Gestaltung der Energiewende: Dezentrale versus zentrale Elemente? - Jahreskonferenz des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes Energiewende - DIW Berlin
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Jahreskonferenz des Leibniz-Forschungsverbundes Energiewende Gestaltung der Energiewende: Dezentrale versus zentrale Elemente? Karsten Neuhoff, 30.06.2016
1 Aufteilung des deutschen Endenergiebedarfs (8700 PJ)
(erneuerbar)
Erneuerbare
Strom (nicht
erneuerbar)
Fernwärme,
Mineralöl
Sonstige
Sonstige
Erdgas
Strom
Kohle
Haushalte
Gewerbe, Handel
und
Dienstleistungen
Bergbau und
Verarbeitendes
Gewerbe
Verkehr
Basierend auf: AG
Energiebilanzen (2016)
2
Karsten Neuhoff, 29.3.2012
2 Make use of renewables to stabilize energy costs
Illustration excludes
system costs
Annuitized
Investment (at 5%)
for wind and solar
generation at scale
to replace fossil fuels
Annual expenditure
CO2 at 30 Euro/t
Domestic fossil fuel
Imported fossil fuel
Similar cost level for serving demand with new wind and solar as with fossil fuel:
- Cost of learning investment in wind and solar dominates debate but is sunk.
DIW Berlin Calculations based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy; Energy Statistics for the EU-28; Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e. V.;
Karsten Neuhoff
IEA; European Wind Energy Association; Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, first published in Energy Journal (forthcoming)
Financing costs increase with (i) country situation (ii) policy design not
3 addressing market imperfection and policy risk
Weighted average cost of
capital for wind reported by
European investors in 2014
Based
4 on DIA-CORE (2016): The impact of risks in renewable energy investments and the role of smart policies Karsten Neuhoff4 Power market and renewable policy needs to focus on risk management
1. Cooperation can
reduce financing cost for
countries.
10% ex-post adjustments,
country risks 2. Policy can reduce
financing cost for wind
8% Sweden
and solar by ensuring
(Certificate Scheme)
long-term stable
4% Germany, revenue revenue streams.
guarantee with feed-in
3. RE benefit from
hedge at times of low
power prices:
Ensure consumers also
benefit at times of high
power prices.
5 Karsten Neuhoff5 Is there a case for continued technology differentiation?
Wind and solar PV Fossil fuel based generation
… and flexibility options …
Capital costs ~ 80% ~ 30%
Main strategic choices New investment decision (Re-)investment and retrofit decision
Location and dimensioning Closure
Fuel contracting
Capacity for government High Low
to decide (homogenous technology, (inhomogeneous assets, large
competition for entry) incumbent players, information
asymmetries)
Other aspects RE trajectory required Government choices politically
- For grid investment contentious
- Supply chain / planning
Strategic choices Policy-driven deployment Private sector determined
(financed on-balance sheet)
6 Neuhoff, Ruester and Schwenen (2016). Power Market Design beyond 2020: Time to Revisit Key Elements? The Energy Journal
Karsten NeuhoffShort-term market design open for all technologies:
6 Time frame and platform
% forecast error wind
2005 40
2006
2007 35
2008 30
25
20
15
10
Hours before real time 5
0
Wind & Can & need to adjust Ensure deep intraday
solar close to real time and real-time markets
+
Coal & Require early and consistent
most gas start-up day-ahead markets
Clearing platforms or auctions are increasingly used in US and Europe
for short-term power markets.
7 Neuhoff, Ritter, Salah-Abou-El-Enien, Vassilopoulos(2016) Intraday Markets for Power: Discretizing the
Continuous Trading?, DIW Discussion Papers, 1544, Karsten Neuhoff
Data from Ignacio de la Fuente, Red Eléctrica de EspañaShort-term market design open for all technologies:
7 Bid format
constraints of conventional assets Multi-part bids can
accomodate all needs
Respect ramping and start-up
Increase temporal granularity to
ensure system balance and use
flexibility of wind and solar
Further dimensions that good market design needs to ensure:
• Effective use of transmission capacity
• System-wide pooling of reserves
8 Neuhoff, Ruester and Schwenen (2016). Power Market Design beyond 2020: Time to Revisit Key Elements? The Energy Journal
Karsten Neuhoff8 Vorteile der Diversifikation durch europäischen EE Ausbau
DEU und PL können Synergien in der Erzeugung bergen.
Es gilt Balance zu treffen zwischen (i) lokaler Erzeugung (Bürgerbeteiligung,
weniger Netze) (ii) besten Standorte (höhere Vollaststunden) (iii) räumliche
Verteilung (Systemvorteile)9 Loop Flows bitte berücksichtigen I
Wenn Realised Schedules DE→AT kleiner als 500 MW (01.2011–12.2012)
Warum ist keine Interkonnektorkapazität zwischen DE und PL verfügbar?
Quelle: Joint study by ČEPS, MAVIR, PSE and SEPS regarding the issue of Unplanned flows in the CEE region in
relation to the common market area Germany – Austria, January 201310 Loop Flows bitte berücksichtigen I Wenn Realised Schedules DE→AT größer als 3000 MW (01.2011–12.2012) Kapazität muss reserviert werden für loop flows und Sicherheitsmargen. Quelle: Joint study by ČEPS, MAVIR, PSE and SEPS regarding the issue of Unplanned flows in the CEE region in 11 to the common market area Germany – Austria, January 2013 relation
11 Die Bedeutung von funktionierenden Strommärkten
Nachbarregionen
Speicher (Management)
Erzeugung mit
- Biomasse Nachfrageanpassung (Tage)
- Gas+CO2 Regionaler - Einsparen (HH)
- Kohle+CO2 Strommarkt - Verschieben (Industrie)
Erzeugung mit Substitution
Wind, Solar, Hydro, ... - Wärmepumpen versus Back-
up Brennstoffe
- Biomasse versus elektrische
Heizung
Nachfrageanpassung (Stunden)
- Elektromobilität
- Verschieben von
Heizen/Kühlen
12DIW Berlin — Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung e.V. Mohrenstraße 58, 10117 Berlin www.diw.de Prof. Karsten Neuhoff, Abteilungskleiter Klimapolitik
You can also read
