chosen measures can achieve”. This indicates that this assumption is foreseen to be quite a
challenge to achieve.
In the reference and CPI scenarios there is seen an increase in demand for distributed heat based
heat
produced?
on biomass and gas based CHP between 2005 and 2020. In the longer run this development slows
down in the tertiary and residential sectors due to the trend towards electrification (i.e. the use
of heat pumps) and higher energy efficiency which limits the overall demand for heating. In the
industry sector the increase in demand for distributed steam is projected to continue in the
future especially for chemicals, food, tobacco, and engineering. However in the “decarbonisation
scenarios” the demand for distributed heat is lower due to the shift towards electricity use for
heating reducing especially district heating from fossil fuels. It is stated that though CHP leads to
emission reductions compared to conventional systems, it is only “decarbonized” when fired with
biomass which in the Primes model is used elsewhere in the energy system. In other words CHP
plants and district heating boilers is not allowed to use biomass in the model and district heating
is on this basis assumed to decrease throughout the projection period.
For the “decarbonisation scenarios”, locally produced heating from solar, geothermal, biogas and
biomass installations is needed in the short-to-medium term and in the long run especially heat
pumps for the low amount needed for the nearly zero-energy buildings are assumed.
In the table below is seen the share of renewables in the final heating and cooling demand. There
is not provided a breakdown into fuels of the demand.
131
Share of RES in gross final
consumption of heating and cooling
2020
2030
2050
CPI
20.9%
22.7%
23.8%
Energy Efficiency
21.0%
23.3%
44.9%
Diversified Supply Technology
20.9%
23.8%
44.0%
High RES
20.9%
26.8%
53.5%
Delayed CCS
20.9%
24.2%
44.9%
Low Nuclear
20.8%
24.3%
44.6%
10.3 ROADMAP 2050 (EUROPEAN CLIMATE FOUNDATION)
Heat sector
in general
It is stated that the report addresses the implications of electrification in buildings and transport
on final power demand, but it does not attempt to provide a detailed analysis of the
decarbonisation pathways for either sector.
An extensive expansion of the interregional transmission grid across Europe is assumed in order
to electrify most of the energy sector to reach 80% emission levels compared to 1990 by 2050.
This however means that there is a large amount of backup power needed and the assumed
investments in the grid has in other reviews been deemed suspiciously low to maintain an
acceptable security of supply. It is stated that a detailed assessment of distribution system
investments is outside the scope of the report and that grid investments required are around
10% of generation investments. Though this still is a substantial cost, it should be considered that
if the necessary grid investments are not made, the result can in practice be an increase in
backup and operational costs amounting to far more than the grid investments saved.
The electrification of buildings (vs. biogas heating or zero-carbon district heating) can be viewed
as a conservative case for the electricity demand. The report states that if other (non-electric)
decarbonisation solutions should emerge for some portion of either sector, these will only make
the power challenge more manageable. In other words the report focuses on electrifying the
energy sector and though some CHP/district heating is included, it does not seem to be aimed at
its maximum potential.
132
Heat savings
The scenario does not rely on technology breakthroughs, but improvements in existing
technologies. The savings are not described in detail separately, but it is deemed necessary to
take political action to include a complex mix of different incentives and top-down regulations.
Coordinating support for development and deployment of energy efficiency technologies, CCS
(also for gas), PV, offshore wind, biomass, electric vehicles, integrated heat pump and thermal
storage systems, smart grids that allow demand response, and networked HVDC technologies
(incl. using adoption of common standards) are requested.
How is the
heat
produced?
The target of 80% reduction in GHG emissions is shown to be reachable by different variations of
the use of RES, CCS (e.g. in combination with gas power plants) and nuclear. A fuel shift in the
building sector is required. In the short term a ramp-up in the application of heat pumps (both in
individual premises and in district heating applications), along with biomass district heating or
CHP from the industry is needed. In dense areas there are assumed to be district heating based
on large heat pumps and (to a small extent) biomass/biogas fired CHP/district heating plants or
biogas fired boilers in homes. In 2050 almost 90% of the heat demand in buildings is covered by
electricity.
10.4 THE ENERGY REPORT – 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2050 (WWF)
Heat sector
in general
Compared to today’s level the “heat demand” in the building sector decreases below 10% per
floor area and the floor area is assumed to increase around 70% compared to today. The
electricity consumption for heat pumps are however not included in this demand and since new
buildings are thought to be “all-electric” i.e. without any fuel consumption, the increase of
around 50% in residential electricity demand per unit floor area indicates that the actual
development in the heat demand depends on the assumed COP of the heat pumps.
Heat savings
The overall result of the “Energy Scenario” is that energy demand can be reduced over the next
four decades while providing more energy services to more people. This is primarily achieved
through the aggressive roll-out of the most efficient technologies.
It is assumed that all existing buildings will be retrofitted by 2050 to ambitious energy efficiency
standards based on retrofit rates of up to 2.5% of floor area per year, which is explained as “high
compared to current practice, yet feasible.” For a given retrofit, it is assumed that, on average,
60% of the heating needs could be abated. The buildings will have an energy use at levels
comparable to the passive house standard developed in Germany and this will apply to 100% of
new buildings by 2030.
How is the
heat
produced?
As far as possible, electricity is used. Wind solar biomass and hydro are the main producers of
electricity. Solar and geothermal sources as well as heat pumps provide a large share of heat for
buildings (and industry). Solar thermal is projected to have a potential share of around 10% of
current heat demand in buildings, i.e. a large share of the solar potential is to be covered by solar
electricity.
Energy efficiency is the key requisite to meeting our future energy needs from sustainable
sources.
A quarter of the remaining heating and hot water in existing buildings (after the retrofitting) need
would be met by local solar thermal systems, the rest by heat pumps.
For the (residual) heat demand of the “near zero energy use” buildings passive solar, internal
gains, solar thermal and/or heat pumps are used. No fuel supply of any kind, i.e. it is all-electric
buildings in terms of energy supply from outside the building itself.
Cooling is mentioned to be provided by local, renewable solutions where possible.
The current use of traditional biomass will be phased out and only a small share deemed
sustainable (up to 30% of the current amount) will be used in latter decades. In the last part of
the projection period towards 2050 this demand for biomass is phased out completely.
Concentrating solar heating (CSH) is included in very small scale as a conservative assumption
because the technology is said no to be on the market yet. It is stated that “further study on the
distribution of the industrial heat demand and the availability of nearby CSH sources is
recommended.”
133
10.5 RE-ENERGISING EUROPE – PUTTING THE EU ON TRACK FOR 100% RENEWABLE
ENERGY (WWF)
Heat sector
in general
The report follows up on “The Energy Report – 100% renewable energy by 2050” from 2011 (see
above). It is produced to describe what should be achieved in the EU by 2030 to secure a 100%
renewable European energy system by 2050, which in brief is stated to require the following:
• 38% primary energy savings (compared to a business as usual projection).
• 41% share of renewable energy in total consumption.
• 50% cut in energy-related GHG emissions (compared to 1990).
As seen in the table below indicating the development in the fuel and heat supply for buildings
(i.e. mainly space and water heating), the energy savings are dominating the path towards
reducing GHG emissions.
[EJ/a]
Building fuels and heat in total
Total renewable energy
Fossil fuels
Heat savings
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
12.2
1.7
10.5
13.6
1.5
12.0
13.1
2.3
10.8
12.7
1.8
10.8
11.1
2.1
9.0
9.4
2.4
6.9
7.7
2.9
4.8
The largest energy savings are seen in the building sector (26% from 2005-2030) and in industry
(31% from 2005-2030). In buildings the heat demand in 2030 is said to be 40% (commercial) to
50% (residential) of 2005 levels. Electricity is 90% (commercial) to 120% (residential) of 2005
levels. This is to be obtained by retrofitting the existing building stock (75% of European buildings
in 2030) at rates of up to 2.5% a year. By 2030 approximately 45% of the Europe’s existing
buildings are assumed to be retrofitted. The term “retrofitting” is defined as:
• 60% of heating needs abated by insulation and ventilation systems with heat recovery
mechanisms.
• 25% of remaining heating and hot water need met by local solar thermal systems, the
rest by heat pumps.
• Cooling provided by local, renewable solutions where possible.
• Electricity needs increase per floor area due to increased cooling demand.
(In line with “The Energy Report” from WWF.)
Besides this, new building stock (25% of European buildings in 2030) is assumed to be much more
energy efficient and are defined as follows:
• By 2030 all new buildings will use energy at levels comparable to the German passive
house standard and will be powered only by electricity.
• Residual heat demand will be met by passive solar, internal gains, solar thermal
installations and heat pumps.
• There will be some increase in electricity use in buildings because of greater use of
appliances and in order to power heat pumps. The increase is only partially offset by
more efficiency in these technologies.
How is the
heat
produced?
134
In 2030 35% of the final heat demand is met by means of renewables. For electricity the share is
65%. For the building sector the share of renewables increases from 19% in 2010, to 29% in 2020
and 49% in 2030.
Biomass is assumed to continue to be the main RES used in industry and buildings. For electricity
production, wind power (mainly onshore) takes over from hydro as the main RES by 2020.
10.6 ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES 2012 (IEA)
Heat sector
in general
It is stated that heating and cooling remain neglected areas of energy policy and technology, but
their decarbonisation is a fundamental element of a low-carbon economy.
In EU the energy consumption of buildings is assumed to be almost constant between 2015 and
2050. The decrease seen in the residential sector is approximately compensated by the increase
seen in the service sector. The heat demand in the industry sector decreases towards 2050.
Some of the main trends determining future demand for heating and cooling, and the
technologies
that can deliver these services are described to be:
• The future need for thermal comfort in residential and commercial buildings
Radiators do not need to use high grade energy and high temperatures when the same
comfort can be reached with lower temperatures. This statement underlines the need
for the development of low temperature district heating.
• Rate and pattern of urbanisation in emerging economies
Due to the projected urbanisation (globally 6.3 billion people living in cities in 2050 from
3.5 billion today) district heating becomes feasible because distribution networks are
shorter and heat-generating infrastructure is more compact. Compact urban
development can compromise the desired use of natural lighting, ventilation and
decentralised use of solar energy, and higher densities limit the potential of groundsource heat pumps (because there are limits to the rate at which heat can be extracted).
This statement underlines the need for district heating in order to decarbonise the
heating sector.
• Heat demand from industry
Due to a future decrease in construction activity plus further improvements in energy
efficiency, the scenarios project a decline in heat demand beyond 2020, particularly
from higher-temperature industries.
Heat savings
In the most ambitious scenario (2DS), investments in the buildings sector dominates in all
countries compared to the 6DS scenario (current trends), highlighting importance of energy
efficiency. Higher investments will be needed for more efficient HVAC systems and building shell
improvements.
It is stated that around 60% of today’s residential dwellings in the OECD will still be standing in
2050 and must be refurbished to low-energy standards (output energy needs of approximately 50
kWh/m2 per year for heating and cooling). In the short term the level of investment is higher in
OECD countries, because existing building stock requires significant retrofitting. In the residential
subsector of EU more than twice the additional investment needs of the commercial subsector is
required. The energy demand for space heating in these countries is expected to remain flat and
begin a declining trend in 2020, as a result of the new energy efficient buildings in combination
with an ambitious annual retrofit of 2.5% for existing buildings.
Barriers such as split incentives between tenants and landlords, lack of awareness of efficient
technologies and high initial investment costs is needed to be addressed by governments. At
national and sub-national level governments are urged to
• require all new buildings, as well as buildings undergoing renovation, to meet energy
codes and minimum energy performance standards.
135
•
•
•
•
How is the
heat
produced?
support and encourage construction of buildings with net-zero energy consumption.
implement policies to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings especially
during renovations.
develop building energy performance labels or certificates that provide information to
owners, buyers and renters.
establish policies to improve the energy efficiency performance of critical building
components in order to improve the overall energy performance of new and existing
buildings.
Heat pumps for space and water heating is assumed. In some places the space heating demand is
deemed to be fully met with solar photovoltaic (PV) and some form of storage, or with a lowcapacity heat pump.
However also industrial excess heat and heat from thermal power generation are included in
high-density areas where demands are concentrated and diverse. In the report it is recognised
that these networks offer larger potential for other, low-grade heat resources including
renewable heating and cooling technologies and large-scale heat pumps. Besides this a
widespread deployment of solar thermal systems is deemed needed to achieve the 2DS targets.
For the 2DS scenario the CO2 intensity of the district energy networks is reduced to one sixth of
today in 2050 by use of mainly biomass and excess heat (and due to improvements in the
efficiency of the building stock). Besides this gas represents around 30%. The share of district
energy networks in useful energy demand in buildings is doubled in the period from 2010 to
2050.
10.7 WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK, 2012 (IEA)
Heat sector
in general
As in most other reports, the energy consumption is defined for the sectors industry, transport
and buildings and the heat demand is not a specific focus area. Looking at the building sector, the
energy consumption covers energy for heating, cooling, lighting, refrigeration and for powering
electrical appliances. However the change in demand for space and water heating from 2010 to
2035 is provided separately for the residential sector and shows a reduction of more than 60%
for the most ambitious scenario (“Efficient World Scenario”). For the “New Policies Scenario”
which takes broad policy commitments and plans that have already been implemented as well as
those that only have been announced into account, the development in space and water heating
demand shows an increase close to 50%.
Looking at Europe separately, the space heating demand accounts for 43% of the savings in the
residential sector in 2020 in the “Efficient World Scenario” compared to the “New Policies
Scenario” (and 42% in 2035).
Heat savings
136
In the “New Policies Scenario” several political initiatives are assumed. For Europe some of these
are:
• The Energy Efficiency Directive.
• Building energy performance requirements for new buildings (zero-energy buildings by
2021) and for existing buildings when extensively renovated. (A 3% renovation rate of
central government buildings is assumed.)
• Mandatory energy labelling for sale or rental of all buildings and some appliances,
lighting and equipment.
In the “450 scenario”, which sets out an energy pathway that is consistent with a 50% chance of
meeting the goal of limiting the increase in average global temperature to 2 °C (compared with
pre-industrial levels), the zero-carbon footprint for all new buildings is assumed already from
2015.
Besides energy efficiency measures, an important way to achieve GHG emission reductions is by
introducing more renewables. However in 2020, almost three-quarters of the emissions saved
originate from energy efficiency, including electricity savings, end-use efficiency and power plant
efficiency. In other words, energy savings are seen as the main way to achieve the GHG
reductions.
How is the
heat
produced?
Since the report covers the entire world, there is a large variation on the way to supply the heat
demand. Electricity’s dominance of energy use in buildings grows, mainly at the expense of
traditional biomass, which becomes a less important energy source for households in developing
countries. The share of electricity in building energy use continues to grow strongly in both the
“New Policies Scenario” and the “Efficient World Scenario”. In the latter case it increases from
29% in 2010 to 36% in 2035.
The use of oil in buildings worldwide is expected to decline, due to the use of more efficient
appliances and increasing substitution with electricity and gas.
In the “New Policies Scenario”, worldwide use of gas for power (and delivered heat) increases by
half between 2010 and 2035 (an average rate of 1.6% per year). The gas consumption in buildings
for space and water heating grows at 1.3% per year on average over the projection period. The
building sector remains the largest end-use sector for gas (43% in 2035), even though, in many
OECD countries, most of the scope for switching from heating oil and other fuels to gas is said to
be exhausted.
The use of modern renewables to produce heat almost doubles, from 337 Mtoe (14.11 EJ) in
2010 to 604 Mtoe (25.29 EJ) in 2035. This heat is used mainly by industry (where biomass is used
to produce steam, in co-generation and in steel production) but also by households (where
biomass, solar and geothermal energy are used primarily for space and water heating).
It is stated that lack of data makes analysis of CHP on a global level difficult. In the IEA’s statistics,
the heat produced by CHP installations is measured only if the heat is sold by the producer to
another entity. Heat produced in an industrial CHP facility and used by the same firm is not
reported and only the corresponding fuel consumption is accounted for. This makes it difficult to
analyse the current extent of CHP use globally, and to model its future development.
137
10.8 DESERT POWER 2050: PERSPECTIVES ON A SUSTAINABLE POWER SYSTEM FOR
EUMENA (DII)
Heat sector
in general
The heating sector is not considered separately. The demand which the report addresses is the
electricity demand. In this, the electricity used for heating is included, but it does not explain to
what extent the heating and cooling demand is expected to be based on electricity. The report
refers to EU energy trends 2030 ‐ Update 2009 (renewable energy sources – electricity scenario)
regarding the electricity demand of EU27 (+2) assuming that the total electricity demand in the
year 2010 stagnates until 2050.
It is stated that “the idea that renewable electricity should be produced in areas with optimal
resources and exported to regions with high demand has become known as the Desertec vision.”
The primary purpose of the study is to analyse whether an EUMENA‐wide power system
integration is able to deliver advantages in terms of system cost and security of supply and it
concludes that a power system based on more than 90% renewable energy is technically possible
and economically viable.
138
Heat savings
In the “Low Demand Connected Scenario” it is assumed that there will be an implementation of
energy efficiency measures, energy‐efficient/generating buildings (especially with regard to the
electricity need for heating/air‐conditioning) and the expansion of distributed PV, possibly in
combination with decentralized storage. All of these enable consumers to consume their “own”
electricity and thus reduce demand for power from the transmission grid. This scenario does not
assume a given self‐supply rate.
How is the
heat
produced?
Disregarded.
10.9 POLICY REPORT – CONTRIBUTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO CLIMATE
PROTECTION WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION UNTIL 2050 (FRAUNHOFER)
And the Scientific Support in the Preparation of Proposals for an EU Energy Roadmap (March
2012) accompanying the report mentioned above
Heat sector
in general
The energy system is described in sectors, where the heat demand is not indicated separately.
In a comparison of different reports a conclusion underlines the need for further investigations:
“On the basis of this analysis of different energy scenarios, a strong need for a more in-depth
analysis of single energy efficiency technologies is identified. In order to exploit the energy saving
potential that is advocated as an important option in the whole set of all decarbonisation
scenarios, concrete technologies need to be evaluated regarding their potential and their costeffectiveness.”
Heat savings
In terms of the household sector demand, the baseline final energy demand is said to decline
after 2015 reaching today’s level by 2040 and that it is possible to reduce it by 71% by 2050
compared to the baseline. Half of the savings relate to the building shell refurbishment of existing
buildings and efficiency options such as refurbishment, replaced heating systems, implementing
highly efficient new buildings are said to be able to trigger 80% of the cumulative energy cost
reduction.
100% conversion efficiency is assumed for all renewable energy carriers (apart from biogenic
sources) and this way renewables have a significant impact not only on the reduction of primary
energy demand, but also on lowering GHG emissions. By 2050, 25% of the projected primary
energy demand is deemed possible to reduce via the shift towards a highly efficient power
sector, and an additional 42% from final energy related efficiency measures.
How is the
heat
produced?
139
Be electrifying the heating sector and including a lot more heat pumps, the GHG emission
reductions rely on the “decarbonisation” of the power generation sector.
10.10 RETHINKING 2050 – A 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY VISION FOR THE EU (EREC)
Heat sector
in general
The report states under the headline “Heating and Cooling – Measures to Awaken the Sleeping
Giant” that “Most people, including some decision makers, underestimate the share of energy
used for heating purposes.” Additional policy support for district heating infrastructure and CHP
systems based on renewable energy sources is deemed needed to unfold the full potential of the
heating and cooling sector. New policy initiatives in this field need to address the key barriers to
growth, including often high upfront investment costs particularly for households.
The aim is to reach 100% renewable energy in 2050 stating that the precise mix of renewable
energy technologies is not forecasted but rather seen as a prognosis, within which a wide range
of options exist. Hence, the aim of the report is not to discriminate between the various RES
technologies, but rather to keep a focus on remaining on the overall 100% RES pathway, showing
that both in technical and economic terms, it is feasible to get to a fully sustainable energy
system based on renewable energy in the EU by 2050.
As a sector, heating and cooling remains the largest contributor to final energy demand. The
heating and cooling demand accounts for 49% of the overall final energy demand in the EU and is
assumed most likely to remain a high share of the final energy demand in the future to come.
Heat savings
In the report net- or nearly-zero-energy buildings are mentioned as the norm from 2020. Besides
this, the
European Union is said to have to develop a strategy that ensures that all existing buildings after
2030 and all buildings (existing and new constructions) become net-zero/positive energy
buildings as of 2040.
How is the
heat
produced?
To meet the overall target of at least 20% by 2020, the share of renewable heating and cooling
could almost triple compared to the current share of about 10%. Most of the growth is suggested
to be based on biomass. In 2030, solar thermal comes second with a contribution of 48 Mtoe
(2.0 EJ) and geothermal third with 24 Mtoe (1.0 EJ). In the long run solar thermal will make up a
share of about 20% of total RES heat contribution, while geothermal will increase to about 10%.
By 2050, biomass is projected to contribute with 214.5 Mtoe (8.98 EJ), while geothermal could
account for 136.1 Mtoe (5.70 EJ) and solar thermal for 122 Mtoe (5.11 EJ) supplying about 26% of
the EU´s total heat consumption.
Between 2020 and 2050, RES-heating and cooling will see an increase of about 30% amounting to
around 470 Mtoe (19.68 EJ) in 2050. It will reach a share of almost 30% of total heat consumption
by 2020 and cover more than half of the EU´s heat demand by 2030. By 2050 renewable heating
and cooling will provide 100% of the consumption assumed in the “2050 scenario”.
Thermally-driven cooling technologies are assumed to play a major role in the future, thereby
helping to reduce electricity peaks in summer.
140
10.11 EU ENERGY POLICY TO 2050 – ACHIEVING 80-95% EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (EWEA)
Heat sector
in general
The study focuses on the policies which in EWEA’s opinion are to be promoted/implemented in
order to achieve emission reductions of 80-95% – with main focus on the electricity grid. The
heating sector is not dealt with separately.
Heat savings
Not described.
How is the
heat
produced?
Not described
10.12 RENOVATION TRACKS FOR EUROPE UP TO 2050 (EURIMA/ECOFYS)
Heat sector
in general
The aim of the study is to evaluate different building renovation strategies at the EU level with
respect to the speed of renovation and the future ambition level. Besides this it relates the
results to existing and newly discussed targets with a view to create and support a common
understanding of the mechanisms and implications (achieving or missing long-term targets and
their financial consequences).
Heat savings
Heat savings are included by renovating building stock with retrofit rates of 2.3-3.0% per year.
How is the
heat
produced?
Since the target of the report is the renovation possibilities and not the energy sector (outside
the buildings) the focus is not on the produced heat. For the shallow renovation the future
heating systems for retrofits are based on
• 75% Gas condensing boiler
• 15% Oil condensing boiler
• 3% Air-water heat pump
• 3% Ground-water heat pump
• 4% Biomass boilers
(And no solar thermal systems for domestic hot water.)
For the scenario Shallow renovation + REN the future heating systems for retrofits is based on:
• 40% Air-water heat pump
• 40% Ground-water heat pump
• 15% Biomass boilers
• 5% District heat (with growing share of renewable energy)
80% of all retrofits have solar thermal systems for domestic hot water with maximum domestic
hot water coverage of 60%.
For the deep renovation scenario the future heating systems for retrofits is based on
• 35% Air-water heat pump
• 35% Ground-water heat pump
• 15% Biomass boilers
• 15% District heat (with growing share of renewable energy)
80% of all retrofits have solar thermal systems for domestic hot water with maximum domestic
hot water coverage of 60%.
141
10.13 EUROPE’S BUILDINGS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE – A COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY REVIEW
OF THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS (BPIE)
Heat sector
in general
The report only focuses on buildings. A renovation model has been specifically developed to
illustrate the impact on energy use and CO2 emissions at different rates (percentage of buildings
renovated each year) and depths of renovation (extent of measures applied and size of resulting
energy and emissions reduction) from now up to 2050.
Two decarbonisation pathways are considered: A slow pathway based on what has been
witnessed since 1990 and a fast pathway based on what is needed to achieve the levels of carbon
reduction assumed in the EU 2050 Roadmap. All but one scenario assume that a building will be
renovated once between 2010 and 2050. The so-called two-stage scenario even allows for a
second renovation during the 2010-2050 period. Individual scenarios combine different speeds
and depths, and are compared to a business-as-usual scenario, which assesses what would
happen if there were no changes from the approach taken today.
Heat savings
A key driver for implementing energy efficiency measures are the building energy codes, through
which energy-related requirements are incorporated during the design or retrofit phase of a
building. However the current EU legislation is said only to partially cover the field of buildings
renovation. The EPBD stipulates the implementation of energy saving measures only in case of
deep renovation of the building without specifying the depth of renovation measures. More
targeted measures are deemed required for fostering the deep renovation of the existing building
stock. However the recast EPBD which should also gradually converge to nearly zero energy
standards is predicted to implement major changes through the application of a cost-optimality
concept in energy performance requirements for new buildings from 2020 onwards.
The ambition is to see all EU buildings renovated between now and 2050. It can be seen that, in
order to achieve 100% renovation within 40 years, an average renovation rate of 2.5% p.a. needs
to be attained. However, with current rates as low as 1%, levels of activity need to more than
double to achieve the required annual rate.
In the deep and two-stage scenarios there is a 71-73% CO2 emission reduction even under the
slow decarbonisation assumption, a figure which is close to the CO2 emission reduction for the
slow and shallow scenario under the fast decarbonisation assumption. This highlights the role of
renovation measures in the decarbonisation strategy.
How is the
heat
produced?
142
Not described. Referring to Eurostat and Primes forecasts and targets of “A Roadmap for moving
to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050”.
10.14 POWER CHOICES – PATHWAYS TO CARBON-NEUTRAL ELECTRICITY IN EUROPE BY
2050 (EURELECTRIC)
143
Heat sector
in general
The heating sector is not a focus area. The main focus is on electrifying the final energy usage
(and then use either heat pumps or direct electricity for heating).
Heat savings
Heat savings are not mentioned in detail besides the fact that it will require improved building
insulation.
A major reason for the decrease in primary energy consumption is the considerably lower
demand in the residential sector due to substitution of (inefficient) oil and gas to electricity and
improvement in building insulation. Besides this, more efficient electric appliances are mentioned
as a contributor to the decrease in demand for the residential sector. However a point not
mentioned in the report is that this will in fact not help to decrease the heat demand, but just the
opposite.
How is the
heat
produced?
The heating is supplied mainly by means of heat pumps or direct electric heating and to some
extent direct use of solar thermal and biomass.
Some DH/CHP is assumed – co-generation is assumed to double from 2010 to 2020 and represent
almost 20% of power generation by 2030 (both for industrial and district heating uses, mainly
through gas and biomass plants). However the development slows down thereafter because CHP
is said not to be unable to deliver a fully decarbonised output. This indicates implicitly that the
report deem it undesirable (or at least unfeasible) to combine CHP with CCS.
Due to already made decisions on investments in gas power plants and carbon prices, the use of
gas is assumed to increase in the short-term future, but after CCS is believed to be commercial in
2020, gas plants with CCS is said to be less competitive than coal fired power plants with CCS.
Since around 60% of the power generation is assumed to come from gas, nuclear, solids and oil in
2050 the report strongly depends on the predicted competitiveness of CCS (by 2020-2025).
11 ANNEX III: PROFILING BOILERS IN THE EU27 AND EVALUATING THE FUTURE HEAT
DEMANDS
Report by Ecofys
By:
Jan Grözinger
Thomas Boermans
Michelle Bosquet
(Ecofys Germany GmbH)
David Connolly
(Aalborg University)
Date: 28 February 2013
Project number: BUIDE13319
© Ecofys 2013 by order of: Aalborg University
144
Table of Contents
11.1
Overview of investment costs ............................................................................................................ 146
11.1.1
11.1.2
11.1.3
11.1.4
11.1.5
11.2
Overview of investment costs per heating system ........................................................................ 146
Impact of reduced heat load .......................................................................................................... 153
Building stock floor area in 2012 and 2050 .................................................................................. 154
Number of boilers in 2012 and 2050 ............................................................................................ 155
Recommended boiler efficiencies ................................................................................................. 156
WP 3b: Evaluation of the used scenarios ........................................................................................... 157
11.2.1 Energy roadmap 2050 – the high efficient scenario [European Commission, 2011a; European
Commission, 2011b] .................................................................................................................................. 157
11.2.2 Renovation tracks for Europe, up to 2050. Building renovation in Europe – what are the choices?
[EURIMA, 2012] ....................................................................................................................................... 163
11.2.3 Recommendations for possible adaptations of the energy efficiency scenario ............................. 168
11.3
145
References .......................................................................................................................................... 174
11.1 OVERVIEW OF INVESTMENT COSTS
11.1.1 Overview of investment costs per heating system
11.1.1.1 Data assessment
Information on investment costs for replacement of heating systems in buildings are mainly based on
the BMVBS-online publication Nr. 07/2012. The project was executed by the Institute of Wohnen und
Umwelt (IWU) [BMVBS (Hrsg.), 2012]. The study investigated the investment costs of building and
equipment components. Additional cost data was gathered from producers such as Windhager,
Viessmann, Brötje, Weishaupt, Buderus.
It is important that costs for boilers in case of small boilers (up to 40 kW) are not significantly
dependent from the system size. The IWU in its study calculates cost curves that are floor area
dependent. The reason is that in case of small systems, the share of installation costs in the total costs
is relatively high.
In large buildings with boilers larger than 40kW, the dependency on floor area is not so strong
anymore; the costs are more dependent on system size. The costs from IWU have been adapted to
consider this phenomenon, taking into account costs from the producers for different size of boilers.
The developed investment costs per system represent the purchase price for consumers (excluding
taxes) and comprise the costs of the system (including fuel and thermal storage), the installation and
other costs (average costs of necessary grid connections, storage, chimneys and disposal costs). The
costs do not include maintenance and operation costs.
Based on country factors [Baukosteninformationszentrum Deutscher Architektenkammern (BKI), 2011]
the cost data for Germany were extrapolated to the other Member States.
146
11.1.1.2 Costs for replacement of heating systems in all EU27 countries
Table 26: Costs (in Euro) for replacement of gas heating systems in EU27, by ranges
147
8 - 20 kW
20 - 40 kW
120 - 170 kW
250 - 350 kW
AUSTRIA
6,025
8,996
17,310
21,554
BELGIUM
4,903
7,322
14,088
17,542
BULGARIA
2,243
3,349
6,444
8,024
CYPRUS
3,698
5,523
10,626
13,231
CZECH REPUBLIC
3,269
4,881
9,392
11,695
DENMARK
7,373
11,009
21,184
26,377
ESTONIA
3,531
5,273
10,146
12,634
FINLAND
5,405
8,070
15,528
19,335
FRANCE
5,906
8,818
16,967
21,127
GERMANY
5,965
8,907
17,139
21,341
GREECE
3,603
5,380
10,352
12,890
HUNGARY
3,072
4,587
8,827
10,990
IRELAND
5,100
7,616
14,654
18,246
ITALY
3,925
5,861
11,277
14,042
LATVIA
4,122
6,155
11,843
14,746
LITHUANIA
3,669
5,478
10,540
13,124
LUXEMBOURG
5,082
7,589
14,602
18,182
MALTA
3,197
4,774
9,186
11,439
NETHERLANDS
6,389
9,540
18,356
22,856
POLAND
3,537
5,282
10,163
12,655
PORTUGAL
2,941
4,391
8,449
10,521
ROMANIA
2,273
3,394
6,530
8,131
SLOVAKIA
3,454
5,157
9,923
12,356
SLOVENIA
3,770
5,629
10,832
13,487
SPAIN
4,068
6,075
11,689
14,554
SWEDEN
7,188
10,733
20,652
25,715
UNITED KINGDOM
5,774
8,622
16,590
20,658
Table 27: Costs (in Euro) for replacement of oil heating systems in EU27, by ranges
148
8 - 20 kW
20 - 40 kW
120 - 170 kW
250 - 350 kW
AUSTRIA
7,112
10,739
21,575
25,819
BELGIUM
5,788
8,740
17,559
21,013
BULGARIA
2,648
3,998
8,032
9,612
CYPRUS
4,366
6,592
13,244
15,849
CZECH REPUBLIC
3,859
5,827
11,706
14,009
DENMARK
8,704
13,142
26,403
31,596
ESTONIA
4,169
6,294
12,646
15,133
FINLAND
6,380
9,633
19,354
23,160
FRANCE
6,971
10,526
21,148
25,308
GERMANY
7,042
10,632
21,361
25,563
GREECE
4,253
6,422
12,902
15,440
HUNGARY
3,626
5,476
11,001
13,165
IRELAND
6,021
9,091
18,264
21,857
ITALY
4,633
6,996
14,056
16,821
LATVIA
4,866
7,347
14,761
17,664
LITHUANIA
4,331
6,539
13,137
15,721
LUXEMBOURG
6,000
9,059
18,200
21,780
MALTA
3,774
5,699
11,450
13,702
NETHERLANDS
7,542
11,387
22,878
27,378
POLAND
4,176
6,305
12,667
15,159
PORTUGAL
3,472
5,242
10,531
12,603
ROMANIA
2,683
4,051
8,139
9,740
SLOVAKIA
4,077
6,156
12,368
14,801
SLOVENIA
4,450
6,720
13,500
16,156
SPAIN
4,802
7,251
14,569
17,434
SWEDEN
8,485
12,812
25,741
30,804
UNITED KINGDOM
6,816
10,292
20,678
24,745
Table 28: Costs (in Euro) for replacement of pellet heating systems in EU27, by ranges
149
8 - 20 kW
20 - 40 kW
120 - 170 kW
250 - 350 kW
AUSTRIA
15,160
20,939
30,451
47,425
BELGIUM
12,338
17,041
24,783
38,598
BULGARIA
5,644
7,795
11,336
17,655
CYPRUS
9,306
12,854
18,692
29,113
CZECH REPUBLIC
8,225
11,361
16,522
25,732
DENMARK
18,552
25,624
37,264
58,038
ESTONIA
8,886
12,273
17,848
27,798
FINLAND
13,599
18,783
27,315
42,542
FRANCE
14,860
20,524
29,848
46,486
GERMANY
15,010
20,732
30,149
46,956
GREECE
9,066
12,522
18,210
28,361
HUNGARY
7,730
10,677
15,527
24,182
IRELAND
12,833
17,725
25,778
40,147
ITALY
9,876
13,641
19,838
30,897
LATVIA
10,372
14,326
20,833
32,447
LITHUANIA
9,231
12,750
18,542
28,878
LUXEMBOURG
12,788
17,663
25,687
40,006
MALTA
8,045
11,112
16,160
25,168
NETHERLANDS
16,075
22,204
32,290
50,290
POLAND
8,901
12,294
17,878
27,845
PORTUGAL
7,400
10,221
14,864
23,149
ROMANIA
5,719
7,899
11,487
17,890
SLOVAKIA
8,691
12,004
17,456
27,187
SLOVENIA
9,486
13,102
19,054
29,676
SPAIN
10,237
14,139
20,562
32,024
SWEDEN
18,087
24,982
36,330
56,582
UNITED KINGDOM
14,529
20,068
29,184
45,453
Table 29: Costs (in Euro) for replacement of air heat pumps in EU27, by ranges
150
8 kW
15 kW
20 kW
30 kW
150 kW
300 kW
AUSTRIA
14,456
18,193
20,862
26,201
90,263
170,342
BELGIUM
11,765
14,806
16,979
21,324
73,462
138,635
BULGARIA
5,382
6,773
7,766
9,754
33,603
63,414
CYPRUS
8,874
11,168
12,806
16,084
55,409
104,566
CZECH REPUBLIC
7,843
9,871
11,319
14,216
48,975
92,423
DENMARK
17,690
22,264
25,530
32,063
110,461
208,458
ESTONIA
8,473
10,663
12,228
15,357
52,907
99,844
FINLAND
12,967
16,319
18,714
23,503
80,969
152,802
FRANCE
14,169
17,832
20,449
25,682
88,476
166,969
GERMANY
14,313
18,013
20,655
25,941
89,370
168,655
GREECE
8,645
10,880
12,476
15,668
53,979
101,868
HUNGARY
7,371
9,276
10,638
13,360
46,025
86,858
IRELAND
12,237
15,401
17,660
22,180
76,411
144,200
ITALY
9,418
11,852
13,591
17,069
58,805
110,975
LATVIA
9,890
12,447
14,273
17,925
61,754
116,541
LITHUANIA
8,802
11,078
12,703
15,954
54,962
103,723
LUXEMBOURG
12,194
15,347
17,598
22,102
76,143
143,694
MALTA
7,672
9,655
11,071
13,904
47,902
90,399
NETHERLANDS
15,329
19,292
22,122
27,783
95,715
180,630
POLAND
8,487
10,681
12,249
15,383
52,996
100,013
PORTUGAL
7,056
8,880
10,183
12,789
44,059
83,147
ROMANIA
5,453
6,863
7,870
9,884
34,050
64,258
SLOVAKIA
8,287
10,429
11,960
15,020
51,745
97,652
SLOVENIA
9,046
11,384
13,054
16,395
56,482
106,590
SPAIN
9,761
12,285
14,087
17,692
60,950
115,023
SWEDEN
17,247
21,705
24,890
31,259
107,691
203,230
UNITED KINGDOM
13,855
17,436
19,994
25,111
86,510
163,258
Table 30: Costs (in Euro) for replacement of brine heat pump systems in EU27, by ranges
151
8 kW
15 kW
20 kW
30 kW
150 kW
300 kW
AUSTRIA
23,108
31,467
37,438
49,380
192,681
371,807
BELGIUM
18,807
25,610
30,469
40,188
156,815
302,600
BULGARIA
8,603
11,714
13,937
18,383
71,731
138,415
CYPRUS
14,185
19,316
22,982
30,312
118,279
228,238
CZECH REPUBLIC
12,538
17,073
20,313
26,792
104,544
201,733
DENMARK
28,278
38,508
45,815
60,429
235,796
455,004
ESTONIA
13,544
18,444
21,944
28,943
112,938
217,931
FINLAND
20,728
28,227
33,583
44,295
172,840
333,522
FRANCE
22,650
30,844
36,697
48,402
188,865
364,445
GERMANY
22,879
31,155
37,067
48,891
190,773
368,126
GREECE
13,819
18,818
22,389
29,530
115,227
222,348
HUNGARY
11,783
16,045
19,090
25,179
98,248
189,585
IRELAND
19,562
26,638
31,692
41,802
163,111
314,748
ITALY
15,054
20,500
24,390
32,170
125,529
242,227
LATVIA
15,809
21,528
25,613
33,784
131,824
254,375
LITHUANIA
14,071
19,161
22,796
30,068
117,325
226,398
LUXEMBOURG
19,493
26,544
31,581
41,655
162,539
313,643
MALTA
12,263
16,699
19,868
26,205
102,254
197,316
NETHERLANDS
24,503
33,368
39,699
52,362
204,318
394,263
POLAND
13,567
18,475
21,981
28,992
113,128
218,299
PORTUGAL
11,279
15,360
18,274
24,103
94,051
181,486
ROMANIA
8,717
11,870
14,123
18,627
72,685
140,256
SLOVAKIA
13,247
18,039
21,462
28,308
110,458
213,145
SLOVENIA
14,460
19,690
23,426
30,899
120,569
232,656
SPAIN
15,603
21,248
25,280
33,343
130,107
251,062
SWEDEN
27,569
37,542
44,666
58,913
229,882
443,592
UNITED KINGDOM
22,147
30,158
35,881
47,326
184,668
356,346
11.1.1.3 Investments in heating system replacements in Europe in 2012 and 2050
Merging the assessed costs data with information on replacement activities (replacement rates and
technology mix based on information from the Ecofys BEAM² model), the average investments in
heating system replacements in Europe per year were calculated, see Table 31 and Table 32.
Table 31: Investment costs (in Mio Euro) per heating system in EU27 in 2012
Gas
Oil
Pellet
Air heat
pump
Brine heat
pump
others
Total
Residential
19,990
7,333
6,689
4,091
7,689
473
46,265
Nonresidential
4,251
1,497
1,103
1,576
3,714
30
12,169
Total
24,241
8,830
7,792
5,667
11,402
503
58,434
Table 32: Investment costs (in Mio Euro) per heating system in EU27 in 2050
152
Gas
Oil
Pellet
Air heat
pump
Brine heat
pump
others
Total
Residential
2,835
392
5,300
5,603
15,971
259
30,359
Nonresidential
7,686
1,064
9,034
16,543
64,932
237
99,496
Total
10,521
1,455
14,334
22,146
80,903
495
129,855
11.1.2 Impact of reduced heat load
In case of renovation, heat load is reduced. This might result in different impacts on costs for heating
systems different, depending on system size and system:
- in case of heat pumps the costs are directly dependent on system size, e.g. in case of the brine
heat pump every additional kW needed results in higher costs (additional drilling, additional
tube).
- in case of boilers, the impact depends on the size of the system:
o if the system is up to 20 kW (normally installed in single family houses), the costs are
the same (e.g. for a 8 kW or for a 15 kW boiler)
o if the system size ranges from 20-40 kW, the costs of boiler are the same as for the
boilers of up to 20 kW. However; the study from IWU found out that boilers in the
range 20-40 kW (that are normally installed in small multifamily houses) the
companies charge higher installation costs, which increases the total costs
o if the size is larger than 40 kW, the costs for boilers increase with increasing power
(kW), the share of the installation costs becomes marginal.
Table 33 examples for the impact of reduced heat demand on the heating systems costs in Germany
for a gas heating system and an air heat pump for a single family, a small multifamily and a large
multifamily building:
Table 33: Example of effect of reduced heat demand on costs of heating systems in Germany (Euro)
Partly renovated
Capacity in
kW
Costs of gas
heating
system
Costs of air
heat pump
153
Not renovated
Single family
building
Small
multifamily
building
Large
multifamily
building
Single family
building
Small
multifamily
building
Large
multifamily
building
<10
20
150
<20
30
300
5,965
8,907
17,139
5,965
8,907
21,341
14,313
(8 kW)
20,655
89,370
18,013
(15 kW)
25,941
168,655
11.1.3 Building stock floor area in 2012 and 2050
The following figure illustrates the development of the heated floor areas in the EU27 countries. As for
most statistics 1979 is a crucial date (i.e. introduction of the Thermal Insulation Ordinance in Germany)
and from then on mandatory requirements for the building shell have been introduced, we distinguish
buildings before and after 1979. In the deep renovation scenario, the stock is completely renovated by
2045, with a very small share of buildings assumed to have not been renovated. About one quarter of
the building stock in 2050 will be new buildings.
Figure 67: Heated floor area EU27 – track “Target Scenario, Deep Renovation” [billion m²]
154
11.1.4 Number of boilers in 2012 and 2050
The number of boilers is based on the number of buildings. To calculate the number of buildings we
made assumptions 14 on reference buildings and on the share of central and decentred heating
systems. In 2050 the boiler stock grows by about 46%.
Table 34: Number of boilers in the EU in 2012 and in 2050 in Mio units
2012
2050
Gas
Oil
Pellet
Heat pump
el-direct and
coal*
Total
Residential
73.2
21.3
10.6
11.2
7.1
123
Nonresidential
5.3
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
9
Total
79
24
11
12
7
132
Residential
52.3
6.0
39.9
63.2
18.6
180
Nonresidential
3.8
0.4
2.9
4.6
1.3
13
Total
56
6
43
68
20
193
* it was assumed that in 2050 the number of coal heating system will be insignificant
14
We made assumptions regarding the share of central and decentred boilers and on geometries of the
reference residential and non-residential buildings. For single family buildings that is safer than for nonresidential buildings. In comparison, the uncertainty for non-residential buildings grows.
155
11.1.5 Recommended boiler efficiencies
Illustrated the recommends boiler efficiencies for EnergyPLAN in Energy Efficiency Scenario.
Table 35: Recommended boiler Efficiencies for EnergyPLAN in Energy Efficiency Scenario
156
2010
2030
2050
Solids
70%
70%
70%
Oil cond.
95%
95%
95%
Oil non-cond.
80%
80%
80%
Gas cond.
98%
98%
98%
Gas non-cond.
80%
80%
80%
Biomass
75%
75%
75%
Solar
100%
100%
100%
Electricity
100%
100%
100%
Geothermal
100%
100%
100%
Heat Pumps ground water
300%
300%
300%
Heat Pumps air
250%
250%
250%
11.2 WP 3B: EVALUATION OF THE USED SCENARIOS
The scenarios from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report have been used during the first pre-study to
describe the demand side of the EUs building sector. However; uncertainties remain about the
suitability of the scenarios (are they ambitious enough/overambitious?) and related estimated
investment costs. This chapter first summarizes the basic assumptions of the high energy efficient
scenario of the Energy Roadmap 2050 and then looks into previous work by Ecofys with the BEAM²
model for a study for Eurima: “Renovation tracks for Europe, up to 2050” [EURIMA, 2012]. The
scenarios will be compared with focus on underlying assumptions and on the calculated outcome
(heating demand) in order to afterwards evaluate the suitability of the high energy efficiency scenario
(scenario 2). On that basis, recommendations on possible adaptations of the scenarios for the second
pre-study will be made.
11.2.1 Energy roadmap 2050 – the high efficient scenario [European Commission, 2011a;
European Commission, 2011b]
11.2.1.1 Assumptions
The objective of the study is to shape a vision and strategy of how the EU energy system can be
decarbonised by 2050 while taking into account the security of supply and competitiveness objectives
[European Commission, 2011a].
The study modelled different scenarios:
- Business as usual (BAU, Reference scenario)
- Current Policy Initiatives – CPI scenario (updated Reference scenario)
- Decarbonisation Scenarios
- High Energy Efficiency
- Diversified supply technologies
- High RES
- Delayed CCS
- Low nuclear
The BAU and CPI scenarios are built on a modelling framework including PRIMES, PROMETHEUS,
GAINS, and GEM-E3 models (see [European Commission, 2011a] for more information).
Since the objective of this task is the evaluation of the energy efficient scenario, the focus is on this
scenario. Main assumptions of the reference and the high efficient scenario are summarized in Table
36.
157
Table 36: Short description of the business as usual and the high energy efficiency scenario
This scenario is based on the scenarios up to 2030 published in the report Energy Trends to 2030:
update 2009, but extends the projection period to 2050
Business as
usual
(Reference
scenario)
The Reference scenario includes current trends and long-term projections on economic development
(GDP growth 1.7% pa). It takes into account rising fossil fuel prices and includes policies implemented
by March 2010. The 2020 targets for GHG reductions and RES shares will be achieved but no further
policies and targets after 2020 (besides the ETS directive) are modelled.
Sensitivities for higher/ lower GDP growth rates and energy import prices are modelled.
The scenario focuses on direct impacts on final energy demand.
High Energy
Efficiency
(Scenario 2)
This scenario is driven by a political commitment of very high primary energy savings by 2050 and
includes a very stringent implementation of the Energy Efficiency plan. It includes further and more
stringent minimum requirements for appliances and new buildings; energy generation, transmission
and distribution; high renovation rates for existing buildings (more than 2% refurbishment rate); the
establishment of energy savings obligations on energy utilities; the full roll-out of smart grids, smart
metering and significant and highly decentralised RES generation to build on synergies with energy
efficiency and passive house standards after 2020 (all new buildings comply with the passive house
standard – 20-50 kWh/m² (depending on the country).
The EU-EE scenario includes the following energy efficiency measures, with some of them occurring in
other sectors than buildings, such as electricity and transport.
Details of macroeconomic and demographic assumptions, assumptions on energy import prices, policy
assumptions, assumptions on energy infrastructure development, technology assumptions and any
other assumptions are found in [European Commission, 2011a; European Commission, 2011b].
11.2.1.2 Heat demands
The assumptions relating to the future heat demand in the EU27 are of critical importance when
analysing the future role of district heating. In Heat Roadmap Europe 1, the results indicated that
under existing policies (i.e. the CPI scenario), the heat demand will be sufficient for district heating to
be implemented at a cheaper cost than a business-as-usual scenario. Hence, a key motivation for
choosing the Energy Efficiency (EE) scenario in this study was to investigate the feasibility of district
heating if the heat demands are reduced significantly compared to the business-as-usual scenario. To
begin, the first step is to analyse the scale of energy efficiency measures being implemented in the EUEE scenario.
As outlined in Figure 68, the total heat demand in the EU-EE scenario is expected to drop by
approximately 60% between 2015 and 2050. This is a much larger reduction than in the CPI scenario:
by 2050, the total heat demand in the EU-EE scenario is approximately 50% of the heat demand in the
CPI scenario.
158
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands in the
Energy Efficiency Scenario (TWh)
CPI Scenario
Energy Efficiency Scenario
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 68: Total heat demand in the EU-CPI and EU-EE scenarios for 2015-2050.
This total heat demand can be broken down into a number of key sectors: firstly the heat demand
provides two distinct services, hot water and space heating. Figure 69 outlines how the total heat
demand in the EU-EE scenario is divided between these two services, which indicates that the space
heating demand is expected to drop by approximately 60% and the hot water demand by 55%
between 2015 and 2050.
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands in the
Energy Efficiency Scenario (TWh)
Space Heating
Hot Water
Total
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 69: Space heating and hot water demand in the Energy Efficiency scenario between 2015 and 2050.
159
Secondly, the heat demand can be divided in terms of two distinct sectors, residential and nonresidential/services. Figure 70 indicates that the heat demand will reduce by approximately 60-62% in
both of these sectors between 2015 and 2050, similar to the overall trend in the total heat demand.
However, it is important to recognise that there are other dynamics involved in these changes also
such as the population and the building stock.
Residential
Services
Total
Space and Hot Water Heat Demands in the
Energy Efficiency Scenario (TWh)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 70: Residential and services heat demand in the Energy Efficiency scenario between 2015 and 2050.
While the heat demand is reducing in the EU-EE scenario, both the population and the building stock
experience an increase.
Table 37 summarises the changes assumed in population in the EU-EE scenario, suggesting a 3.2%
overall growth in population between 2010 and 2050. Table 38 presents similar statistics for the
building stock in Europe: the total building stock is expected to grow by 35% between 2015 and 2050,
which includes a growth of 42% for the residential sector and 32% for the services sector.
160
Table 37: Population assumptions in the Energy Efficiency scenario between 1990 and 2050 [European
Commission, 2011].
Year
Population
(Million)
Population 1-Year
Change (%)
Population 5-Year
Change (%)
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
470.4
477.0
481.1
489.2
499.4
507.7
513.8
517.8
519.9
520.7
520.1
518.4
515.3
Start
0.28%
0.17%
0.34%
0.41%
0.33%
0.24%
0.15%
0.08%
0.03%
-0.02%
-0.07%
-0.12%
Start
1.4%
0.9%
1.7%
2.1%
1.7%
1.2%
0.8%
0.4%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.3%
-0.6%
Population 20Year Change (%)
Population 40Year Change (%)
Start
Start
4.1%
-0.9%
3.2%
Table 38: Estimated building floor are for the residential and non-residential/service sectors in the EU27
between 2015 and 2050.
PRIMES
Estimate* [9]
Floor area in
Mio m²
2015
20152020
20202025
20252030
20302035
20352040
20402045
20452050
Residential
21,724
23,579
25,066
26,387
27,343
28,053
28,515
28,730
1.7%
1.2%
1.0%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Change per
year in%
Ecofys
Estimate [42]
Residential
NonResidential
17,498 (in
2012)
8,642 (in
2012)
24,198
12,233
*In 2050, Ecofys estimated the residential floor area to be 15% lower than PRIMES.
This data is significant since it means that the specific heat demand reductions (i.e. kWh/m2) are even
larger than the absolute heat demand reductions portrayed in Figure 69 and Figure 70. Overall, Figure
71 shows that the specific heat demand reduction is very similar for both services and both sectors
considered here, with a 70% reduction (+/-3%) for each between 2015 (2012) and 2050.
161
Space Heating
Hot Water
Total
Residential
Services
Specific Heat Demand (kWh/m2)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2050
2045
Figure 71: Specific heat demand in the Energy Efficiency scenario for the residential and nonresidential/services sectors, as well as for the space heating, hot water, and total heat demand.
11.2.1.3 Investment costs
The costs for the EE scenario are then divided into three types:
• Capital
• Energy purchases
• Direct efficiency investments
The costs related to the scenario are summarized in Table 39.
Table 39: Results for 2050 for residential and tertiary sector
Capital cost * [BN EUR’08]
Fuel and electricity costs
Average annual direct
efficiency investment costs**
[BN EUR’08]
Reference scenario
955
1,622
28
High energy efficiency scenario
1115
1,220
295
Additional costs [BN EUR’08]
160
-402
267
Additional costs [%]
17%
-24%
954%
•
•
* Costs for energy installations such as power plants and energy infrastructure, energy using equipment, appliances
and vehicles [European Commission, 2011a].
** direct efficiency investment costs include costs for house insulation, double/triple glazing, control systems,
energy management and for efficiency enhancing changes in production processes not accounted for under energy
capital and fuel/ electricity purchase costs.
It is assumed here that a lot of the energy efficiency costs are accounted for under capital costs rather
than direct efficiency investments. For example, better appliances, new electric grids, the smart grid,
162
and more renewable energy generation are assumed to be under capital costs. Hence, it is assumed
that direct efficiency investments relates to the implementation of space and hot water savings in the
buildings sector, which amounts to B€295/year. This may not be the case so the cost of energy
efficiency measures may be over-estimated based on this. In any case, other reports based on the
Danish building stock also report a significant increase in energy efficiency costs when you reach this
scale of energy savings [Kragh,Wittchen, 2010]. Therefore, the costs assumed here may not be correct,
but the scale of the costs for energy efficiency measures seems to be correct.
The aim in designing a new "enhanced energy efficiency" scenario in HRE-EE is to identify if the same
objectives in the EU-EE scenario, in terms of energy and emission reductions, can be achieved in a way
that is both cheaper and easier to implement. To achieve such an objective, the strategy is to replace
some of the energy efficiency measures which are either very expensive and/or difficult to implement.
In line with this, the following two subjects have been investigated further in the EU-EE scenario:
•
•
The high reductions in the hot water end use seem very difficult to implement.
The reduction per unit of space heating demand, below a total average reduction of 40-50% of
the existing level, seems to be very ambitious in terms of implementation and also very
expensive.
11.2.2 Renovation tracks for Europe, up to 2050. Building renovation in Europe – what
are the choices? [EURIMA, 2012]
11.2.2.1 Assumptions
This study analyses and compares the possible tracks for the renovation of the EU building stock,
quantifying and illustrating graphically energy savings and avoided CO2 emissions, financial impacts
and employment effects. The study examines three renovation scenarios from 2012 to 2050, which are
characterized by parameters: speed of renovation (= renovation rate) and ambition level regarding
energy efficiency improvement and use of renewable energy. The different scenarios are designed to
indicate the likely implications of using different approaches to meet the 2050 targets.
Track 1: Shallow renovation:
-
-
Retrofit rate: 3% per year
Retrofit standard (demand side): Average standard, accompanied by market failures where
certain measures are not carried out due to perceived barriers (Market failures described
effects, where e.g. measures that are in principle financially feasible from a lifecycle
perspective are not carried out, due to various barriers (e.g. high upfront investment/
financing needs, lack of information, aesthetics/tradition, investor user conflict, technical
limitations etc.).
Renewable energy: Low contribution, no ventilation systems with heat recovery
Solar thermal systems for domestic hot water: none
Track 2: Shallow renovation + RES:
163
-
-
-
Doubling of renovation rate & average ambition level + market failures; no focus on energy
efficiency; use of renewable energy
Retrofit rate: 2.3% per year (which is approximately a doubling of the current renovation rate).
Retrofit standard (demand side): accompanied by market failures where certain measures are
not carried out due to perceived barriers. The demand side level (related to the building
envelope) of the shallow renovation is the same level as applied in Track 1 (shallow
renovation)
Renewable energy: high contribution, all retrofits with ventilation systems and heat recovery
Solar thermal systems for domestic hot water (max. DHW coverage 60%): 80% of all retrofits
have solar thermal systems installed.
Track 3: Deep renovation:
-
“Doubling” of renovation rate & high ambition level; focus on energy efficiency; use of
renewable energy
Retrofit rate: 2.3% per year (which is approx. a doubling of the current renovation rate).
Retrofit standard (demand side): Very ambitious standard (reflects the level of Passive House
standard for the building envelope
Renewable energy: high contribution , all retrofits with ventilation systems and heat recovery
Solar thermal systems for domestic hot water (max. domestic hot water coverage of 60%): 33%
of all retrofits have Solar Thermal systems installed.
It is important to note that all three scenarios assume renovation rates of no more than 3% taking into
account normal renovation cycles (30 to 40 years), which enables to connect the measures with
already anticipated and (also non-energy related) renovation activities. The renovation rate in Tracks 2
and 3, namely 2.3% per year (which is approx. a doubling of the current renovation rate) still ensures
that the building stock is renovated before 2050.
New building standards:
High ambition level for new buildings:
- New building rate: 1.0% per year
- New building standard (demand side): Ambitious standard (typically with final energy demand
for heating and cooling below 15 kWh/m²a.)
- Renewable energy: High contribution
- All new buildings with ventilation systems and heat recovery
- Solar thermal systems for domestic hot water (maximum DHW coverage 60%): 66% of all new
buildings have solar thermal systems installed.
The calculations are based on the five climate zones within the EU27.
Important other assumptions:
164
-
Retrofitting activities (according to the three defined scenarios) are implemented in the
market from 2015
All 3 scenarios assume a small fraction of buildings will not be improved in the time period (e.g.
monument type of buildings or due to compliance issues)
Energy uses of space heating and domestic hot water are included
Not included: cooling energy, lighting (for non-residential buildings) and auxiliary energy
New construction rate: 1.0%, demolition rate: 0.1%
11.2.2.2 Heat demands
Cooling, lighting and auxiliary energy are not included in this assessment. Energy consumption for hot
water has been assessed. Following Table 40 gives an overview of the useful space heating demand.
Table 40: Overview of the useful space heating demands in 2012 and 2050 for the three scenarios
Scenario
Retrofit rate
Useful space heating
demand 2012
[TWh]
Useful space heating
demand 2050
[TWh]
Reduction in 2050
compared to 2012 [%]
Shallow renovation
3%
2,562
2,870
12%
Shallow renovation
+RES
2.3%
3,364
2,397
- 6%
Deep renovation
2.3%
3,364
1,208
- 47%
11.2.2.3 Investment costs
Based on investment costs for windows, insulation and building equipment (heating systems, etc.), the
following Figure 72 and Figure 73 show the total investment costs per year required for the different
scenarios.
Figure 72: Annual investment costs for insulation and windows in the three scenarios created by Ecofys for
energy efficiency in the EU27 [Boermans, Bettgenhäuser et al., 2012].
165
In the “shallow renovation” scenario (Track 1), higher investments are necessary (lower investments
per building but more renovations per year assumed) until approximately 2044. After that time, the
whole building stock is retrofitted in the shallow renovation scenario and investment costs are
dropping. Just the part for new buildings is remaining.
For the “Target” scenarios (Tracks 2 and 3) retrofit activities continue to 2050. The “deep renovation”
scenario shows higher investments in the building envelope.
Figure 73 shows the investments for heating and ventilation systems.
Figure 73: Investments for heating and ventilation systems per year EU27 [billion €/a]
Related to heating and ventilation system, the “shallow renovation” scenario (Track 1) shows lower
necessary investments. This is a result of staying with standard fossil systems and not implementing
ventilation systems in a large scale.
The following graph shows the total investment necessary for the different scenarios.
166
Figure 74: Investments for building envelope (insulation + windows) and heating + ventilation systems per year
EU27 [billion €/a].
The “shallow renovation” scenario shows lower investments due to less extensive measures that are
not overcompensated in terms of investments by the higher speed of implementation. Around 2044,
the “shallow renovation” scenario drops in investments, because most retrofit activities will have
finished, except at a low (shallow) ambition level.
The “shallow renovation + renewables” track shows approximately 50 billion EURO of additional
investments per year compared to the “shallow renovation” track, while the “deep renovation” track
triggers additional investments of approximately 80 billion EURO per year compared to the “shallow
renovation” track.
Based on the assumption of approximately 17 jobs created per million invested 15 that would lead to
0.9 Million additional jobs (compared to the “shallow renovation” scenario) created and maintained in
the “shallow renovation + high use of renewable energy scenario” and 1.4 million additional jobs in the
“deep renovation scenario”. After 2044, the difference will get even more significant, when
investments drop in the “shallow renovation” scenario while renovations continue for the other tracks.
15
Source: Urge-Vorsatz, D. (2011) et al. Employment Impacts of a Large-Scale Deep Building Energy Retrofit
Programme in Hungary. Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy - Central European University &
European Climate Foundation.
167
11.2.3 Recommendations for possible adaptations of the energy efficiency scenario
Hot water demand
The hot water demand should not be reduced in this study for the following reasons:
1. Table 37 indicates that population will grow by 3.2% between 2010 and 2050.
2. According to a number of interviews with industry experts, people tend to wash more today
than they did in the past, which is likely to continue into the future. In other words, individuals
are likely to take more showers and baths in the future than they do today.
3. Families are not expected to live with one another as much in the future. Hence, there will a
larger number of people living in their own houses rather than living with their family. This is
also expected to increase the demand for hot water for an individual.
4. At present, there are regions in Europe where the use of hot water is limited due to technical
and financial limitations. As these regions become wealthier, the demand for hot water is
expected to rise in these regions.
5. The building area for residential and non-residential buildings is expected to grow by 32% and
42% respectively between 2015 and 2050 (see Table 38).
For these reasons, the hot water demand is not expected to decrease in this study, even with
appliances that use less water, pipes with more insulation, and better hot water management in
buildings. Therefore, it is assumed here that the hot water will increase rather than decrease. It is
unlikely that the hot water demand will increase as fast as the building area, since people will live in
larger houses and use the hot water more efficiently. However, it is unlikely that the hot water
demand will increase at a lower rate than the population, for the reasons outlined in 1-4 above.
Therefore, it is assumed here that the hot water demand will grow at a rate between the residential
floor area and the population, see Figure 75.
Residential floor area
Non-Residential Floor Area
Population
EE Hot Water
HRE2 Hot Water
Annual Average Growth Rate (%/year)
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 2040-2045 2045-2050
168
Figure 75: Average annual growth rates for the residential floor area, non-residential floor area, population,
the original EE scenario hot-water demand, and the new hot water demand assumed in this study (which is
based on the average annual growth rate for the residential floor area and the population).
The hot water demand in the new scenario is assumed to grow by 16% between 2015 and 2050
instead of reducing by 55% as in the original hot water demand projection for the EE scenario, as
outlined in Figure 76. The specific hot water demand is assumed to drop from approximately 27
kWh/m2 in 2015 to 23 kWh/m2 in 2050, instead of from 27 kWh/m2 to 9 kWh/m2 as in the EE scenario
(Figure 76).
HRE2 Hot Water
1,000
Hot Water Demand (TWh/year)
853
800
883
908
EE Hot Water
925
936
HRE2 Hot Water
942
943
814
30
24
674
586
600
565
18
514
465
417
364
400
200
12
6
0
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
Specific Hot Water Demand (---, kWh/m2)
EE Hot Water
2050
Figure 76: Original hot water demand in the EE scenario and the new hot water demand which is used in this
study, along with the corresponding specific hot water demands (dotted lines).
Space heating demand
The space heating demand reductions calculated in the EE scenario seem very ambitious. For example,
a quite ambitious scenario for energy efficiency measures presented in a recent report by EURIMA
(European insulation Manufacturers Association) [Boermans, Bettgenhäuser et al., 2012], outlines that
with deep renovations in the EU27, a space heating reduction of 47% or specific space heating demand
(i.e. kWh/m2) reduction of 62% will be possible between 2015 and 2050 16. In the assessed deep
renovation scenario bad performing buildings achieve savings of around 75% while the energy demand
for the total stock is reduced by the mentioned 47%. Reasons for this are that the deep renovation
scenario also takes into account new buildings. By 2050 the building stock will increase by about one
third. Additionally, the scenario considers that buildings have been partly renovated which limits the
saving potential. Finally, the scenario takes also into account the limitations in renovation for some
16
The specific heat reduction (i.e. kWh/m2) is greater than the absolute reduction (i.e. kWh) in space heating
since the building area increases in combination with a decrease in the absolute heat demand.
169
buildings (e.g. some buildings will not be renovated due to cultural heritage, etc.). All these effects
have an impact on the overall saving potential.
It is important to note that one significant difference between the Deep Renovation scenario and the
EE scenario is the heat demand in 2015. As outlined in Figure 77, this is approximately 2,560 TWh in
the Deep Renovation scenario, but it is approximately 3,220 TWh in the EE scenario. Looking at actual
historical data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that the total heat demand for
both space heating and hot water in 2010 was approximately 3,500 TWh. Data from the EE scenario
estimates that this includes approximately 800 TWh of hot water demand (see Figure 76), which
suggests that the space heating demand is approximately 2,700 TWh. Although this means that the
heat demand in the Deep Renovation scenario is more likely closer to the current situation in Europe
than the EE scenario, the HRE2 heat demand created for this study uses the same starting point as the
EE scenario. This is to make the results of this study comparable to the analysis in the EE scenario since
the principal objective here is to compare a scenario with energy efficiency only to a scenario with
both energy efficiency and district heating. The final space heating demand assumed in the new HRE2
scenario is outlined in Figure 77.
Deep Renovation (Ecofys)
Space Heating Demand (TWh)
3,500
Energy Efficiency Scenario
HRE2 Scenario
3,217
3,000
2,569
2,500
2,000
1,705
1,500
1,000
500
2015
2030
2050
Figure 77: Space heating in the EE scenario from the Energy Roadmap 2050 [9], the Deep Renovation scenario
form Ecofys [Boermans, Bettgenhäuser et al., 2012], and the new space heating demand assumed in this study.
The final total heat demand for the new scenario assumed in this study is outlined in Figure 78: there is
a total reduction of 34% between 2015 and 2050 in the HRE2 scenario instead of 61% as originally
proposed in the EE scenario.
170
HRE2 Scenario
Energy Efficiency Scenario
2020
2030
Total Heat Demand (TWh/year)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2015
2025
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 78: Total heat demand for the new scenario assumed in this study and the EE scenario for 2015-2050.
Costs of the measures
The cost of the energy efficiency measures in the EE scenario are estimated for three categories (costs
for capital, energy purchases and for direct efficiency investments). We assume that a lot of the costs
that refer to the measures of the EE scenario such as for example better appliances, new electric grids,
the smart grid, and more renewable energy generation are counted for under capital costs. In
consequence, the direct efficiency investments (B€295/year) would account for measures such as e.g.
better insulation etc. The remaining question would then be where more efficient heating systems are
accounted for.
The deep renovation track scenario includes investment costs for windows, insulation and building
equipment (heating systems, etc.). The annual average investment costs for the energy efficiency
measures in the Deep Renovation scenario completed by Ecofys for EURIMA are approximately
B€160/year, although as outlined in Figure 72 these vary over the 45-year period including a steep
drop in the last few years.
It is difficult to make a definite conclusion from the comparison of the two calculations since there are
a lot of unknown assumptions behind the cost data in each report.
We recommend to adjust the cost for the energy efficiency measures downwards from the B€295/year
in the EE scenario, since there are now less energy efficiency measures in the HRE2 heat demand
forecast. To do so, an energy efficiency cost curve, which is displayed in Figure 79, has been utilised.
This cost curve was developed based on data from the Danish Research Building Institute
[Kragh,Wittchen, 2010] and a Danish Heat Atlas [Möller, 2008; Sperling,Möller, 2012]. The costs reflect
the additional cost of energy efficiency measures, which means that they are implemented at the same
171
time as other renovations are taking place in the building. Assuming a 3% interest rate and an average
lifetime of 30 years for the energy efficiency measures, indicative annual costs of implementing energy
efficiency measures in the EU27 have been estimated in Figure 80. These are indicative only since they
reflect total energy savings and not the reduction in specific heat demand. However, these results
demonstrate how the unit cost of energy savings increases as more savings are implemented. For
example, the first B€200/year on energy savings in Europe will achieve savings of approximately 53%,
while investments of B€400/year will only 22% more at 75%.
2.75
2.50
Additional Cost (€/kWh/year)
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Heat Demand Reduction (%)
60%
70%
80%
Figure 79: Additional costs for energy efficiency measures that reduce the heat demand by different
percentages based on Danish buildings [Kragh,Wittchen, 2010].
As displayed in Figure 69, there is a total reduction of approximately 70% in the specific heat demand
in the EE scenario, equating to total savings of 2,460 TWh. Assuming a cost of €2.4/kWh (18 DKK/kWh)
based on the data in Figure 79, a 3% interest rate, and an average lifetime of 30 years for the energy
efficiency measures, the annual costs of implementing the energy efficiency measures in the EE
scenario are calculated as approximately B€303/year. This is very similar to the costs suggested in the
EU Energy Roadmap report of B€295/year, although as mentioned previously the B€295/year may
include savings in other sectors such as electricity and transport.
172
Annual Additional Costs of Energy
Savings in the EU27 (B€/year)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Total Energy Savings (%)
60%
70%
80%
Figure 80: Annual ‘additional’ costs for energy efficiency measures that reduce the heat demand by different
percentages based on Danish buildings [Kragh,Wittchen, 2010], an interest rate of 3%, and assuming an
average lifetime of 30 years. These are indicative only as they not consider the change in specific heat demand,
but instead it considers the change in total heat demand.
Using the same assumptions, the costs for the energy efficiency measures in the new HRE2 heat
demand scenario can also be estimated. In the HRE2 scenario, there is a 51% reduction in the specific
heat demand between 2015 and 2050, equating to a total energy saving of 1,215 TWh. Assuming a
cost of €1.9/kWh (14 DKK/kWh), this means that the total annual costs for energy efficiency measures
in this scenario are approximately B€133/year. Comparing this to the annual investment costs
estimated by Ecofys in the EURIMA report [Boermans, Bettgenhäuser et al., 2012] suggests that this is
a 17% underestimation of the total energy efficiency costs required. As displayed earlier in Figure 72,
the average annual investments required in the Deep Renovation scenario (for a 47% reduction in
space heating) are approximately B€160/year. This difference warrants further investigation in the
future, but based on these comparisons, the indicate costs provided by the unit costs in Figure 79 are
deemed an adequate representation of the variation in costs as more energy efficiency measures are
implemented.
Overall, the EE scenario is extremely ambitious in terms of energy efficiency. Hence, a new HRE2 heat
demand has been created for this study, which is also very ambitious in terms of energy efficiency
since it follows the space heating recommendations of the Deep Renovation scenario created for
EURIMA [Boermans, Bettgenhäuser et al., 2012]. This new HRE2 heat demand will be used to
investigate the feasibility of district heating in a scenario with very low heat demands.
173
11.3 REFERENCES
European Commission (2011). Energy Roadmap 2050.
Baukosteninformationszentrum Deutscher Architektenkammern (BKI) (2011). Kostenplaner 14 und
BKI Baukostendantebank 2011/2012 - Software zur sicheren Baukostenermittlung. BKI
GmbH Stuttgart
BMVBS (Hrsg.) (2012). Kosten energierelevanter Bau- und Anlagenteile bei der energetischen
Modernisierung von Wohngebäuden. BMVBS-Online-Publikation 07/2012. Verfügbar:
<http://www.bbsr.bund.de/cln_032/nn_629248/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BMVBS/O
nline/2012/ON072012.html> (Letzter Zugriff: 2012-10-23). Bundesministerium für Verkehr,
Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS), Berlin,
EURIMA (2012). Renovation Tracks for Europe up to 2050 - Building Renovation in Europe - What
are the Choices? Verfügbar:
<http://www.eurima.org/uploads/ModuleXtender/Publications/90/Ecofys_X_leaflet_05_1
0_2012_web_Final.pdf> (Letzter Zugriff: 2012.12.18). Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission (2011a). Impact assessment - Accompanying document to the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Energy
Roadmap 2050; Part 1/2. Verfügbar:
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1565_part1.pdf>
(Letzter Zugriff: 2012-04-10).
European Commission (2011b). Impact assessment - Accompanying document to the
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Energy
Roadmap 2050; Part 2/2. Verfügbar:
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1565_part2.pdf>
(Letzter Zugriff: 2012-04-10).
Möller, B. (2008). A heat atlas for demand and supply management in Denmark. Management of
Environmental Quality 19(4): 467-479.
Sperling, K.,Möller, B. (2012). End-use energy savings and district heating expansion in a local
renewable energy system – A short-term perspective. Applied Energy 92(0): 831-842.
174
12
ANNEX IV: LOCAL CONDITIONS ILLUSTRATED BY MAPS
12.1 MAJOR COMBUSTION INSTALLATIONS FOR POWER AND HEAT GENERATION
Figure 81: Major combustion installations above 50 MW for power and heat generation in Europe. Source: The
E-PRTR database at EEA in Copenhagen.
175
12.2 WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Figure 82: Locations of 410 waste incineration plants in Europe. Sources: CEWEP, E-PRTR, ISWA, and some
national sources for Sweden, Denmark, and France.
176
12.3 INDUSTRIAL EXCESS HEAT
Figure 83: Locations of major energy intensive industries with considerable volumes of excess heat. Source:
The E-PRTR database at EEA in Copenhagen.
177
12.4 GEOTHERMAL HEAT
Figure 84: Identified geothermal heat resources by temperature at 2000 m depth by NUTS3 region. Source:
European Commission, Atlas of Geothermal Resources in Europe. Publication EUR 17811, Luxembourg 2002.
178
12.5 BIOMASS
Figure 85: A qualitative map of local biomass availability based on a weighted overlay using forestry and
agricultural statistics, forest density and land use for agriculture. Source: European Forest Institute.
179
12.6 SOLAR THERMAL HEAT
Figure 86: Annual solar irradiation on a south-oriented tilted surface at optimal angle by NUTS3 region.
180
12.7 NUTS3 REGION HOT SPOTS – FULL LIST
NUTS3
region
NUTS3 region
Name
AT312
AT315
BE211
BE221
BE234
BE236
BE251
BE254
BE322
BE323
BE332
CZ042
CZ080
DE122
DE126
DE211
DE219
DE21J
DE712
DE929
DEA11
DEA12
DEA13
DEA14
DEA17
DEA19
DEA1A
DEA1C
DEA1D
DEA1F
DEA23
DEA24
DEA27
DEA31
DEA32
DEA36
DEA46
DEA51
DEA54
DEA55
DEA5C
DEB34
FR232
FR301
FR302
FR411
FR511
FR824
Linz-Wels
Traunviertel
Arr. Antwerpen
Arr. Hasselt
Arr. Gent
Arr. Sint-Niklaas
Arr. Brugge
Arr. Kortrijk
Arr. Charleroi
Arr. Mons
Arr. Liège
Ústecký kraj
Moravskoslezský kraj
Karlsruhe, Stadtkreis
Mannheim, Stadtkreis
Ingolstadt, Kreisfreie Stadt
Eichstätt
Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm
Frankfurt am Main, Kreisfreie
Region Hannover
Düsseldorf, Kreisfreie Stadt
Duisburg, Kreisfreie Stadt
Essen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Krefeld, Kreisfreie Stadt
Oberhausen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Solingen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Wuppertal, Kreisfreie Stadt
Mettmann
Rhein-Kreis Neuss
Wesel
Köln, Kreisfreie Stadt
Leverkusen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Rhein-Erft-Kreis
Bottrop, Kreisfreie Stadt
Gelsenkirchen, Kreisfreie Stadt
Recklinghausen
Minden-Lübbecke
Bochum, Kreisfreie Stadt
Hamm, Kreisfreie Stadt
Herne, Kreisfreie Stadt
Unna
Ludwigshafen am Rhein,
Seine-Maritime
Nord (FR)
Pas-de-Calais
Meurthe-et-Moselle
Loire-Atlantique
Bouches-du-Rhône
Country
Code
Population
[Mn]
AT
AT
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
BE
CZ
CZ
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
0.55
0.23
0.98
0.41
0.52
0.26
0.28
0.28
0.42
0.25
0.60
0.84
1.25
0.29
0.31
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.66
1.13
0.58
0.49
0.58
0.24
0.22
0.16
0.35
0.50
0.44
0.47
1.00
0.16
0.46
0.12
0.26
0.64
0.32
0.38
0.18
0.17
0.42
0.16
1.25
2.57
1.46
0.73
1.27
1.97
Italy, Poland, and United Kingdom continue on next page.
181
Land
area
2
[km ]
1744
2517
1000
906
944
475
661
403
555
584
797
5335
5426
174
145
133
1215
761
248
2291
217
233
210
138
77
90
168
407
576
1042
405
79
705
101
105
760
1152
145
226
51
543
78
6278
5743
6671
5246
6815
5088
Population
density
2
[n/km ]
322
96
1029
456
562
516
422
696
765
433
764
160
235
1680
2150
931
103
154
2692
493
2697
2118
2748
1712
2789
1803
2091
1223
769
452
2460
2041
659
1168
2488
834
275
2595
805
3234
765
2104
199
448
219
140
187
388
Heat
demand
[PJ]
16.7
6.9
31.1
13.0
16.4
7.4
8.6
8.8
13.5
7.9
19.4
19.0
28.1
9.5
10.3
4.2
4.2
3.9
22.0
37.5
18.8
15.9
18.7
7.6
6.9
5.2
11.4
16.1
14.2
15.1
32.1
5.2
14.9
3.8
8.5
20.5
10.4
12.2
5.9
5.4
13.5
5.4
35.0
74.9
42.0
22.1
33.1
46.6
Excess
heat
[PJ]
29.7
12.5
74.2
18.1
46.5
7.6
10.7
19.6
20.0
10.9
23.2
134.9
45.0
30.8
6.8
10.3
5.4
8.3
10.6
20.3
10.3
107.3
5.6
1.2
5.9
1.7
7.4
5.4
203.9
37.1
37.9
3.8
191.1
0.9
63.5
31.0
33.0
1.3
24.7
16.5
55.7
35.0
95.6
80.5
8.3
25.2
44.8
90.6
Excess
heat
ratio [-]
1.8
1.8
2.4
1.4
2.8
1.0
1.2
2.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
7.1
1.6
3.2
0.7
2.5
1.3
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
6.8
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.3
14.3
2.4
1.2
0.7
12.8
0.3
7.5
1.5
3.2
0.1
4.2
3.1
4.1
6.5
2.7
1.1
0.2
1.1
1.4
1.9
182
NUTS3
region
NUTS3 region
Name
ITC11
ITC15
ITC16
ITC41
ITC45
ITC46
ITC48
ITD31
ITD36
PL227
PL22A
PL22B
PL522
UKC11
UKC12
UKD21
UKD22
UKE13
UKL21
UKL22
Total
Torino
Novara
Cuneo
Varese
Milano
Bergamo
Pavia
Verona
Padova
Rybnicki
Katowicki
Sosnowiecki
Opolski
Hartlepool and Stockton-onSouth Teesside
Halton and Warrington
Cheshire CC
North and North East
Monmouthshire and Newport
Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan
Country
Code
Population
[Mn]
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
IT
PL
PL
PL
PL
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
2.29
0.37
0.59
0.87
3.93
1.08
0.54
0.91
0.92
0.64
0.77
0.72
0.62
0.28
0.28
0.32
0.69
0.32
0.23
0.46
43.95
Land
area
2
[km ]
6830
1338
6903
1199
1984
2723
2965
3121
2142
1353
380
1800
5140
298
299
260
2083
1038
1041
471
113029
Population
density
2
[n/km ]
341
286
86
785
2034
408
190
315
440
471
2016
399
122
947
932
1218
331
307
220
977
Heat
demand
[PJ]
49.1
7.9
11.9
19.2
83.1
23.5
11.1
19.5
19.9
11.7
14.1
13.3
11.5
6.8
6.7
7.5
16.3
7.5
5.2
10.4
1166.5
Excess
heat
[PJ]
25.5
10.0
10.5
6.0
28.2
11.1
41.5
4.0
5.5
43.5
11.7
73.8
59.1
12.8
49.3
51.0
29.7
104.6
5.9
34.8
2389.0
Excess
heat
ratio [-]
0.5
1.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.5
3.7
0.2
0.3
3.7
0.8
5.6
5.1
1.9
7.4
6.8
1.8
13.9
1.1
3.3
13 ANNEX V: THE PRIMES MODELLING TOOL
Title:
PRIMES model
Description from:
Organization:
[53, 54]
National Technical University of Athens, Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering (E3MLab)
Outlook year:
n/a
Objective:
Used for the 2010 scenarios for the European Commission.
Overview:
PRIMES simulates a market equilibrium solution for energy supply and demand [55]. It has been developed by
the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) since 1994, but it is not sold to third parties. Instead, the
tool is used within consultancy projects undertaken by NTUA and partners.
The equilibrium used in PRIMES is static (within each time period) but repeated in a time-forward path, under
dynamic relationships. In the Energy Roadmap 2050 project, PRIMES was used to model the period 1990-2050,
in time steps of 5 years. For the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 the model results are calibrated to Eurostat
statistics. For the year 2010, the model results are semi-calibrated by taking into account the latest statistics
and short-term expectations. All thermal, renewable, storage/conversion, and transport technologies can be
simulated except battery energy storage, compressed-air energy storage, intelligent battery-electric-vehicles,
and hybrid vehicles. PRIMES is organized in sub-tools, each one representing the behaviour of a specific
‘demander’ and/or a ‘supplier’ of energy. PRIMES simulates time-of-use varying load for network-supplied
energy carriers to synchronize electricity, gas and steam/heat in all sectors of demand, supply and trading. To
do this, load curves are computed by the model in a bottom up manner depending on the load profiles of
individual uses of energy.
The tool can support policy analysis in the following fields: (1) standard energy policy issues: security of supply,
strategy, costs (includes all costs), etc., (2) environmental issues, (3) pricing policy and taxation, standards on
technologies, (4) new technologies and renewable sources, (5) energy efficiency in the demand-side, (6)
alternative fuels, (7) conversion to decentralisation and electricity-market liberalisation, (8) policy issues
regarding electricity generation, gas distribution, and new energy forms. PRIMES is organised by an energy
production sub-system for supply consisting of oil products, natural gas, coal, electricity and heat production,
biomass supply, and others, and by end-use sectors for demand consisting of residential, commercial,
transport, and nine industrial sectors. Some demanders may also be suppliers, as for example industrial cogenerators of electricity and steam.
PRIMES has previously been used to create energy outlooks for the EU [56], develop a climate change action
and renewable energy policy package for the EU [57] and also, to analyse a number of different policies to
reduce GHG in the EU25 by 2030 [58, 59]. Finally, PRIMES has been used for several EU governments as well as
private companies.
How district heating is mentioned:
The optimisation is simultaneous for power, CHP, distributed steam, distributed heat, district heating and
industrial boilers. The optimisation is inter-temporal (perfect foresight) and solves simultaneously a unit
commitment-dispatching problem; a capacity expansion problem; and a DC-linearized optimum power flow
183
problem (over interconnectors).
Promotion of CHP and micro-generation: priority grid access for CHP, CHP values representing marginal
benefits for CHP can be introduced. Micro-generation is included only in the low voltage grid, reducing the
transmission costs.
The use of biomass is optimally allocated endogenously and might therefore not be used for CHP.
Link to reports:
184
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261909004188
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/sec_2011_1569_2_prime_model.pdf
14
ANNEX VI: CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUITABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
In 2009 the European Council made the objective for the EU to decarbonisation its energy system to at
least 80% below the 1990 level by 2050, without affecting general economic growth. One can imagine
that there are a number of measures and technologies that could contribute to such a goal. The
question is with which scenarios one could achieve these goals? We believe that any scenario
developed for this objective should include the following two key elements:
A. An energy system in 2050 with 80% lower CO2-emissions than 1990 will require radical
technological changes, for both energy consumption and production compared to the energy
system in the EU today.
B. This CO2 reduction should be achieved with the lowest socio-economic costs.
Initially one should ask, which analysis and scenarios one wants to conduct? In Heat Road Map Europe
2, the aim is to analyse feasible and sustainable pathways to make energy efficient buildings and
supply them with heat in the future as part of the overall target of the European Council. Also the
scenarios conducted represent radical technological change compared to today, as the system changes
from a predominately centralised system to a system with much more distributed and fluctuating
energy sources. To conduct such analyses a number of key principles for choosing the tool used in the
analyses have been considered, which EnergyPLAN is able to meet [60]. The tool should:
1. Include integrated analyses of the electricity and heat sector, in order to be able to identify
synergies between these sectors – and preferably also include other sectors such as transport.
2. Use hour-by-hour simulations in order to take into account that the increasing amounts of
fluctuating renewable energy in the European energy system changing from the current
centralised energy system.
3. Be able to include changes in the energy demand hour-by-hour when implementing heat
demand savings, since savings will reduce peak demands significantly.
4. Be able to identify energy systems with low socio-economic costs by implementing different
technological alternatives.
Key principles 1-3 relate to the radical technological change principal in point A above. Key principle 4
relates to point B, which is to complete the analysis from a socio-economic perspective: this ensures
that the cost burden on European citizens and businesses is comparably lower, which enables stronger
economic development in the EU.
In Connolly et al. [54], a review of the different computer tools that can be used to analyse the
integration of renewable energy was conducted. The paper provides the information necessary to
direct the decision-maker towards a suitable energy tool for an analysis that must be completed. 68
tools were initially considered, but 37 were included in the final analysis which was carried out in
collaboration with the tool developers or recommended points of contact. The typical applications for
the tools reviewed ranges from analysing single-building systems to analysing national or international
energy systems. Table 41 lists the tools that are included in the review along with a brief overview of
how the models are defined. The different categories of tools are described in the paper as follows:
185
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
186
A simulation tool simulates the operation of a given energy-system to supply a given set of
energy demands. Typically a simulation tool is operated in hourly time-steps over a one-year
time-period.
A scenario tool usually combines a series of years into a long-term scenario. Typically scenario
tools function in time-steps of 1 year and combine such annual results into a scenario of
typically 20–50 years.
An equilibrium tool seeks to explain the behaviour of supply, demand, and prices in a whole
economy or part of an economy (general or partial) with several or many markets. It is often
assumed that agents are price takers and that equilibrium can be identified.
A top-down tool is a macroeconomic tool using general macroeconomic data to determine
growth in energy prices and demands. Typically top-down tools are also equilibrium tools (see
3).
A bottom-up tool identifies and analyses the specific energy technologies and thereby
identifies investment options and alternatives.
Operation optimisation tools optimise the operation of a given energy-system. Typically
operation optimisation tools are also simulation tools (see 1) optimising the operation of a
given system.
Investment optimisation tools optimise the investments in an energy-system. Typically
optimisation tools are also scenario tools (see 2) optimising investments in new energy
stations and technologies.
Table 41: List and type of each tool reviewed in [54].
Type
Tool
AEOLIUS
BALMOREL
BCHP Screening Tool
COMPOSE
E4cast
EMCAS
EMINENT
EMPS
EnergyPLAN
energyPRO
ENPEP-BALANCE
GTMax
H2RES
HOMER
HYDROGEMS
IKARUS
INFORSE
Invert
LEAP
MARKAL/TIMES
Mesap PlaNet
MESSAGE
MiniCAM
NEMS
ORCED
PERSEUS
PRIMES
ProdRisk
RAMSES
RETScreen
SimREN
SIVAEL
STREAM
TRNSYS16
UniSyD3.0
WASP
WILMAR Planning Tool
Simulation
Scenario
Equilibrium
Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partial
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Partly
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Operation
Optimisation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Investment
Optimisation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
From the methodology in the review paper a number of advantages can be identified using the
EnergyPLAN tool compared to the other tools reviewed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
187
It is a simulation and scenario tool that simulates the operation of a given energy system to
supply a given set of energy demands.
Conducts analyses in hourly time-steps over a one-year time-period.
Uses bottom-up inputs for specific energy technologies and can identify investment options
and alternatives.
Can use different regulation strategies in order to optimise the operation of a given energy
system.
Can optimise investments in new energy technologies on the consumption and production
side.
Includes all sectors (electricity, heat, transport and gas).
•
•
•
•
Has been used to conduct many energy system analysis of large-scale integration of renewable
energy sources as well as energy savings, including case-studies of 100% renewable energy
systems.
The tool conducts either technical energy system analyses that seeks to make efficiency
improvements in the energy conversion to reduce the primary energy supply.
The tool conducts market economic system optimisation showing the socio-economic results
regarding cost for the society analysed.
The tool is open source, transparent, free of costs and all analyses and documentation is
available online for previous analyses.
When analysing energy systems such as in this reports, EnergyPLAN, and other tools that have these
properties, can avoid a lock-in to the existing technologies and markets. General equilibrium tools
typically include current market conditions and current technologies that can make it difficult to
identify new technological regimes and energy system designs. Such tools seek to explain the
behaviour of supply, demand, and prices in the entire economy or part of an economy (general or
partial) with several or many markets. It is often assumed that agents are price takers and that
equilibrium can be identified. Having such agents included in the tool means that different current
market designs are included and hence part of the analyses when looking at new scenarios. Such a
methodology however can make it difficult to get the tool to identify and analyse new combinations of
technologies or new uses of known technologies. In addition, general equilibrium tools as well as topdown tools (which use general macroeconomic data to determine growth in energy prices and
demands) can make it hard to identify the lowest socio-economic costs of energy systems due to the
fact that such approaches assume current market conditions and profit of agents (sometimes also
assuming perfect market structures).
188
15
ANNEX VII: KEY ASSUMPTIONS WHEN MODELLING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SCENARIO
While transferring the original EU Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) scenario statistics from the Energy
Roadmap 2050 report [9] into the EnergyPLAN tool, a number of issues were identified. Below is an
overview of these issues along with the assumptions made to overcome them. In the majority of cases,
these issues simply reflect a misunderstanding in relation to, or a lack of information about, the
original EU-EE scenario.
15.1 HOT WATER DEMAND IS REDUCED BY 50% BETWEEN 2015 AND 2050
This is discussed in section 5.1 of the main report.
15.2 MISMATCH IN THE TOTAL CO 2 EMISSIONS
The gross inland consumption from the Energy Efficiency scenario for 2010, 2030, and 2050 is outlined
in the table below:
Table 42: Gross inland consumption for the Energy Efficiency scenario from the original statistics [9].
Unit
TWh
PES / Gross Inland Consumption
Solids
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Electricity
Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency Scenario
2010
20,391
3,269
7,385
5,150
2,733
8
1,844
2030
16,883
1,531
5,764
4,041
1,878
-24
3,692
2050
12,610
516
1,948
2,986
1,700
-31
5,491
Some of this energy is not burned, but instead it is used for non-energy use purposes such as fertiliser
production, plastics and road cover material. The total amount of energy utilised for non-energy
purposes is available from the EU Energy Roadmap [12]: this is 1300 TWh (112 Mtoe) in 2010, 1400
TWh (121 Mtoe) in 2030, and 1140 TWh (98 Mtoe) in 2050. However, it is not possible to determine
from the data available what type of fuel this is. Therefore, it is assumed that all of this is oil in 2010,
10% of this is gas and 90% is oil in 2030, while 50% is gas and 50% is oil in 2050. Originally, it was
assumed to be all oil in all years, but with this assumption the total oil in the gross inland consumption
would then be exceeded in 2050. Hence, a 50% split with gas is assumed in 2050 and 10% in 2030. This
non-energy use consumption is then subtracted from the gross inland consumption to estimate the
CO2 emissions for the EU Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) scenario.
The following CO2 emission factors are assumed in line with those reported by the European Topic
Centre on Air and Climate Change [61]: coal 95 kg/GJ; oil 73 kg/GJ; and gas 56 kg/GJ. Nuclear, biomass,
waste, and renewable energy are assumed to have no carbon dioxide emissions. Using these emission
factors, the total CO2 emissions are 3755 Mt in 2010, 2492 Mt in 2030, and 1026 Mt in 2050 (see Table
189
43). Using this methodology, the CO2 emissions have been estimated accurately for 2030 and 2050, but
there is a 7% error for the year 2050. This has been compensated for in this study by assuming that
CCS captures less CO2 than in the original Energy Efficiency scenario. Since it is assumed that CCS
captures the same amount of CO2 in all scenarios for each of the years, this will have very little impact
on the results when comparing the EU-EE scenario with the HRE-EE scenario.
Table 43: Carbon dioxide emissions for the Energy Efficiency scenario [9].
Unit
Mt
Final CO2 Emissions from the Energy Efficiency (Ref
Approach)
CO2 Captured by CCS in the Energy Efficiency Scenario
Total CO2 in the Energy Efficiency Scenario
Total CO2 Estimated Here for the EU-EE scenario
Difference
Difference (%)
Energy Efficiency Scenario
2010
2030
2050
3,757
2,485
728
0
3,757
3,755
-2
0%
17
2,502
2,492
-10
0%
377
1,105
1,026
-79
7%
15.3 ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE HOURLY BALANCING ARE AMBITIOUS
As outlined in Figure 87, the EU-EE scenario has more electricity from intermittent renewable energy
(+15%) and CCS (+13%) than the CPI scenario, while at the same time there is less electricity from
nuclear (-7%) and CHP (-7%). Nuclear and CCS are typically operated as baseload technologies which
means there is a net difference of ~6% in baseload electricity production between the EU-EE and the
EU-CPI scenarios. Overall, this means that more intermittency has been added to the EU-EE scenario,
more baseload has been added, and a flexible technology in the form of CHP has been reduced.
However, the statistics also report that the annual trade of electricity is the same in both the CPI and
EU-EE scenarios at a net export of 30-31 TWh. According to [12], “Electricity balancing and reliability is
ensured endogenously by various means such as import and export flows (in case of high RES it is
facilitated by expanding interconnections), investment in flexible thermal units, pumped storage and if
required hydrogen based storage”. Therefore, it may be possible to have the same net export of
electricity in the EU-EE and EU-CPI scenarios, but it likely to be extremely expensive considering the
additional technologies in the EU-EE scenario.
190
EE 2010
CPI 2050
EE 2050
70
64
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
49
45 45
40
30
20
28
25
15
21
18
21
20
14
8
10
0
0
Efficiency for CHP indicator CCS indicator
nuclear in
thermal
(% of electricity (% of electricity
electricity
electricity
from CHP)
from CCS)
generation (%)
production (%)
renewable
energy in
electricity
generation (%)
Figure 87: Indicators for gross electricity production in the EU-CPI scenario from the first pre-study [1] and the
EU-EE scenario used in this study.
This problem is also evident in the results from the EnergyPLAN tool when modelling the EU-EE
scenario. As outlined in the results for 2050 in Annex VIII, there is 100 TWh of net exports in the EU-EE
scenario instead of the 31 TWh reported in the original statistics. This is due to imbalances between
the hourly demand and supply of electricity. This indicates that the original statistics may not consider
some of the issues that occur on an hourly level in the energy system, which can be essential for
outlining the importance of district heating especially in relation to renewable energy. In this study,
the annual export of electricity has been reduced by assuming that the CCS plants can operate in a
flexible manner.
15.4 MISMATCH IN THE BIOMASS/WASTE STATISTICS
It is not possible to match the biomass statistics in the gross inland consumption figures with the
breakdown of biomass from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report. For example, Table 44 outlines the
breakdown of biomass/waste based on bottom-up statistics, while Table 45 represents an estimate of
the biomass/waste consumption based on a top-down approach using the gross inland consumption.
According to Table 44, there is a biomass/waste consumption of 2,995 TWh in 2050, but according to
Table 45 it is 2,809 TWh. It is assumed here that the bottom-up approach in Table 44 is correct, but by
doing so it is not possible to match the gross inland consumption statistics for biomass/waste, which
can be seen Annex VIII. This error is either a reporting error or a misinterpretation of some statistics
from the Energy Roadmap 2050 report. Therefore, it is not due to the EnergyPLAN model, but due to
an error in the inputs. Overall, the difference is only approximately 5% of the biomass/waste
consumed so it will not have a significant impact on the results.
191
Table 44: Breakdown of fuel consumption in 2050 for the EU-EE scenario
Fuel (TWh)
Solids
Oil
Natural Gas
Biomass/Waste
Total Final Consumption
incl. Industry CHP
32
1,339
1,070
1,633
Elec & Heat
Production
440
4
1229
1355
Boilers
0
0
29
7
Total
Consumption
472
1343
2328
2995
Table 45: Gross inland consumption for renewable energy in the Energy Efficiency scenario
Year
2010
2030
2050
Total for Renewable Energy
1,844
3,692
5,491
Hydro
349
373
394
Wind
149
936
1,423
PV, tidal, etc.
17
164
452
Geothermal for PP
63
116
141
Geothermal for Buildings
12
33
60
Solar for Buildings
23
177
212
Total IRES
612
1,799
2,682
Total Remaining for Biomass/Waste
1,232
1,893
2,809
15.5 BIOMASS AND WASTE ARE RECORDED TOGETHER IN THE STATISTICS
Biomass and waste are recorded as one entity in the Energy Efficiency scenario statistics. This is not a
major concern for the current energy system, but in the 2050 EU-EE scenario biomass/waste accounts
for almost 25% of all energy (see Table 44 and Table 42). Therefore, it becomes important to know
how much is waste and how much is biomass separately. According to the latest EU27 energy balance
from the International Energy Agency, 182 TWh of waste was used in 2010. In this study, it is assumed
that waste does not increase significantly between now and 2050 since district heating does not
increase significantly in the EU-EE scenario. Therefore, it is assumed that there is approximately 200
TWh of waste in 200 TWh of waste in 2030 and 230 TWh of waste in 2050 in the EU-EE scenario.
15.6 ELECTRICITY LOSSES ARE VERY HIGH IN 2050
It is assumed that any difference between total electricity production and total electricity consumption
in the statistics is caused by electricity losses. As outlined in Table 46, this means that 25% of all
electricity produced is lost. This seems too high, but it is assumed here that in addition to transmission
and distribution losses, the additional electricity required to CCS is also included here which explains
the relatively high figure.
192
Table 46: Electricity consumption and production in the Energy Efficiency scenario.
Unit
TWh
Electricity Consumption (TWh)
Electricity Losses (TWh)
Electricity Losses (% of consumption)
Electricity Losses (% of production)
Total Electricity Production
Energy Efficiency Scenario
2010
2030
2050
2,818
3,003
3,204
502
442
1,077
18%
15%
34%
15%
13%
25%
3,319
3,444
4,281
15.7 FUEL CONSUMPTION IN POWER PLANTS IS REPORTED BY TYPE RATHER THAN BY
MODE
The Energy Efficiency scenario statistics report the total fuel consumed for power plants and CHP
plants separately. However, the fuel consumed by a CHP plant could occur while the CHP plant is in
condensing mode i.e. producing electricity only. As a result, it is not possible to determine from the
statistics how much fuel is required while plants operate in back-pressure mode separately to the fuel
required while plants operate in condensing mode. This is important to determine the amount of fuel
consumed by CHP plants for district heating. To verify that the statistics make sense, the average heat
efficiency of CHP plants is estimated based on the total fuel consumed and the total heat produced by
CHP plants. For 2030 the average heat efficiency for CHP is 46% and in 2050 it is 44%. These are
realistic values and so no changes were necessary.
15.8 DISTRICT HEATING HAD TO DIVIDED BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND BUILDINGS (I.E.
RESIDENTIAL AND SERVICES)
The focus in this study is on the role of district heating for buildings for the residential and services
sectors. However, statistics relating to district heating, CHP capacities, and boilers in the Energy
Efficiency scenario statistics do not distinguish between these two forms. Therefore, to extract the
statistics for the residential and services sectors separately, all of these statistics were divided based
on the percentage of the total district heating demand required for the residential and services
sectors. As outlined in Table 47, 25% of the district heating demand is for the residential and services
sectors in 2030, while it is 17% in 2050. This means that the majority of district heating in the Energy
Efficiency scenario is for the industrial sector in 2030 and 2050.
193
Table 47: Heat consumption by sector in the Energy Efficiency scenario.
Unit
Energy Efficiency Scenario
TWh
2010
2030
2050
Industry
317
660
701
Households
240
187
108
Tertiary
116
86
52.4
Energy branch
105
132
72
Residential and Services
(% of industry and energy branch)
45%
25%
17%
15.9 ELECTRICITY FOR HEATING IS NOT DIVIDED FOR DIRECT ELECTRIC HEATING AND
HEAT PUMPS
To estimate the heat demand for individual units, the total fuel consumed is identified and then the
heat demand is estimated based on average boiler efficiencies. In this study, the average boiler
efficiencies in Table 48 have been used based on recommendations by Ecofys in Annex III.
Table 48: Average boiler efficiencies assumed in the Energy Efficiency scenario.
Boiler
2010
2030
2050
Solids
70%
70%
70%
Oil.
88%
88%
88%
Gas
89%
89%
89%
Biomass
75%
75%
75%
Solar
100%
100%
100%
Direct Electricity
100%
100%
100%
Geothermal
100%
100%
100%
Heat Pumps
275%
275%
275%
For electricity this methodology could not be used directly as electricity consumption for heating
purposes is not divided between direct electricity and heat pumps. To divide these, the total heat
demand in the years 2030 and 2050 was aligned with the statistics by adjusting the proportion of
electricity used in direct electric heating and in heat pumps. For 2030, 40% of heat demand from
electricity is provided by direct electric heating and 60% is provided by heat pumps. In 2050, this is 25%
by direct electric heating and 75% from heat pumps. With these assumptions the total heat demand
assumed here is the same as that reported in the statistics.
194
16
ANNEX VIII: DATA INPUT FOR MODELLING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO
The tables in this annex summarises some of the key used when transferring the original Energy
Efficiency scenario into the EnergyPLAN tool. For each piece of data, a value is provided from the
original statistics, a value outlining how this was interpreted to create the reference, and finally the
resulting value from the final EnergyPLAN model created.
195
Total Fuel
CCO2
(excluding fuel for non(Mt)
energy use)
Final Energy Consumption
(excluding electricity & district heating)
Fuel for Electricity & District
Heating for Residential &
Services
Demands
Unit
TWh
Year
Data
Electricity
Plus Additional Losses
Including Electric Heating
Including Electric Cooling
District Heating for Residential & Services
Plus Additional Losses
District Heating for Industry
Plus Additional Losses
Total District Heating Consumption
Total District Heating Production
Power Plants (excl. Waste & Nuclear)
Power Plants Operating in Condensing Mode
CHP Extraction Plants (excl. Waste & Nuclear)
Fuel Consumed in Back Pressure CHP Mode
Centralised Peak Boilers (excl. Waste)
Centralised Heat-Only Boilers (excl. Waste)
Nuclear Power Plants
Hydroelectricity
Intermittent RE: Wind, Solar PV, Wave, Tidal
Fuel Refinery Losses & Energy Industry Own Use*
Industry
Industry CHP & Boilers
Agriculture / Fishing (excluding oil)
Residential
Services
Transport
Jet Fuel
Petrol
Diesel
Agricultural Oil Consumption
Gas
LPG
Electricity
Biofuels
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass/Waste
Renewables
Nuclear
Total
Energy System
Assuming CO2 Captured by CCS
2010 Energy Efficiency Scenario
Statistics
Reference
EnergyPLAN
2,818
3,319
3,319
502
256
256
256
162
162
162
352
352
422
71
321
321
419
98
673
673
673
842
842
841
3,137
3,433
3,447
762
623
621
40
26
134
94
94
2,733
2,733
2,733
349
349
349
166
166
167
*
657
2,158
3,782
889
3,126
80
2,503
3,365
3,365
861
4,487
4,487
601
601
601
1,215
1,215
1,215
2,193
2,377
2,377
184
9
9
9
63
63
63
79
79
79
142
142
142
3,269
3,269
3,262
6,083
6,083
6,078
5,150
5,150
5,135
1,306#
1,305
1,844
612
613
2,733
2,733
2,733
19,080
19,153
19,126
3,757
3,755
3,749
0
0
0
*Based on the difference between final energy consumption and gross inland consumption minus fuel for non-energy use in the EU-EE
statistics.
#
Assuming that biofuels are counted in the primary energy supply and not the biomass required when creating those biofuels. See Annex VII
for an explanation of the difference between the statistics and the reference.
196
CCO2 Total Fuel (excluding
(Mt) fuel for non-energy use)
Final Energy Consumption
(excluding electricity & district heating)
Fuel for
Electricity
Imbalance
Fuel for Electricity & District
Heating for Residential &
Services
Demands
Unit
TWh
Year
Data
Electricity
Plus Additional Losses
Including Electric Heating
Including Electric Cooling
District Heating for Residential & Services
Plus Additional Losses
District Heating for Industry
Plus Additional Losses
Total District Heating Consumption
Total District Heating Production
Power Plants (excl. Waste & Nuclear)
Power Plants Operating in Condensing Mode
CHP Extraction Plants (excl. Waste & Nuclear)
Fuel Consumed in Back Pressure CHP Mode
Centralised Peak Boilers (excl. Waste)
Centralised Heat-Only Boilers (excl. Waste)
Nuclear Power Plants
Hydroelectricity
Intermittent RE: Wind, Solar PV, Wave, Tidal
Annual Balance of Electricity (CEEP)
Pumped Hydroelectric Energy Storage (PHES) Losses
Additional Fuel for Power Plants due to CEEP & PHES Losses
Extra Fuel for Power Plants in EnergyPLAN compared the Reference
Fuel Refinery Losses & Energy Industry Own Use*
Industry
Industry CHP & Boilers
Agriculture / Fishing (excluding oil)
Residential
Services
Transport
Jet Fuel
Petrol
Diesel
Agricultural Oil Consumption
Gas
LPG
Electricity
Biofuels
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass/Waste
Renewables
Nuclear
Total
Energy System
Assuming CO2 Captured by CCS
2030 Energy Efficiency Scenario
Statistics
Reference
EnergyPLAN
3,003
3,444
3,444
442
270
270
270
183
183
183
270
270
337
67
663
663
781
119
933
933
1,203
1,118
1,118
1,118
1,238
1,201
1,238
501
352
501
35
112
103
69
69
1,878
1,878
1,879
373
373
373
1,100
1,100
1,100
24
0
40
4.1
39
-108
*
519
1,904
4,137
1,663
3,621
54
1,743
2,318
2,318
575
4,026
4,026
743
743
743
814
814
814
1,701
1,816
1,816
115
5
5
5
41
41
41
316
316
316
291
291
290
1,531
1,531
1,487
4,498
4,498
4,498
3,901
3,901
3,905
#
1,919
1,851
3,692
1,799
1,799
1,878
1,878
1,879
15,500
15,527
15,419
2,485
2,485
2,462
17
17
17
*Based on the difference between final energy consumption and gross inland consumption minus fuel for non-energy use in the EU-EE
statistics.
#
Assuming that biofuels are counted in the primary energy supply and not the biomass required when creating those biofuels. See Annex VII
for an explanation of the difference between the statistics and the reference.
197
CCO2 Total Fuel (excluding
(Mt) fuel for non-energy use)
Final Energy Consumption
(excluding electricity & district heating)
Fuel for
Electricity
Imbalance
Fuel for Electricity & District
Heating for Residential &
Services
Demands
Unit
TWh
Year
Data
Electricity
Plus Additional Losses
Including Electric Heating
Including Electric Cooling
District Heating for Residential & Services
Plus Additional Losses
District Heating for Industry
Plus Additional Losses
Total District Heating Consumption
Total District Heating Production
Power Plants (excl. Waste, Geothermal & Nuclear)
Fuel Assumed for Power Plants Operating in Condensing Mode
CHP Extraction Plants (excl. Waste, Geothermal, & Nuclear)
Fuel Assumed for CHP Operating in Back Pressure Mode
Centralised Peak Boilers (excl. Waste)
Centralised Heat-Only Boilers (excl. Waste)
Nuclear Power Plants
Hydroelectricity
Intermittent RE: Wind, Solar PV, Wave, Tidal
Annual Balance of Electricity (CEEP)
Pumped Hydroelectric Energy Storage (PHES) Losses
Additional Fuel for Power Plants due to CEEP & PHES Losses
Extra Fuel for Power Plants in EnergyPLAN compared the Reference
Fuel Refinery Losses & Energy Industry Own Use*
Industry
Onsite and Offsite CHP & Boilers for Industrial Heat
Agriculture / Fishing (excluding oil)
Residential
Services
Transport
Jet Fuel
Petrol
Diesel
Agricultural Oil Consumption
Gas
LPG
Electricity
Biofuels
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass/Waste
Renewables
Nuclear
Total
Energy System
Assuming CO2 Captured by CCS
2050 Energy Efficiency Scenario
Statistics
Reference
EnergyPLAN
3,204
4,281
4,281
1,077
281
281
281
163
163
163
159
159
180
21
703
703
793
90
862
862
862
973
973
973
878
1,076
878
327
202
327
10
65
24
14
14
1,700
1,700
1,700
394
394
394
1,875
1,875
1,875
31
0
101
2.0
132
129
*
166
1,208
3,226
1,796
3,068
64
790
1,069
1,069
278
2,679
2,679
2,678
404
404
404
249
249
249
545
562
562
17
0
0
4
4
4
664
664
664
795
795
795
516
516
519
1,378
1,378
1,378
2,416
2,425
2,535
#
2,995
3,001
5,491
2,682
2,682
1,700
1,700
1,700
11,501
11,696
11,816
728
728
728
377
298
323^
*Based on the difference between final energy consumption and gross inland consumption minus fuel for non-energy use in the EU-EE statistics.; #Assuming that
biofuels are counted in the primary energy supply and not the biomass required when creating those biofuels. See Annex VII for an explanation of the difference
between the statistics and the reference.; ^The differences in the total CO2 emissions have een compensated for by assuming less CO2 is captured by CCS plants
(see Annex VII). This does not affect the results since the same amount of CO2 is captured by CCS in all scenarios.
198
17
ANNEX IX: KEY COSTS ASSUMED FOR THE ENERGY SYSTEM ANALYSES
Table 49: Key financial inputs assumed for electricity and heat production plants [45, 47, 62-67].
199
Production Type
Unit
Solar Thermal
Small CHP
Heat Pump Group 2
Heat Storage CHP
Large CHP
Heat Pump Group 3
Heat Storage Solar
Boilers Group 2 & 3
Coal Power Plants
Gas Power Plants
Oil Power Plants
Biomass Power Plants
Wind Onshore
Wind Offshore
Photovoltaic
Wave Power
River Hydro
Hydro Power
Hydro Storage
Hydro Pump
Nuclear
Geothermal
Alkaline Electrolyser
SOEC Electrolyser
Hydrogen Storage
Pump
Turbine
Pump Storage
Individual Solar Thermal
Waste CHP
Absorption Heat Pump
Biogas Plant
Gasification Plant
Biodiesel Plant
Bioethanol Plant
Bio-jetfuel Plant
Tidal
TWh/year
MWe
MWe
GWh
MWe
MWe
GWh
MWth
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
GWh
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
MWe
GWh
MWe
MWe
GWh
TWh/year
TWh/year
MWth
TWh/year
MWgas
MW-Bio
MW-Bio
MW
MWe
Investment
(M€/unit)
440
0.84
2.7
3
0.84
2.7
3
0.15
2.04
0.87
1.455
2.04
(see Table 50)
(see Table 50)
(see Table 50)
4.285
1.9
1.9
7.5
0.6
3
2.63
0.23
0.57
10
0.6
0.6
7.5
671
250.45
1.9
376.5
0.649
0.272
1.920
1.920
3.5
Lifetime
(Years)
20
25
20
20
25
20
20
20
40
25
32.5
40
20
20
30
20
50
50
50
50
25
20
15
20
30
50
50
50
25
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
Fixed O&M
(% of Investment)
0.001%
2.30%
0.20%
0.70%
2.30%
0.20%
0.70%
3.00%
2.80%
3.45%
3.00%
2.80%
2.45%
2.90%
2.04%
3.50%
2.70%
2.70%
1.50%
1.50%
3.74%
3.42%
3.04%
2.46%
0.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
0.80%
1.82%
2.42%
11.25%
9.77%
1.00%
3.32%
3.32%
3.00%
Table 50: Investment costs assumed for wind and photovoltaic plants in 2010, 2030, and 2050 [47].
Investment Costs
(M€/MW)
2010
2030
2050
Onshore Wind
1.4
1.22
1.16
Offshore Wind
2.7
2.2
2
Photovoltaic
2
1.1
0.9
Table 51: Fuel prices assumed [68].
€/GJ
Crude Oil
(US$/bbl)
Natural Gas
Coal
Fuel Oil
Diesel
Petrol/JP1
LPG
Biomass
Nuclear
2011
82
5.9
2.7
8.8
11.7
12.7
13.2
6.8
1.5
2030
106
9.0
3.0
11.7
14.8
15.9
16.8
7.3
1.5
2050
127
10.9
3.2
14.3
17.6
18.6
19.9
8.4
1.5
Table 52: Fuel handling prices assumed [68].
€/GJ
Fuel
Natural Gas
Coal
Fuel Oil
Diesel/Petrol
Jet Fuel
Straw
Wood Chips
Wood Pellets
Energy Crops
Centralised
Power Plants
0.412
0.262
0.262
1.754
1.493
1.493
Table 53: Carbon prices assumed [68].
Year
CO2 Price (€/t)
2011
15.2
2020
28.6
2030
34.6
Projected assuming the same trends as in 2020-2030
200
2040
40.6
2050
46.6
Decentralised Power
Plants & Industry
2.050
1.905
1.216
1.493
0.543
1.493
Consumer
3.146
2.084
0.482
2.713
3.256
Table 54: Carbon dioxide emission factors assumed [61].
201
Fuel
Coal/Peat
Oil
Emission Factor (kg/GJ)
95
73
Natural
Gas
56
18 ANNEX X: ENERGYPLAN OUTPUT SHEETS
202
18.1 EU-EE 2030
203
204
18.2 HRE-EE 2030
205
206
18.3 EU-EE 2050
207
208
18.4
209
HRE-EE 2050
210
19 ANNEX XI: DATA USED TO CREATE ENERGY-SYSTEMS-ANALYSIS FIGURES
Figure 3: Primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions in the Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) and Heat Roadmap Europe (HRE-EE) scenarios for the years
2030 and 2050.
Figure 61: Primary energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
2030
2050
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Nuclear
1,879
1,879
1,700
1,700
Coal
1,487
1,485
519
519
Oil
4,498
4,477
1,378
1,360
Gas
3,905
4,026
2,535
2,612
Biomass
1,643
1,643
2,769
2,769
Waste
208
367
233
486
RES
1,799
1,879
2,682
2,761
Total
Nuclear, Fossil Fuels & Biomass (TWh/year)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions (X, Mt/year)
Electricity Exports (•, TWh/year)
211
15,419
13,412
2,462
40
15,756
13,510
2,480
40
11,816
8,901
728
100
12,208
8,961
739
100
Figure 4: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the Energy Efficiency (EU-EE) and Heat Roadmap
Europe 2 (HRE-EE) scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
Figure 64: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years
2030 and 2050.
Total Costs for Heating and Cooling in the
Residential and Services Sectors (B€/year)
Energy Efficiency Investments
Heating System Investments
Cooling System Investments
Centralised Electricity & Heat Plants
Fuel
CO2
Total
Difference
Difference (%)
212
2030
2050
EU-EE
303
229
19
18
121
19
HRE-EE
133
261
19
40
125
20
EU-EE
303
295
15
21
56
8
HRE-EE
133
336
15
51
57
8
710
597
-113
-15.9%
697
600
-97
-14.0%
Figure 43: Primary energy supply by fuel and the net electricity exports for the EU-EE scenario from the original ‘reference’ projections and the
EnergyPLAN model.
Primary Energy Supply (TWh/year)
Nuclear
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste
RES
Total
Electricity Exports (-, TWh/year)
2010
Reference EnergyPLAN
2,733
2,733
3,269
3,262
6,083
6,078
5,150
5,135
1,119
1,118
187
187
612
613
19,153
-8
19,126
0
Reference
1,878
1,531
4,498
3,901
1,711
208
1,799
15,527
24
Energy Efficiency Scenario
2030
EnergyPLAN
1,879
1,487
4,498
3,905
1,643
208
1,799
15,419
40
2050
Reference
1,700
516
1,378
2,425
2,762
233
2,682
EnergyPLAN
1,700
519
1,378
2,535
2,769
233
2,682
11,696
31
11,816
100
Figure 51: Fuel consumption by individual boilers in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
213
2030
2050
Fuel Demand for Heating Individual
Residential and Services Buildings (TWh/year)
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Solids
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Solar
Electricity
44
502
1,246
316
177
270
42
481
1,194
303
170
292
0
46
394
357
212
281
0
28
239
217
129
337
Total
2,555
2,482
1,289
950
Figure 52: Annual investment and operation costs for heating networks and consumer installations for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the
years 2030 and 2050.
Annual Costs for Heating Networks and
Consumer Installations (B€/year)
Residential
Residential
Services
Services
District Heating Network
Scenario
Year
Individual Units
Central Heating Systems
Individual Units
Central Heating Systems
Total
EU-EE
HRE-EE
2030
90
48
81
8
1
2050
100
55
129
9
1
2030
102
49
81
8
20
2050
121
59
117
10
29
229
295
261
336
Figure 59: Heat demand by fuel for residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050.
214
2030
2050
Heat Demand for Residential and Services
Buildings (TWh/year)
District Heating
Solids
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Solar
Direct Electricity
Heat Pumps
Geothermal
EU-EE
270
31
442
1,109
237
177
168
248
33
HRE-EE
1,043
30
424
1,063
227
170
161
318
42
EU-EE
159
0
40
350
268
212
124
371
60
HRE-EE
1,324
0
24
213
163
129
76
619
101
Total
2,715
3,477
1,584
2,648
Figure 60: District heating production by plant type in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years 2030 and 2050. Note: some of the district
heating is used by absorption heat pumps to provide cooling as discussed in section 5.2.
215
2030
2050
District Heating Supply for Residential and
Services Buildings (TWh/year)
CHP
Boiler
Heat Pumps
Solar
Geothermal
Waste
Industry
EU-EE
158
156
0
0
2
14
7
HRE-EE
446
314
358
50
52
91
57
EU-EE
91
70
0
0
2
10
7
HRE-EE
450
204
520
99
102
162
107
Total
337
1,369
180
1,644
Figure 62: Primary energy supply for heating and cooling in residential and services buildings in the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios for the years
2030 and 2050.
Primary Energy Supply for Heating and
Cooling in Residential and Services Buildings
(TWh/year)
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste
Wind Power
Solar Thermal
Surrounding Heat for HPs
Geothermal for DH
Industry Surplus Heat
Total
2030
2050
EU-EE
HRE-EE
EU-EE
HRE-EE
250
528
1,649
486
0
190
177
179
0
7
248
507
1,770
485
212
227
220
1,631
52
57
59
46
652
533
40
228
212
274
0
7
59
28
729
534
293
291
228
1,802
102
107
3,467
5,411
2,051
4,173
Figure 63: Total annual energy system costs for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in the years 2030 and 2050.
Total Costs (B€/year)
216
2030
2050
Investment
Fuel
Fixed O&M
Variable O&M
CO2
EU-EE
688.0
497.5
54.5
11.5
85.2
HRE-EE
567.1
501.6
57.5
11.8
85.8
EU-EE
827.0
312.6
74.7
11.2
33.9
HRE-EE
723.1
314.6
78.4
11.5
34.4
Total
1,336.7
1,223.7
1,259.4
1,162.0
Figure 66: Total annual costs for heating and cooling in the residential and services sectors for the EU-EE and HRE-EE scenarios in 2050 for
different energy efficiency and district heating cost assumptions. *Represents a scenario with 50% additional energy efficiency costs and 50%
direct energy efficiency costs (see Figure 65). #Assumes that all additional district heating in the EU27 is in areas with a heat density less than 50
TJ/km2. ^Based on forecasted heat densities in the European Heat Atlas (Figure 14).
Total Costs for Heating and
Cooling in the Residential and
Services Sectors (B€/year)
Energy Efficiency Investments
Heating System Investments
Cooling System Investments
Centralised Electricity & Heat
Plants
Fuel
CO2
Total
Difference
Difference (%)
217
Original Scenarios
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Marginal
Additional Efficiency
Efficiency
Costs
Costs
No DH
High DH Expansion
Expansion
Costs#
303
133
295
336
15
15
Sensitivity Analysis
EU-EE
HRE-EE
Direct & Additional Efficiency
Costs*
Direct & Additional Efficiency
Costs*
No DH Expansion
Realistic DH Expansion Costs^
429
295
15
185
330
15
21
51
21
51
56
8
57
8
56
8
57
8
697
600
-97
-14.0%
824
647
-177
-21.5%
20 ANNEX XII: AARHUS CASE STUDY
20.1 PURPOSE WITH THE CASE STUDY
This case study has several purposes. The first is to examine the technical and economic
consequences of supplying a larger urban area with district heating, based on information on the
heat demands, the size of the grid and the supply units in an actual area. The second is to examine
the consequences of reducing the heat consumption of buildings in the area, and the third is to
compare the district heating solution to an individual heat pump solution.
Aarhus was chosen as a good case, because it currently has a large share of district heating, a large
variation in building types, and access to excess heat from waste incineration and industry.
20.2
STRUCTURE OF THE CASE STUDY
The case study is structured as illustrated in Figure 88.
Figure 88: Case study structure.
First, the reference system is described with an emphasis on the boundaries of the study and the
production units in the area. The reference system is used as the basis for the analyses in the case
study. This is followed by a section about the demands in the reference system for both heat and
electricity. The demand section is followed by a section about the implemented savings, which will
have an effect on the design of the supply systems in each scenario. In the following sections, supply
systems are designed for both scenarios. From this, the results in the form of heat and electricity
production, fuel use, and economy will be presented. Finally, the discussion and conclusions are
presented.
20.3 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES AND ENERGY DEMANDS
The geographic boundaries of the case study are defined in Figure 1. The reason for working with
these specific boundaries is that the properties of the district heating network within this area were
218
available, since the grid within this area is operated by one company, the municipality owned district
heating company in Aarhus. There are other areas connected to the Aarhus district heating grid, but
these are excluded from this analysis, since network data is not available for these. The areas used in
the case study represent approximately 82.4% of the heat demand in Aarhus municipality and the
area is around 110 km2.
Figure 89: Geographic boundaries used in the case study.
In the reference, the total heat demand of buildings is 2,323 GWh/year and, by including a 20% grid
heat loss, the final energy consumption is assumed to be 2,904 GWh/year. The heat demand density
in Aarhus is high compared to a large share of the European cities. Figure 90 illustrates the
population density and heat demand density for European cities that are included in the urban
morphological zone dataset [1], which includes cities with more than 17,300 inhabitants. The
information on population and heat demands are from the heat atlas described in chapter 3 of the
main report.
219
Pop density Aarhus
Pop density, cities
Heat demand density
Heat demand density Aarhus
180
160
12,000
140
10,000
120
8,000
100
80
6,000
60
4,000
40
2,000
Heat demand denisty [TJ/km2]
Population density [Inh./km2]
14,000
20
-
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
Cumulative population
400,000,000
Figure 90: Population and heat demand density in European Cities based on [1].
The population density of Aarhus is in the lower end with around 2,000 inhabitants per km2, but the
heat demand density is high with around 70 TJ/km2. Therefore, Aarhus could be seen as a good case
of district heating and the results of the case study should reflect this.
Since the benefits of district heating are mainly related to the use of combined heat and power (CHP)
plants, the electricity demand is included in the case study as well. The electricity consumption of the
area is assumed to be 82.4% of the total electricity demand in Aarhus municipality. The current
demand in the municipality is estimated at 1,700 GWh/year and 82.4% of this is 1,401 GWh/year.
20.4 METHODS
The methods used in the case study consists of two categories; the first is an energy system analysis
made in EnergyPRO [2] and the second is a geographic analysis that applies geographic information
systems with information about heat demands and district heating networks. In short EnergyPRO is a
deterministic model that in this case is used to simulate the case area on an hourly basis, where the
heat and electricity demands are fulfilled according to a fixed operation strategy of the energy
production units within the area. The reason for including an hourly modelling of the case system is
to find the impact from savings on 1) the demand for production capacity 2) the resource use related
to the production. These are further on used to find the annual costs of the different Scenarios.
220
20.5 REFERENCE SYSTEM
The reference system used in this case study is based on the supply system which is expected to be in
place in the year 2016, according to the district heating company in Aarhus [3], see Figure 91.
Figure 91: Reference system design for the Aarhus case study.
The system utilizes a variety of different fuels and production units. As in the major part of larger
district heating systems in Denmark, waste incineration plants are used as base-load plants, in this
case with a heat production capacity of 112 MW in total. Another large producer that operates as
base load is a new straw-fired CHP plant with a heat production capacity of 81.6 MW. In the present
221
system, the largest producer in Aarhus is the Studstrup CHP plant with a heat capacity of 484 MW.
The Studstrup CHP plant currently utilizes coal, but will be rebuilt to run on wood pellets in 2016. To
be able to cover the electricity demand in the summer, a coal-fired power plant unit with an
electrical efficiency of 45% is added. This could be any marginal power plant within the Nordic power
market, but could also be the Studstrup plant operating in condensing mode, when heat production
is not needed. In Figure 92, the monthly fuel consumption of the reference is shown.
800
Fuel consumption (GWh)
700
600
Coal
500
Gas oil
Wood pellets
400
Wood chips
300
Biogas
200
Straw
Municipal waste
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec
Month
Figure 92: Monthly fuel consumption of the reference system for Aarhus.
The fuel consumption is used to supply both the heat and electricity demands within the area. The
demands are described in detail in section 20.7. The monthly fuel consumption in Figure 92 shows
that the municipal waste, straw, biogas and wood chips are utilized as base production. From
September to June, the wood pellet-fired CHP plant is used, while the coal-fired power plant is used
in the summer period when the heat demand is low.
As mentioned in the methods part, the software EnergyPRO is used for all the energy system
analyses in the case study. EnergyPRO is normally used to optimize the operation of decentralised
CHPs according to the electricity markets and demands. However, in this case study, a more simple
operation strategy is chosen in which each production unit has the same priority all year around, not
taking into account, e.g., variations in electricity prices. The priority list is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
222
Industrial excess heat
Kolt
Bånlev
Lisbjerg
New waste incineration
Reno syd 1
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Reno syd 2
New straw CHP
Skanderborg
Studstrup
Peak load
In the reference system, the main priority of these units is to supply the heat demand. The CHP
plants produce electricity and cover parts of the electricity demand, while the remaining electricity
demand is covered by a residual coal power plant with an average electric efficiency of 45%.
Additionally, all the production units have periods in which they are scheduled for maintenance.
Most importantly, the Studstrup CHP plant does not produce heat from the beginning of June to the
end of August.
20.6
THE SCENARIOS IN THE CASE STUDY
In this case study, four different scenarios are used to examine the impacts of implementing large
heat savings and using either district heating or individual heating.
•
•
•
•
Scenario 1: 55% heat savings and district heating
Scenario 2: 55% heat savings and individual heating
Scenario 3: 77% heat savings and district heating
Scenario 4: 77% heat savings and individual heating
The savings in these scenarios are not identical to the savings in the main Heat Road Map Europe
scenarios and cannot be directly compared to these. This is mainly because the scenarios used are
based on the buildings in Aarhus and include reductions in domestic hot water consumption as well.
The district heating scenarios are based on the current production units in Aarhus; however, when
introducing large heat savings, some of the production units are not needed anymore. The supply
systems for each scenario will be described in more detail in section 20.8. In the scenarios with
individual heating, individual heat pumps are added to supply the whole heat demand. Also, all the
current production units in Aarhus are changed in such a way that they only produce electricity and
not all boilers and excess heat are utilized in these cases.
Before going into depth with each scenario, the hourly heat and electricity demands will be
described in the following section.
20.7
HOURLY HEAT AND ELECTRICITY LOADS
The annual heat demand is based on buildings within the geographic boundaries that are currently
connected to district heating, as shown in Figure 89. The total annual heat demand is estimated at
2,322,882 MWh, based on historical measurements from 51,382 heat installations [4]. To find the
heat saving potential of the area, a heat atlas including all buildings in Denmark is applied [5, 6]. In
the heat atlas, 24 building categories with different saving potentials are included. The heat atlas also
includes three scenarios with different levels of heat savings based on a method by the Danish
223
Building Research Institute (SBi) [7]. In this analysis, Scenario A and Scenario C are used. Scenario A
includes average savings of around 55%, while Scenario C includes savings of around 77%. By
applying the saving potential of each building category to the measured data from Aarhus, the
annual demands used in this study are found, see Table 55.
Table 55: Annual heat consumption of the reference and heat saving scenarios
Building type
Farmhouse
Detached house
Terrace house
Block of flats
Hostel
Residential institution
Other dwelling
Agricultural building
Industrial building
Utilities
Other production
Transport
Trade and commerce
Hotel and service
Other trade
Cultural building
School
Hospital
Kindergarten
Other public institutions
Summer house
Tourism
Sports
Other leisure buildings
Grand Total
Reference
1,479
783,841
10,765
822,494
15,090
14,976
1,185
41,368
48,367
3,107
29
4,098
267,514
12,399
2,184
23,851
144,066
69,751
29,670
6,528
68
466
16,815
2,772
2,322,882
Scenarios 1 & 3
746
410,154
5,502
320,436
5,798
6,360
637
17,003
20,199
1,289
12
1,696
115,688
5,094
919
10,645
60,517
30,872
12,310
2,680
36
187
7,996
1,128
1,037,904
Scenarios 2 & 4
382
246,503
3,374
133,145
2,887
3,209
386
6,563
10,106
668
5
791
62,081
2,188
494
5,747
29,158
16,310
6,217
1,184
22
65
4,959
518
536,961
Single-family and multi-storey buildings account for the major part of the heat demand in Aarhus.
Other significant building categories are office, trade and public administration and education and
research. The reason for going into detail with the type of buildings when assessing the heat demand
is that the reduction potential and related costs depend on this information. In general, by
implementing heat savings, the total heat demand in Aarhus can be reduced to 1,038 GWh/year.
Assuming a heat distribution loss of 20% of the final energy consumption, the total heat demand is
1,297 GWh/year for Scenario 1 and 671 GWh/year for Scenario 3.
Implementing heat savings influences the hourly heat load during the year. Since a major part of the
savings is carried out as reductions in space heat demands, the reductions will be implemented
during the hours with the highest space heat demand.
•
224
In the Reference, the hourly heat load distribution is based on the existing demands. In
annual shares of the total demand, 68% is space heat, 12% is domestic hot water and
20% is grid losses.
•
•
•
•
In Scenario 1, the hourly heat load distribution is changed as the demand is reduced. In
terms of annual shares, 60% is space heat, 20% is domestic hot water and 20% is grid
losses.
Scenario 2 is similar to Scenario 1 without grid losses; this gives annual shares of 75% of
space heat and 25% of domestic hot water.
In Scenario 3, the hourly heat load distribution is changed as the demand is reduced. In
terms of annual shares, 49% is space heat, 31% is domestic hot water and 20% is grid
losses.
Scenario 4 is similar to Scenario 3 without grid losses; this gives annual shares of 61% of
space heat and 39% of domestic hot water.
Assuming that the space heat demand is temperature dependent, while domestic hot water and grid
losses are constant during the year, heat load profiles can be identified as shown in Figure 93. In
EnergyPRO, the hourly heat load is created by using a daily variation profile and an outdoor
temperature based on the Danish reference year. The fixed shares do not follow the temperature,
while the shares for space heat do. The fact that the grid loss share is 20% in the Reference, Scenario
1 and Scenario 3 implies that improvements are made in the system when introducing heat savings;
otherwise, the loss would be relatively higher in the two scenarios.
225
Reference
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
1,000
900
Heat demand (MW)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
1,000
Reference
2,000
3,000
Scenario 1
4,000 5,000
Hour of the Year
Scenario 2
6,000
7,000
Scenario 3
8,000
Scenario 4
1,000
900
Heat demand (MW)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
1,000
2,000
3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Hour (descending order)
7,000
8,000
Figure 93: Hourly heat loads for the reference and both scenarios.
Figure 93 shows that the hourly heat load profiles in the two scenarios are very different from the
reference scenario in which the peak loads are reduced significantly. In the Reference, the peak load
is 894 MW, while it is 373 MW and 337 MW in Scenario 1 and 2, respectively. The implementation of
larger heat savings lowers the peak further to 175 MW in Scenario 3 and 156 MW in Scenario 4.
The electricity consumption is reduced by 10% in accordance with the main Heat Road Map Europe
(HRME) scenarios, which gives an annual electricity consumption of 1,260,749 MWh/year in the area.
226
For the hourly electricity load, the distribution of the electricity consumption in Western Denmark in
2011 is used [8]. The demand is found by combining the annual demand with the hourly distribution,
see Figure 94.
2016
2050
Electricity Demand (MW)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Hour of the Year
6,000
7,000
8,000
Figure 94: Hourly electricity load in the years 2016 and 2050.
The electricity demand does not change as much over the year as the heat demand. The electricity
demand is slightly lower in summer with peaks around 200 MW, while the winter peaks are around
250 MW in the 2016 Reference. With a 10% decrease in the annual demand, the 2050 demand load
is lower with peaks around 180 MW in the summer and 230 MW in the winter. Additional to this, and
not included in the figure, is the electricity demand of heat pumps in the scenarios with individual
heating.
20.8 SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN THE FOUR SCENARIOS
With the demands in place, the supply systems for all four scenarios can be designed. In the
scenarios with district heating, the heat savings mainly influence the need for production capacity,
which is generally lower compared to the reference. For the scenarios with individual solutions, the
existing production units only produce electricity, and heat pumps will be added for the heat
production.
As shown in Figure 91, the marginal heat producer in the reference is Studstrup CHP plant. If heat
savings are implemented to the degree proposed in Scenario 1, the needed capacity from the
marginal producer will be much lower than today. With an annual heat demand of 1,297 GWh, the
peak heat demand will be 373 MW. All the existing base-load units combined have a capacity of 334
MW, giving a 39 MW difference between the base-load and the peak-load heat demand. Therefore,
in Scenario 2, the Studstrup CHP is removed and the peak-load boilers will cover the difference.
Apart from this, the supply system in Scenario 1 is the same as in the Reference.
227
In Scenario 2, the heat demand is covered by individual heat pumps. A 50/50 share of ground source
heat pumps and air to water heat pumps is chosen, assuming an average coefficient of performance
(COP) of 2.75 and a lifetime of 20 years based on [9], similar to the figures used for individual heat
pumps in the HRME scenarios. The heat demand does not include distribution heat losses; all the
boiler units have been removed and the heat production from the remaining units is not utilized.
Scenario 3 introduces larger heat savings than in the previous two scenarios. Compared to Scenario
1, the only difference in the supply system is that the new straw CHP is removed.
The supply system in Scenario 4 is almost identical to Scenario 2, the main difference being that the
heat pump capacity is lower. The straw plant is included in this study, since it is only used to supply
electricity and is not influenced by the savings in heat demand to the same extent as in Scenario 3.
20.9 RESULTS OF THE ENERGYPRO SIMULATION
The results of the energy system analysis are presented with a focus on heat and electricity
production and fuel consumption as annual amounts for all scenarios.
20.9.1 Energy production and consumption
The first result is the annual heat production in all scenarios, see Figure 95.
3,500
Individual heat pumps
Peakload boilers
3,000
Heat production (GWh)
Studstrup
2,500
Skanderborg
New straw CHP
2,000
New waste incineration
1,500
Bånlev
Kolt
1,000
Reno Syd 2
Reno Syd 1
500
Lisbjerg
0
Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Industrial waste heat
Figure 95: Annual heat production.
The overall tendency is that the heat demand is reduced for each scenario. Therefore, Scenario 4
ends up with a heat demand around 500 GWh/year, while the reference is 2,900 GWh/year including
grid loss. In Scenario 1, the peak-load boilers cover more than in the Reference, since the Studstrup
CHP is removed. The heat production from the straw CHP is reduced to about half of the figure of the
228
Reference and the new waste incineration is also reduced, but only to a minor extent. In Scenario 3,
this goes even further, as the new straw CHP is removed and the production from the new waste
incineration plant corresponds to half of the production used in the Reference. For Scenario 2 and 4,
the total heat demand is covered by heat pumps; the plants producing electricity for these are
included in Figure 96.
1,800
Electricity production (GWh)
1,600
1,400
Power Plant
1,200
Studstrup
New straw CHP
1,000
New waste incineration
800
Bånlev
600
Kolt
Reno Syd 2
400
Lisbjerg
200
0
Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Figure 96: Annual electricity production.
Figure 96 shows the annual electricity production in all scenarios. The electricity production
decreases from the Reference to the other scenarios. However, in the individual scenarios, the
electricity production is higher due to the added electricity demand from the heat pumps. A general
development from the Reference to all other scenarios is that more power plant capacity is needed
to cover the electricity demand. This is due to the reduced utilization of CHP plants with low heat
demands in the area. In the district heating scenarios, this could to some extent be improved by
using heat storages. However, this has not been analysed in this study. Due to the way in which the
system is modelled, it is possible to use all the straw and waste incineration plants for electricity
production in the individual scenarios. In Figure 97, the fuel consumption for all scenarios is
presented.
229
6,000
Fuel consumption (GWh)
5,000
Gas oil
4,000
Coal
Wood pellets
3,000
Straw
Biogas
2,000
Wood chips
Municipal waste
1,000
0
Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Figure 97: Annual fuel consumption.
The Reference has the highest fuel consumption, mainly due to the much higher heat demand. Apart
from this, both of the district heating scenarios have a lower resource use than the individual
scenarios. Actually, due to the smaller heat demand in Scenario 4, this is the scenario with the lowest
overall fuel consumption. The downside is that a large share of this fuel is coal used by the coal-fired
power plant.
20.10 ECONOMY
In the case study, all costs are annualised to make the data comparable. The economic analysis
includes investments in district heating grids, production units and heat savings, as well as operation
and maintenance costs (O&M) and fuel costs. First, all costs are presented individually and, in section
20.10.4, the annualised costs of all scenarios are compared.
20.10.1
Building renovation
The cost for renovations is presented in Table 56, which shows the long-term marginal costs and the
full short-term costs of renovation for all 24 building categories. The total costs of Scenarios 1 and 3
are identical, and the total costs of Scenarios 2 and 4 are identical. As in the case of the reduction in
heat demand, the costs for renovation are based on the heat atlas. Therefore, the age of buildings in
Aarhus is taken into account, and the marginal costs are not directly comparable to the ones used in
the main HRME scenarios, which use a different model.
230
Table 56: Renovation costs used in the case study [5].
Building type
Farmhouse
Detached house
Terrace house
Block of flats
Hostel
Residential institution
Other dwellings
Agricultural building
Industrial building
Utilities
Other production
Transport
Trade and commerce
Hotel and service
Other trade
Cultural building
School
Hospital
Kindergarten
Other public institutions
Summer house
Tourism
Sports
Other leisure buildings
Total
Marginal cost
Scenarios 1&3
Scenarios 2&4
EUR/kWh
EUR
EUR
1.90
2.21
1.35
1.41
1.31
1.37
2.17
1.46
1.31
1.21
1.35
1.35
1.31
1.40
1.22
1.31
1.35
1.30
1.27
1.38
2.04
1.67
1.28
1.36
1,389,211
826,761,187
7,083,808
706,052,215
12,163,249
11,767,431
1,185,859
35,667,428
36,847,489
2,204,474
23,647
3,236,980
198,474,622
10,257,700
1,545,131
17,356,233
112,749,681
50,426,014
22,087,407
5,301,571
65,782
465,518
11,282,021
2,235,218
2,076,629,875
2,080,471
1,188,790,571
9,955,550
973,750,285
15,998,008
16,142,588
1,730,921
51,178,085
50,228,445
2,967,357
32,696
4,484,797
270,334,376
14,443,872
2,068,895
23,993,584
155,663,794
69,727,515
29,994,344
7,429,841
94,645
670,467
15,252,535
3,095,418
2,910,109,058
The costs for heat savings are quite high; 2 billion EUR in Scenarios 1 and 2, and 2.9 billion EUR in
Scenarios 3 and 4. These investment costs are annualised with a lifetime of 30 years and a discount
rate of 3%, giving an annual cost of 106 million EUR/year and 148 million EUR/year, respectively.
20.10.2
Investments in district heating networks
To determine the investment cost in distribution grids, data on the dimensions and the length of the
pipes in the network are needed.
The length of the transmission grid is in total 98,548 meters. Unfortunately it has not been possible
to acquire detailed data on the dimensions of the transmission grid. The dimension of the pipes are
known to be between 200 mm and 1,200 mm, therefore an average DN700 with a cost of 1,383
EUR/m [10] is used for all of the transmission grid. This gives a total investment cost of 136 million
EUR.
In Table 57, the total length and size of the Aarhus distribution grid is shown.
231
Table 57: Investment cost in distribution network based on [10].
DN
25
32
40
50
65
80
100
125
150
200
250
300
400
500
600
EUR/m
206
243
281
334
376
422
508
600
718
848
907
1,011
1,145
1,317
1,522
sum
Existing system
m
108,287
57,646
223,394
187,469
130,331
77,613
115,652
68,458
84,169
102,233
37,706
48,718
8,769
2,112
1,015
1,253,572
EUR
22,323,695
14,012,477
62,841,248
62,563,644
48,985,838
32,762,803
58,756,724
41,066,697
60,392,482
86,734,784
34,212,097
49,271,653
10,042,533
2,780,752
1,544,372
588,291,797
Reduced demand
m
165,933
223,394
187,469
130,331
77,613
115,652
68,458
84,169
102,233
37,706
48,718
8,769
2,112
1,015
1,253,572
EUR
34,207,694
54,302,029
52,735,384
43,494,982
29,171,478
48,820,227
34,779,903
50,491,422
73,353,744
31,989,895
44,203,810
8,868,812
2,418,600
1,336,238
510,174,217
When implementing heat savings, less heat needs to be transferred. Therefore, the distribution grid
requires less capacity and is downscaled one pipe size. This gives a reduction in total investment cost
from 588 million EUR to 524 million EUR. Again these investment costs are annualised with a lifetime
of 30 years and a discount rate of 3%, giving an annual cost of 30 million EUR/year and 26 million
EUR/year, respectively. The costs of service pipes are based on those displayed in Table 58.
Table 58: Total investment costs (EUR/m) for service pipes; sizes 18-32 are twin flex; sizes 40-200 are
polyurethane (PUR) twin and 250 is PUR single [10].
DN
18
20
22
25
32
40
50
65
80
100
125
150
200
250
232
Materials
22.6
24.1
25.6
30.8
37.3
22.6
29.5
34.9
37.3
58.0
75.7
93.5
142.0
176.3
Pipe work
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.7
21.1
24.7
30.3
33.8
46.2
58.7
73.8
115.0
84.7
Coupler Work
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.4
5.9
5.9
8.9
8.9
21.3
25.4
27.2
27.2
16.0
Field work
142.4
142.4
160.4
167.0
200.7
231.7
273.6
301.8
342.1
382.6
440.0
523.0
564.1
630.3
Sum
169.7
171.2
190.7
202.5
245.1
281.3
333.7
375.9
422.1
508.0
599.9
717.5
848.4
907.3
These costs are combined with the length of each type of pipe within the Aarhus area giving the total
costs in Table 59.
Table 59: Total investment costs for service pipes in the Aarhus area [10].
DN
18
20
22
25
32
40
50
65
80
100
125
150
200
250
Total
m
212,964
288,929
107,137
57,850
6,079
40,689
32,420
24,626
10,911
14,656
4,971
4,597
1,056
5
806,891
Existing system
EUR
36,140,910
49,244,232
20,425,780
11,713,768
1,414,559
11,440,820
10,811,965
9,246,633
4,606,040
7,387,051
2,940,294
3,289,567
896,084
4,837
169,562,540
Reduced Demand
m
268,627
332,686
65,568
1,766
4,455
40,691
32,497
35,317
25
15,084
4,592
5,579
5
806,891
EUR
45,587,152
56,458,126
11,127,098
299,710
756,007
6,905,479
5,514,828
5,993,404
4,269
2,559,816
779,282
946,698
905
136,932,774
This gives a total cost of the existing system of 170 million EUR and in a system with a reduced pipe
diameter 137 million EUR. Again these investment costs are annualised with a lifetime of 30 years
and a discount rate of 3%, giving an annual cost of 8.6 million EUR/year and 7 million EUR/year,
respectively.
Additional to the investment in pipes, investments in pumping stations and heat exchanger stations
are needed, see Table 60. These costs are based on assumed average costs of 1.34 million EUR per
heat exchanger station and 0.67 million EUR per pumping station.
Table 60: Costs of pump and heat exchanger stations
Pumping stations
Heat exchanger stations
Total
Count
31
36
Investment (EUR)
20,833,333
48,387,097
69,220,430
Annual investment (EUR)
1,062,901
2,468,674
3,531,575
The costs of pumps and heat exchangers correspond to a minor part of the annual investment.
20.10.3
Investments in heat pumps
Since the reference system does not include heat pumps, the number of heat pumps will be based on
all the buildings in the area. The cost of investing in heat pumps is based on the information in Table
61.
233
Table 61: Investment cost of heat pumps [9].
Capacity
Investment
O&M (EUR/year)
Ground source heat pumps
0-5 kW
5-10 kW
20,000 EUR
23,000 EUR
135
135
Above 10 kW
1,770 EUR/kW
400
Capacity
Investment
O&M (EUR/year)
Air to water
0-5 kW
10,500 EUR
133
Above 10 kW
1,000 EUR/kW
400
5-10 kW
13,000 EUR
135
Each building is assumed to be supplied by one heat pump: Buildings with a peak capacity below 5
kW use a 5 kW heat pump; buildings with a capacity between 5 kW and 10 kW use a 10kW heat
pump, and buildings above 10 kW use the cost per kW needed. The reason for modelling heat pumps
in this way is that the kW cost decreases as the size of the heat pumps increases. This gives an
investment cost of 858 million EUR for Scenario 2 and 654 million EUR for Scenario 4. Annualising
these costs, with a lifetime of 20 years and a discount rate of 3%, gives annual costs of 58 million EUR
in Scenario 2 and 44 million EUR in scenario 4.
20.10.4
Annualised costs for all scenarios
To compare all of the scenarios, the annualised costs for all scenarios are shown in Figure 98.
350
Annual costs (M€/year)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Heat savings
Studstrup
Power Plant
Individual heat pumps
District heating grid
Peakload boilers
Skanderborg
New straw CHP
New waste incineration
Kolt
Bånlev
Reno Syd 2
Reno Syd 1
Lisbjerg
Industrial waste heat
Figure 98: Annualised costs for all scenarios categorised by type of cost
Scenario 1 has the lowest annualised costs, which is due to the fact that the investment costs of
district heating networks are low in this scenario compared to Scenario 2, which has higher costs for
individual heat pumps and power plant capacity. Scenario 3 has low costs for district heating grids,
234
but has much higher costs related to the implementation of heat savings. In general, the district
heating scenarios have the lowest annualised costs compared to the individual scenarios. However
when implementing large heat savings the individual scenario is close to the district heating scenario
with the same heat savings. In Figure 99, the same results are categorised by fuel, operation and
maintenance and investment costs.
350
Annual costs (M€/year)
300
250
200
Fuel costs
O&M
150
Investment
100
50
0
Reference
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Figure 99: Annualised costs for all scenarios, categorised by fuel, O&M and investment costs
The costs change from high running costs in the Reference to high investments and low running costs
in the Scenarios. Therefore, implementing large heat savings reduces the running costs.
20.11 CONCLUSION
The case study quantifies the energy flows and costs related to establishing an individual or collective
heating supply system in the Danish city of Aarhus. This was done by using GIS data on the existing
supply system, demands and buildings in combination with related cost data. The analyses were
carried out in four scenarios; two district heating and two individual heating scenarios. Another
difference between the scenarios was the extent to which heat savings were implemented, with
either 55% or 77% reductions in the annual building heat demands.
The results show that, with a reduced heat demand, the extent to which CHPs can be used in district
heating areas is reduced, minimizing the benefits of district heating. On the other hand, the
electricity demand is not reduced to the same extent, giving an additional demand of electricity
production capacity in all scenarios. This is especially seen in the individual scenarios in which
compression heat pumps are added to cover the heat demand. The overall fuel consumption is
therefore lower in the two district heating scenarios, with the lowest consumption in Scenario 3 due
to the larger heat reductions. These demand reductions are, however, associated with a higher
investment cost than the reductions in Scenario 1. Therefore, the main result shows that
235
implementing heat savings is feasible to some degree in combination with district heating, but the
benefits achieved by applying Scenario 3 are more costly than Scenario 1. The individual scenarios
are both more costly than the district heating scenarios, due to the large investments in individual
heat pumps and additional electricity production capacity. There is, however, a tendency that, with
large reductions in heat demand, heat pumps become a more attractive solution, but this is still more
costly than the district heating scenarios.
The case study underlines some of the points made in the main Heat Road Map Europe study: 1)
District heating is an attractive solution in areas with a high heat density; 2) District heating can be
seen as an efficiency measure similar to reductions in heat demand, because it enables the use of
fuels in a more efficient way; and 3) Heat reductions in buildings can be combined with district
heating in a way which makes it competitive with individual solutions both in regard to resource use
and costs.
20.12 REFERENCES
European Environment Agency, Urban morphological zones 2006 (UMZ2006), Std., 2006.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/ds_resolveuid/436894aae3bddbca4808488a3b060a3e
[2] EMD International, “Energypro website,” 2011.
[3] AffaldVarme Aarhus, Danish3.0 Plangrundlag for fjernvarmeproduktion i Varmeplan Aarhus,
AffaldVarme Aarhus Std., 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.aarhus.dk/~/media/Subsites/AffaldVarme-Aarhus/Om-AffaldVarme-Aarhus/Bibliotek/Publikationer/Varme/Bilag3-0-Plangrundlag-for-fjernvarmeproduktion.ashx
[4] Consumption data from 8/25/2011, Std., 8 2011.
[5] Möller, “A heat atlas for demand and supply management in Denmark,” Management of
Environmental Quality, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 467–479, 2008, cited By (since 1996): 2.
[6] Dyrelund, H. Lund, B. Möller, and B. V. Mathiesen, “Heat plan denmark, varmeplan danmark
[In danish],” Tech. Rep., 2008.
[7] K. B. Wittchen and J. Kragh, “Heat demand in Danish buildings in 2050,” SBI forlag, Tech.
Rep., 2010.
[8] Energinet.dk, “Market data extract for electricity consumption in western Denmark 2011.”
[9] The Danish Energy Agency, Technology Data For Energy Plants - Individual Heating Plants and
Energy Transport, Std., May 2012.
[10] The Swedish district heating assoiation, Kostnadskatalog 2013 (The district heating pipe cost
catalogue)., Std., 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.svenskfjarrvarme.se/Medlem/Fokusomraden-/Distribution/Distributionssystem/Kostnadskatalog/
[1]
236

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project