THE BALTIC SEA REGION – STORAGE, GRID EXCHANGE AND … · 2017-12-13 · The BSR: Storage, grid exchange and flexible electricity generation for the transition to 100% RE Michael

THE BALTIC SEA REGION – STORAGE, GRID EXCHANGE

AND FLEXIBLE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FOR THE

TRANSITION TO A 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM

Michael Child, Dmitrii Bogdanov and Christian BreyerLappeenranta University of Technology (LUT), Finland

Neo-Carbon Energy Researchers’ Seminar,Decemeber 11-13, 2017, Lappeenranta, Finland

The BSR: Storage, grid exchange and flexible electricity generation for the transition to 100% REMichael Child [email protected]

Highlights

A 100% renewable energy system with energy storage solutionscan provide reliable, sustainable energy services before 2050

A 100% renewable energy system is lower in cost than thecurrent system based on nuclear and fossil fuels

Interconnections between Baltic Sea Region countries canresult in further cost savings

A well-designed 100% renewable energy system with energystorage solutions can provide power system stability in all 8760 hours of the year


Agenda

MotivationMethodology and DataResultsSummary


MotivationIn 2015, the European Commissionestablished the European Energy Union,which highlighted the need for cooperationamong member states to create climatefriendly energy

Several ”natural” regional groupings wereidentified, including the Baltic Sea Region(BSR)

The BSR already shows high shares of REand high further resource potential

The BSR could be amongst the first regionsin Europe to achieve 100% RE

What could the transition pathway to a100% RE power system by 2050 look likefor the BSR?

Total projected installed capacities (net) in 2050 (Areascenario) in the BSR based on 100% RE.

Total estimated installed capacities (net) in 2015 (Areascenario) in the BSR


Agenda



Total Electricity Demand(TWh)

2015 4182020 4332025 4572030 4812035 5052040 5282045 5592050 587

Methodology OverviewEnergy transition pathway from 2015 nuclear and fossil based system to 100% RE by 2050

Transition in 5-year time stepsNo more than 20% growth in absolute RE installed capacity shares compared to totalpower generationNo new nuclear or fossil based thermal power plants installed after 2015Least cost RE power plant mix replaces phased out nuclear and fossil power plantsEnergy system modelled to meet increasing electricity demand for each time step

Research Objective: Find the least cost energy transition pathway for the BSR.

Left: Aggregated load profile for BSRRight: Estimated electricity demand of BSR from 2015 to 2050

Capa

city f

acto

r


Methodology – Modelling ObjectiveDefinition of an optimally structured energy system based on 100% RE supply

optimal set of technologies, best adapted to the availability of the regions’ resources,optimal mix of capacities for all technologies,optimal operation modes for every element of the energy system, least cost energy supply for the given constraints.

Input datahistorical weather data for: solar irradiation, wind speed and hydro precipitationavailable sustainable resources for biomass and geothermal energysynthesized power load datagas and water desalination demandefficiency/ yield characteristics of RE plantsefficiency of energy conversion processescapex, opex, lifetime for all energy resourcesmin and max capacity limits for all RE resourcesnodes and interconnections configuration

LUT Energy model, key featureslinear optimization modelhourly temporal resolution0.45° x 0.45° spatial resolutionmulti-node approachflexibility and expandability


MethodologyBlock diagram of the LUT Energy System Model


Methodology – Scenario assumptionsRegions scenario

no interconnections between regionsArea scenario

regions are connected by HVDC


Methodology - Renewable Resource Potentials

Resource Units Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Lithuania TotalSolar PV GW 1457 194 2026 1522 204 290 294 5987Onshore wind GW 109 14 151 114 15 22 22 447Hydro dams GW 30 0 17 0 0 0 0 47Hydro RoR GW 14 0 8 5 0 1 1 29Waste TWh 1 2 2 3 0.5 0.7 0.8 10Biomass waste TWh 2 1 70 58 6 4 11 152Biomass residues TWh 8 15 48 37 4 8 13 133Biogas TWh 1 28 7 13 0.5 0.5 4 54Biomass total TWh 12 46 127 111 11 13 29 349

Comment on biomass potential:in a full energy system consideration the total biomass potential is also used for heating purposes and for biofuels in the transport sector


Agenda



Results – Capacities and generationRegions scenario Area scenario Key insights:

RE generation already 60% in 2015Increasing relevance of electricityPhase out of coal by 2025 and nuclear plants by 2030Increasing levels of solar PV prosumers and onshore windFossil natural gas replacedover time by sustainablebiogas, biomethane and SNGBioenergy to be used in allenergy sectors


Results – InterconnectionsKey insights:

Current interconnections areapproximately 12 GWSimulation results do notshow significant need for expansion (+1 GW betweenFinland and Estonia)15% of total generation of 587 TWh is traded to other Baltic regions and not consumed in the region of originStrengthening of interconnections betweenEstonia, Latvia and Lithuaniamay also be needed

Area scenarioRegions scenario


Results – StorageRegions scenario Area scenario Key insights:

Storage becomesincreasingly relevant over thetransitionOutput from batteries is mostsignificantPHS maintains a minor roleStorage in hydro dams willalso maintain its highlyrelevant roleOutput from TES, A-CAES and PtG is insignificant in Area scenarioCost of storage higher in Regions scenario


Results – StorageArea scenario

Key insights:Batteries and PHS used for short term and diurnal storageHydro dams and gas storageare used for longer term and seasonal storagePtG, A-CAES and TES play very minor roles in the Area scenario, but are moreimportant in the Regionsscenario


Results – Investments and costRegions scenario Area scenario Key insights:

Decreasing LCOE over timefrom 60 €/MWh in 2015 to 45 €/MWh in Area scenario and 48 €/MWh for Regionsscenario in 2050Decreasing fuel and COcosts over timeLower LCOE in the Area scenario due to lowergeneration, storage and curtailment costs whichcompensate for highertransmission costOther low carbontechnologies (nuclear and fossil CCS) are substantiallymore expensive and risky


Results – CORegions scenario Area scenario Key insights:

Decarbonisation can berapid in the BSRFaster decarbonisation in Area scenario (by 2030) than Regions scenario (by2045)Lower CO costs in the Area scenario over the transition


Agenda



Summary

The BSR can achieve 100% RE by 2050, with average LCOE of 49 €/MWh over the transitionBy 2050 LCOE is 45 €/MWh, and continuously declining from today onwards

The BSR can become the first region in the EU to achieve 100% REalmost complete decarbonisation of power sector by 2035this can serve as a showcase for other member states

Battery storage (possibly in the form of vehicle-to-grid connections of electric vehicles) becomes an important source of system flexibility, especially for prosumersGas infrastructure maintains a strong position in the energy system

Imported NG is gradually replaced by domestic biogas, biomethane and SNGDiverse RE generation and interconnections also contribute to system flexibility and lower overall costsNuclear and fossil fuel plants can be allowed to live out their expected lifetimes

No risk of stranded investments unless societal goals changeThe results present a least cost transition path for the BSR to meet future power demands through a 100% RE system

NEO-CARBON Energy project is one of the Tekes strategy research openingsand the project is carried out in cooperation with Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT Ltd, Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) and University

of Turku, Finland Futures Research Centre.

Thank you for your attention!

@NeoCarbonEnergy

www.neocarbonenergy.fi

FURTHER INFORMATION


Results – 100% RES is possible

2015

2050

Main insightsHigh losses of the current system dimish for 100% RESFossil-nuclear substituted mainly by wind, solar PV, bioenergy

Regionsscenario


Barriers and Solutions to 100% RESBarriers Possible solutionsTechnological barriers:

Lack of energy storage solutionsInefficiency

Lessons to be learned from solutions available in Germany, R&D allocated to storage solutions, electrification of transport and use of EV batteries may offer significant potential for storageReduce transmission and distribution losses, improve access for small-scale producers, reduce inefficiencies in production as RE generation replaces older nuclear and fossil plants

Economical barriers:CompetitivenessA need for new kinds of electricity markets and rulesInefficient markets for storage systemsSupport and high subsidies for conventional energy systemCurrent dominance by large monopolies and oligopolies

Solar PV has already reached grid parity in some market segments and will become more competitive on in the futureStorage solutions are available at least in Germany – a need to import solutionsIdeally there should be no support systems in the long run distorting marketsSubsidies for harmful emissions of conventional energy production need to be eliminatedFeed-in tariff, net metering and privileged grid access in the begining for renewablesCreating a fair, low risk investment landscape is essential to ensure future growth


Barriers and Solutions to 100% RESBarriers Possible solutionsInstitutional and political barriers:

Fossil fuels lobbyingVested interestsPath dependency and technological lock-inIncumbent electricity companiesLack of support policyLack of powerful advocacy coalitionsFailure to overcome existing subsidiesMisleading energy scenarios (e.g. Nordic Energy Technology Perspectives 2016)

No new investments in nuclear or fossil plantsMaintain and expand gas infrastructureOnly need to switch fuel from NG to biogasA possibility to build a more distributed energy regimeNew business models arising, but more neededIncentives for wide range of efficiency improvementsSome support policy for renewables and storage seems to be needed in the beginning (to balance subsidies for fossil-nuclear)Feed-in tariff law should be based on German model and non-tendering models (more players and lower cost of capital)Promote more solar, wind and bioenergy energy advocacyDevelop more sustainable and resilient energy scenarios

Behavioral barriers:General attitudesPsychological resistancePolitical will

Promote greater public awareness of renewable energy and energy efficiencyProvide more information and practical examples of successful installationsMaintain strong political will for change, fairness, sustainability andenergy independenceFurther develop education and training programs at universities and vocational schools


DataPower Plant Capacities – Technical and Financial Assumptions

Capex variation based on learning curves Least cost power plant capacities based on

CostEfficiency of generation and storagePower to energy ratio of storage Available resource

Wind onshore has up to 3691 full load hours (FLH)PV single-axis has up to 1288 FLH WACC is set to 7% for all years Variation in capex from 2015 – 2050 for all power plant components

utilised by model. Detailed capex, fixed opex, efficiency and power toenergy ratio numbers are presented at end of slide set


DataArea information

Technology 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Area (km²) 1 330 453Population (Millions) 32.324 32.984 33.598 34.124 34.540 34.903 35.279 35.687Electricity demand (TWh) 418.9 432.7 456.6 480.5 505.1 527.9 558.7 587.3

Residential electricity price (€/kWh)Norway 0.159 0.184 0.214 0.248 0.266 0.280 0.280 0.293Denmark 0.264 0.278 0.292 0.306 0.322 0.339 0.339 0.356Sweden 0.167 0.194 0.224 0.260 0.273 0.287 0.287 0.302Finland 0.129 0.150 0.174 0.202 0.234 0.261 0.261 0.274Baltics 0.108 0.134 0.159 0.187 0.218 0.251 0.251 0.270

Commercial electricity price (€/kWh)Norway 0.118 0.141 0.170 0.198 0.219 0.239 0.262 0.285Denmark 0.189 0.208 0.226 0.246 0.269 0.295 0.312 0.328Sweden 0.118 0.140 0.168 0.198 0.216 0.235 0.257 0.282Finland 0.092 0.110 0.131 0.157 0.186 0.210 0.230 0.252Baltics 0.089 0.113 0.138 0.166 0.194 0.225 0.250 0.269

Industrial electricity price (€/kWh)Norway 0.077 0.098 0.125 0.148 0.172 0.199 0.231 0.262Denmark 0.113 0.139 0.161 0.186 0.216 0.251 0.269 0.282Sweden 0.068 0.087 0.111 0.136 0.158 0.183 0.212 0.246Finland 0.054 0.069 0.088 0.113 0.138 0.160 0.186 0.215Baltics 0.070 0.091 0.117 0.145 0.170 0.199 0.231 0.253


DataLower and Upper Capacity Limits

NL – No upper limit specified for technologies, butresource availability will limit capacity development * – Not utilized for BSR

Upper and Lower Capacity Limits - Renewables (inflexible)PV optimal

tiltPV 1-axis tracking

Wind Onshore Wind Offshore

Run-of-River Hydro Hydro Dam CSP

Region / Unit MW MW MW MW MW MW MWNorway 13-1457109 0-1457109 1280-108797 2-100000 9191-13787 20116-30174 0-2914218

Denmark 655-193923 0-193923 3993-14480 1271-100000 9-13 0-0 0-387846Sweden 72-2026327 0-2026327 7651-151299 212-100000 5336-8004 11496-17244 0-4052655Finland 19-1521652 0-1521652 1151-113617 226-100000 3434-5152 0-0 0-3043305Baltic 76-788026 0-788026 613-58839 0-100000 1119-1678 70-105 0-1576053

Upper and Lower Capacity Limits - Renewables (flexible)Biogas Biomass Waste Geothermal Ocean

Region / Unit MW MW MW MW MWNorway 15-NL 151-NL 67-NL 0-NL 0-NL*Denmark 83-NL 1395-NL 249-NL 0-NL 0-NL*Sweden 46-NL 3788-NL 1440-NL 0-NL 0-NL*Finland 84-NL 2578-NL 1104-NL 0-NL 0-NL*Baltic 7-NL 157-NL 37-NL 0-NL 0-NL*


DataLower and Upper Capacity Limits

NL – No upper limit specified

Upper and Lower Capacity Limits – Non-renewables

Coal Oil Natural gas NuclearRegion MW MW MW MW

Norway 0-NL 0-NL 1235-NL 0-NL

Denmark 3615-NL 818-NL 2626-NL 0-NL

Sweden 492-NL 3229-NL 1183-NL 9470-NL

Finland 3497-NL 1652-NL 1789-NL 2752-NL

Baltic 0-NL 2899-NL 4361-NL 0-NL

Upper and Lower Capacity Limits – Storage

Pumped hydro storage Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage Batteries

Region MWh MWh MWhNorway 10754-21509 0-3832901 0-NLDenmark 0-0 0-495137 0-NLSweden 668-1336 0-7970045 0-NLFinland 0-0 0-5472468 0-NLBaltic 9000-18000 0-136228 0-NL


Cost assumptions

95 %

Technology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Steam turbine(CSP)

Capex €/kWe 760 740 720 700 670 640 615 600Opex fixed €/kWe 15.2 14.8 14.4 14 13.4 12.8 12.3 12

Lifetime Years 25 25 25 25 30 30 30 30Efficiency % 42 % 42 % 42 % 43 % 44 % 44 % 45 % 45 %

Water electrolysis Capex €/kW_H 800 685 500 363 325 296 267 248Opex fixed €/kW_H 32 27 20 12.7 11.4 10.4 9.4 8.7

Opex variable €/kWh_H 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Efficiency % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 %Hot Heat Burner Capex €/kWe 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Opex fixed €/kWe 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Efficiency % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 % 95 %


Cost assumptionsTechnology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050CAES Capex €/kWe 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900


Efficiency % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 %CCGT PP Capex €/kWe 775 775 775 775 775 775 775 775

Opex fixed €/kWe 19.375 19.375 19.375 19.375 19.375 19.375 19.375 19.375Opex variable €/kWhe 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002


OCGT PP Capex €/kWe 475 475 475 475 475 475 475 475Opex fixed €/kWe 9.5 9.5 9.5 14.25 14.25 14.25 14.25 14.25

Opex variable €/kWhe 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004Lifetime Years 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

Efficiency % 43 % 43 % 43 % 43 % 43 % 43 % 43 % 43 %


Cost assumptionsTechnology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Oil PP Capex €/kWe 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500Opex fixed €/kWe 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


Coal PP Capex €/kWe 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500Opex fixed €/kWe 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20


Efficiency % 39 % 39 % 39 % 39 % 39 % 39 % 39 % 39 %Nuclear PP Capex €/kWe 6210 6003 6003 5658 5658 5244 5244 5175

Opex fixed €/kWe 162 157 157 137 137 116 116 109Opex variable €/kWhe 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025


MSW PP Capex €/kWe 5940 5630 5440 5240 5030 4870 4690 4540Opex fixed €/kWe 267.3 253.35 244.8 235.8 226.35 219.15 211.05 204.3


Efficiency % 34 % 34 % 34 % 34 % 34 % 34 % 34 % 34 %


Cost assumptionsTechnology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Biomass PP Capex €/kWe 2755 2620 2475 2330 2195 2060 1945 1830

Opex fixed €/kWe 55.4 47.2 44.6 41.9 39.5 37.1 35 32.9Opex variable €/kWhe 0.0037 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038 0.0038


Methanation Capex €/kW_SNG 492 421 310 278 247 226 204 190Opex fixed €/kW_SNG 19.7 16.8 12.4 11.1 9.9 9 8.2 7.6

Opex variable €/kWh_SNG 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Efficiency % 77 % 77 % 77 % 77 % 77 % 77 % 77 % 77 %



BHKW Biogas Capex €/kWe 503 429 400 370 340 326 311 296Opex fixed €/kWe 20.1 17.2 16.0 14.8 13.6 13.0 12.4 11.8


Efficiency % 33 % 34 % 37 % 40 % 42 % 44 % 44 % 45 %CO direct air

captureCapex €/t_CO *a 480 411 301 228 201 183 165 154

Opex fixed €/t_CO *a 19.2 16.4 12.0 9.1 8.0 7.3 6.6 6.1Opex variable €/t_CO 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2

Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30Concentrated Solar Receiver

Capex €/kWth 547.8 427.8 369.2 326.9 304 283.6 265.4 249.5Opex fixed €/kWth 12.6 9.8 8.5 7.5 7 6.5 6.1 5.7

Lifetime Years 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25



Biogas Digester Capex €/kWe 771 731 706 680 653 632 609 589Opex fixed €/kWe 30.8 29.2 28.2 27.2 26.1 25.3 24.3 23.6


Biogas Upgrade Capex €/kWe 340 290 270 250 230 220 210 200Opex fixed €/kWe 27.2 23.2 21.6 20 18.4 17.6 16.8 16


Geothermal PP Capex €/kWe 5250 4970 4720 4470 4245 4020 3815 3610Opex fixed €/kWe 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0




Solar PV 0-axis Capex €/kWe 1000 580 466 390 337 300 270 246Opex fixed €/kWe 15 13.2 11.8 10.6 9.6 8.8 8.0 7.4

Lifetime Years 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40Solar PV 1-axis

trackingCapex €/kWe 1150 638 513 429 371 330 297 271

Opex fixed €/kWe 17.3 15.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0Lifetime Years 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40

Solar PV Rooftop -Residential

Capex €/kWe 1360 1169 966 826 725 650 589 537Opex fixed €/kWe 20 17,6 15,7 14,2 12,8 11,7 10,7 9,8

Lifetime Years 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40Solar PV Rooftop -

CommercialCapex €/kWe 1360 907 737 623 542 484 437 397

Opex fixed €/kWe 20 17,6 15,7 14,2 12,8 11,7 10,7 9,8Lifetime Years 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40

Solar PV Rooftop -Industrial

Capex €/kWe 1360 682 548 459 397 353 318 289Opex fixed €/kWe 20 17,6 15,7 14,2 12,8 11,7 10,7 9,8

Lifetime Years 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40



Wind Onshore Capex €/kWe 1250 1150 1060 1000 965 940 915 900Opex fixed €/kWe 25 23 21 20 19 19 18 18

Lifetime Years 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25Wind Offshore Capex €/kWe 3220 2880 2700 2580 2460 2380 2320 2280


Hydropower –Dam water influx

Capex €/kWe 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650Opex fixed €/kWe 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5


Efficiency % 90 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 90 %Hydropower –run-of-the-river

Capex €/kWe 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560 2560Opex fixed €/kWe 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8



Cost assumptions - StorageTechnology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Li-ion stationarybatteries

Capex €/kWhe 600 300 200 150 120 100 85 75Opex fixed €/kWhe 24 9 5 3.75 3 2.5 2.125 1.875


Efficiency in % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 %Efficiency out % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 % 96 %Energy/Power h 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Pumped Hydro storage

Capex €/kWhe 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70Opex fixed €/kWhe 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11


Efficiency in % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 %Efficiency out % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 % 92 %Energy/Power h 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Adiabatic Compressed Air Energy Storage

Capex €/kWhe 35.0 35.0 33.0 31.1 30.4 29.8 28.0 26.3Opex fixed €/kWhe 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.36 0.34


Efficiency in % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 %Efficiency out % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 % 84 %Self-discharge % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 %

Energy/Power h 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Cost assumptions - StorageTechnology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Compressed Air Storage

Capex €/kWhe 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5Opex fixed €/kWhe 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

Lifetime Years 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50Energy/Power h 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Gas storage Capex €/kWhgas 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Opex fixed €/kWhgas 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Lifetime Years 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Technology Cost category Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Methane Storage Capex €/kWhgas 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Opex fixed €/kWhgas 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Lifetime Years 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Liquid Fuel Storage

Capex €/kWhth 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Opex fixed €/kWhth 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30Solid Fuel Storage Capex €/kWhth 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Opex fixed €/kWhth 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Lifetime Years 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


Cost assumptions - FuelsFuel Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Crude oil USD/bbl 97 77 87 97 96 95 95 95Crude oil €/MWh 52.5 35.2 39.8 44.4 43.9 43.5 43.5 43.5

Natural Gas €/MWh 21.8 22.2 30 32.7 36.1 40.2 40.2 40.2Biomethane €/MWh 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72Coal - Hard €/MWh 7.7 7.7 8.4 9.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 11.1

Coal - Lignite €/MWh 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5Uranium €/MWh 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Solid waste - Biomass €/MWh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CO2 €/ton 9 28 52 61 68 75 100 150

Fuel Unit 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Solid waste -MSW

Norway €/MWh 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Denmark €/MWh 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Sweden €/MWh 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Finland €/MWh 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3Baltics €/MWh 17.5 19.7 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3

Solidresidues

Norway €/MWh 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2Denmark €/MWh 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1Sweden €/MWh 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Finland €/MWh 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3Baltics €/MWh 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3

Documents

THE BALTIC SEA REGION – STORAGE, GRID EXCHANGE AND … · 2017-12-13 · The BSR: Storage, grid exchange and flexible electricity generation for the transition to 100% RE Michael