The Southeast European power system in 2030 - ANALYSIS Flexibility challenges and benefits from regional integration
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Southeast European
power system in 2030
Flexibility challenges and benefits from regional integration
ANALYSIS
Supported by:
based on a decision of the German BundestagThe Southeast Euro-
pean power system
in 2030
IMPRINT
ANALYSIS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Southeast European power system in 2030: The analysis “The Southeast European power
Flexibility challenges and benefits from regional system in 2030: Flexibility challenges and ben-
integration efits from regional integration” was performed
within the projects “South East Europe Energy
STUDY BY Transition Dialogue" and "Western Balkans
REKK Foundation for Regional Policy Cooperation Energy Transition Dialogue". "South East Europe
in Energy and Infrastructure Energy Transition Dialogue" is part of the Euro-
Mányoki út 14. I.em.4/a | 1118 Budapest | Hungary pean Climate Initiative (EUKI). EUKI is a project
financing instrument by the German Federal Min-
IN COOPERATION WITH istry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
Energy Economics Group (EEG), and Nuclear Safety (BMU). The EUKI competition
Institute of Energy Systems and Electric Drives for project ideas is implemented by the Deutsche
TU Wien - Technische Universität Wien Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Gusshausstrasse 25/370-3 | 1040 Vienna | Austria (GIZ) GmbH. It is the overarching goal of the EUKI
to foster climate cooperation within the Europe-
COMMISSIONED BY an Union (EU) in order to mitigate greenhouse
Agora Energiewende gas emissions. "Western Balkans Energy Transi-
Anna-Louisa-Karsch-Straße 2 tion Dialogue" is funded by the Austrian Federal
10178 Berlin | Germany Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism (BMNT).
PROJECT LEAD The modelling was funded by the European
Christian Redl Climate Foundation (ECF).
christian.redl@agora-energiewende.de
The opinions put forward in this publication are
Sonja Risteska the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do
sonja.risteska@agora-energiewende.de not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conserva-
AUTHORS tion and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Austrian
László Szabó, András Mezősi, Enikő Kácsor, Federal Ministry of Sustainability and Tourism.
Péter Kotek, Adrienn Selei, László Paizs (REKK)
Gustav Resch (TU WIEN)
Proofreading: WordSolid, Berlin Please quote as:
Layout: UKEX GRAPHIC REKK Foundation (2019): The Southeast European
Cover image: iStock.com/JoKMedia power system in 2030: Flexibility challenges and
benefits from regional integration.
154/03-A-2019/EN Analysis on behalf of Agora Energiewende.
Publication: May 2019 / Version 1.2 www.agora-energiewende.dePreface
Dear Reader, have to cope with this variable generation by becom-
ing much more flexible. Moreover, in order to ensure
Energy systems in Europe are undergoing a funda- security of supply at the lowest possible cost, stronger
mental transformation. As fossil fuels are increas- physical integration of power systems and regional
ingly phased out, renewables and energy efficiency cooperation will be key.
will become the backbones of the new energy system.
As early as 2030, 55% of the electricity being gener- To better understand the issues at stake, we have
ated in Europe will come from renewables. commissioned experts from REKK to examine poten-
tial developments up to 2030 in SEE: What kinds
While this transition will help to mitigate global of flexibility requirements arise from the projected
warming, it also makes economic sense. The cost of growth of wind and PV? To what extent can further
wind power and solar PV has dropped significantly in power market integration within SEE and beyond
recent decades, and further cost reductions are antic- help to meet this challenge? And will power systems
ipated. Power systems in Southeast Europe (SEE), still possess sufficient reserve margins to guarantee
being largely dependent on lignite-fired electricity, security of supply in critical situations?
will also undergo dramatic change. By 2030, renewa- I hope you find this study an inspiring and enjoyable
bles will be responsible for some 50% of power output read. Your comments are of course welcome.
in SEE, with wind and solar accounting for two-
thirds of this generation. Yours sincerely,
As wind and solar are weather-dependent, their pro- Patrick Graichen
duction patterns are variable. Power systems will Executive Director of Agora Energiewende
Key findings at a glance:
Renewables will provide 50% of SEE power demand in 2030. The European energy transition is underway. By
2030, renewables will account for 55% of power generation in Europe, and 50% of power generation in SEE.
1 Nearly 70% of renewable power in SEE will stem from wind and solar, given the excellent resource potential of
these renewables in the region.
Cross-border power system integration will minimise flexibility needs. Wind and solar pose challenges for power
systems due to their variable generation. But weather patterns differ across countries. For example, wind
generation can fluctuate from one hour to the next by up to 47% in Romania, whereas the comparable figure
2 for Europe is just 6%. Moving from national to regional balancing substantially lowers national flexibility needs.
Increased cross-border interconnections and regional cooperation are thus essential for integrating higher levels
of wind and PV generation.
Conventional power plants will need to operate in a flexible manner. For economic reasons, hard coal and lignite
will provide less than 25% of SEE power demand by 2030. Accordingly, conventional power plants will need to
flexibly mirror renewables generation: When renewables output is high, conventionals produce less, and when
3 renewables output is low, fossil power plants increase production. Flexible operations will become an important
aspect of power plant business models.
Security of supply in SEE power systems with 50% RES is ensured by a mix of conventional power plants and
cross-border cooperation. The available reserve capacity margin in SEE will remain above 35% in 2030. More
4 interconnectors, market integration and regional cooperation will be key factors for maximising national security
of supply and minimising power system costs. SEE can be an important player in European power markets by
providing flexibility services to CEE in years of high hydro availability.
3Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030 4
Content
Executive Summary 7
The SEE power system in 2030: Renewables as the main generation source 7
Regional integration helps avoid RES curtailment and enables
geographical smoothing of vRES 8
Renewables generation and its consequences for
conventional power plants 9
Security of supply: Sufficient reserve margins in SEE for a RES-E share of 50% 10
Security of supply: Peak demand can be met in the winter season 12
Security of supply: Sensitivity of varying weather conditions and
interconnector capacities 13
Conclusions: Pathways for robust RES deployment and security of supply in SEE 15
Introduction 17
The modelling approach 19
Supply side representation in the model 20
Demand-side representation in the model 20
Transmission grid representation 21
Calibration of the model and input data 21
Yearly electricity mix in SEE 23
The SEE power system in 2030 23
Impact of RES on conventional power plants: Start-ups and utilization rates 24
Transmission grid constraints and RES curtailment 25
Security of supply: Available reserve capacities 28
Security of supply: Assessment of critical weeks 31
Sensitivity analyses:
The impacts of different weather regimes and interconnection levels 43
Conclusions: Pathways for robust RES deployment and security of supply 49
References51
ANNEX53
5Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030 6
ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Executive Summary
This report takes a deeper look at the future of re- The SEE power system in 2030: Renewa-
gional market integration for power systems with bles as the main generation source
high shares of wind and solar in Southeast Europe
(SEE). Because these technologies vary in output In view of the recently adopted EU 2030 targets for
depending on the weather, they bring an increased climate and energy, all European power systems
need for flexibility services in the power system. are about to embark on a major transition. By 2030,
Further integration of European power markets is a an average of 57% of electricity in Europe’s power
crucial enabler of flexibility. grids will come from renewable energy sources1. For
Southeast Europe (SEE), this means a RES-E share
This report assesses in detail the following ques- of 50% in 2030 (see Figure ES 1).2 A factor accelerat-
tions: What kinds of flexibility requirements arise
from the projected growth of wind and PV in SEE? To 1 See Agora Energiewende (2019): European Energy Tran-
what extent can further power market integration sition 2030: The Big Picture. Ten Priorities for the next
European Commission to meet the EU’s 2030 targets and
within SEE and beyond help meet those require-
accelerate towards 2050.
ments? Do power systems possess sufficient reserve
2 In line with the overall European energy targets, the
margins to guarantee security of supply in critical
recent SEERMAP project has demonstrated that the
situations?
deployment of renewable capacity in the EU SEE and
Western Balkans is not only feasible but also has several
advantages over fossil fuel-based investment. See http://
rekk.hu/analysis-details/238/south_east_europe_elec-
tricity_roadmap_-_seermap for more details.
Generation mix in SEE in 2030 Figure ES 1
Nuclear
Coal and lignite
Gas
Hydro
Wind
Biomass
PV
Other RES
SEERMAP Decarbonization Scenario; REKK (2017)
7Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
ing this transition is that roughly 50% of the region’s Regional integration helps avoid RES
existing coal and lignite generation capacity will curtailment and enables geographical
need replacement by 2030 due to age and noncom- smoothing of vRES
pliance with emission standards.
Based on our modelling, curtailment will not exceed
Solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power – driven by 500 GWh a year in 2030,3 and it will remain zero in
significant cost reductions – will contribute to more the SEE region. The main reasons for the low level
than half of the RES-E production in Europe in 2030. of vRES curtailment are the availability of hydro
For SEE, wind and PV will contribute some 65% to resources in the region that can satisfy flexibility
RES-E generation. Because wind and solar depend needs in the power system, the availability of inter-
on weather, future power systems will have funda- connectors offering flexibility potential through im-
mentally different generation patterns from those ports and exports and a low correlation between RES
observed today, significantly increasing the need for feed-in across borders.
flexibility in the non-intermittent part of the power
system. Regional cooperation and cross-border We observe a very different cross-country pattern in
power system integration offer important ways for- wind generation easing vRES system integration. In
ward in meeting future flexibility requirements.
3 This corresponds to 0.014% of European power demand.
Time series of onshore wind power generation in a simulation for the first week
of 2030 at different levels of aggregation Figure ES 2
60%
Actual wind generation/installed capacity [% ]
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 25 49 73 97 121 145 169
Hours
RO SEE Europe
REKK
8ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
the SEE region, wind speeds show weak correlation, one hour to the next is 47%, while the European-wide
ranging from 11% to 46%.4 These fairly low correla- maximum change is only 6%.
tions suggest that wind generation would not peak at
the same time within the region; rather, it would be
dispersed over time and across the countries in the Renewables generation and its
region. It also suggests that the region would follow a consequences for conventional
different wind generation pattern from northern Eu- power plants
ropean countries, which means that wind production
would not peak at the same time in the wider Euro- Both in Europe and in the SEE region, the 2030 sce-
pean region (see Figure ES 2).5 For example, in Roma- nario shows a more flexible utilization of power
nia the maximum change of wind generation from plants based on an increase in the number of start-
ups per unit. This is a consequence of a lower uti-
lization of conventional power plants due to the
4 This confirms earlier research testing the correlation increased generation of variable RES and the dete-
of wind power feed-in between the countries of the riorating economic performance of coal and lignite
Pentalateral Energy Forum (Austrian, Belgium, France,
plants. Climbing fossil-fuel costs, carbon prices and
Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland)
where correlation coefficients ranged from 24% (Austria increasing investment costs place fossil-fuel-fired
and Belgium) to 66% (Luxembourg and Belgiun). For more plants at the end of the merit order curve, resulting
details, see Fraunhofer IWES (2015): The European Power in a lower number of operation hours. This impact is
System in 2030: Flexibility Challenges and Integration further amplified by the growing production of ze-
Benefits. An Analysis with a Focus on the Pentalateral
ro-cost PV and wind generation, which on account
Energy Forum Region. Analysis on behalf of Agora Ener-
giewende. of the “merit order effect” will supplant more and
more fossil fuel plants from the pool of generators.
5 For example, Grams C. et. al. (2017) find that balancing
future wind capacity across regions – deploying slightly Even though the number of start-ups will increase,
more capacity in the Balkans than at the North Sea, say – by 2030 the total start-up costs as a share of variable
would eliminate most wind production output variations, generation costs will only amount to 1% in both the
better maintain average generation and increase fleet- EU and in SEE (see Table ES 1).
wide minimum output. See Grams et al (2017): Balancing
Europe’s Wind-Power output through Spatial Deploy-
ment Informed by Weather Regimes. Nature Climate
Change.
Fossil fuel-based dispatchable power plants and the cost of start-ups in 2017 and 2030. Table ES 1
Number of Total vari-
Number Number of Total start-up Start-up costs/
start-ups able costs,
of units start-ups costs, m€ total costs
per unit m€
2017 2202 14365 6.5 70636 721 1.02%
Europe
2030 1522 13245 8.7 77664 906 1.17%
2017 167 441 2.6 4443 24 0.54%
SEE
2030 89 798 9.0 5824 60 1.04%
REKK
9Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Utilization rates for different power plant technologies, 2017 and 2030. Table ES 2
SEE Europe
2017 2030 Change 2017 2030 Change
Nuclear 84.8% 85.2% 0.3% 79.2% 81.0% 1.7%
Natural gas 7.5% 39.9% 32.4% 27.0% 31.2% 4.1%
Utilization Hard coal 20.2% 33.8% 13.5% 36.2% 46.1% 9.9%
rate Lignite 77.6% 63.3% -14.4% 80.4% 68.4% -12.0%
HFO 0.1% 1.3% 1.2% 4.5% 0.9% -3.7%
LFO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 0.5% -6.8%
REKK
At the same time, the utilization rates of the differ- Security of supply: Sufficient reserve
ent types of power plants will have changed signif- margins in SEE for a RES-E share of 50%
icantly by 2030, with the utilization of natural gas
plants climbing to 40% from 7.5% in 2017 and the The amount of available upward reserve capaci-
utilization of hard coal-fired plants growing from ties in 2030, though lower than in 2017, will not fall
20% to 34% in the SEE region. The utilization of lig- below 5 GW in 2030 (12% of the regional peak load).
nite-fuelled plants is projected to fall in Europe and These reserve capacities can step in if demand un-
in the SEE region, down from 81% to around 68%, expectedly rises in real-time or if generation unex-
due to deteriorating economic performance and re- pectedly drops in real-time (e.g. due to a power plant
duced operating hours (see Table ES 2). outage or lower than forecasted RES generation).
In the vast majority of hours, upward reserve ca-
The most important change between 2017 and 2030 pacities will not drop below 20 GW in 2030. Gen-
is that more and more power plants will be operated in eral evaluation criteria indicate that a minimum of
“peak load” mode: natural gas power plants with low 5–10% of consumption is needed for upward reserve
yearly average utilization rates and a high number of capacity to guarantee security of supply. By these
start-ups (up to 35 times/year). For comparison, the lights, the SEE region will have a sufficient level of
highest number of modelled start-ups for a given unit supply security in 2030.
in 2017 was less than 20 in SEE. By 2030 more than
half of the gas-fired units will actively participate
in the intraday and balancing markets. The utiliza-
tion structure of coal-, lignite- and HFO-LFO-fuelled
plants will change similarly by 2030 – increasingly
operating in a “flexibility services mode”. This con-
firms their changing role and utilisation pattern in
the future electricity system: they will provide more
system balancing and flexibility services and receive
more of their income from short-term power markets
instead of from baseload energy sold on the futures
and day-ahead markets (see Figure ES 3).
10ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Yearly average utilization rates and number of start-ups (per year) on a unit level
in the SEE region in 2017 (above) and 2030 (below) Figure ES 3
40
Gas
35
Nuclear
Coal and lignite
30
HFO/LFO
Number of start-ups in a year
25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yearly utilization rate [%]
40
35
30
Number of start-ups in a year
25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yearly utilization rate [%]
REKK
11Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Total available upward reserve in the SEE region, in all hours of 2017 and 2030 Figure ES 4
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Capacity [MW]
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1 8,760
Hours
2017 2030
REKK
The total available downward reserve capacity for availability of sufficient interconnection capacity
all hours of the year will increase by 2030, mostly between countries. Increasing interconnection lev-
because of the deployment of RES and natural gas els between the countries can eliminate the missing
plants, both of which provide downward regulation. production hours entirely, because countries with
The minimum downward reserve capacity will be this problem can rely on imported electricity from
ca. 11 GW in 2030 (27% of the regional peak load). neighbouring power systems.
The number of hours with missing production will
be very low in 2030. The scenario showed hours Security of supply: Peak demand can be
with missing production in Albania, Kosovo and met in the winter season
North Macedonia. The missing production levels
occur in one or two hours of the year, which indicate To illustrate the daily operations of the 2030 power
very low levels of load-shedding requirements. The system in SEE, we describe a week in winter where
typical security of supply standards in the EU range the remaining capacity (defined as the sum of
from three to six hours of loss of load expectation. spinning and non-spinning reserve capacity and
non-utilized import capacity) is lowest.
The results of missing production levels and low
cross-border correlation of vRES feed-in empha- Unlike today, the natural gas-based electricity gen-
size the importance of regional cooperation and the eration patterns of 2030 will change from peak-load
12ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Electricity generation and demand in the SEE region for the critical week in winter in 2030 in MW Figure ES 5
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Capacity [MW]
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133 145 157
Nuclear Other RES Coal and lignite Natural gas
Wind HFO/LFO Hydro PV
Missing production Pumped storage Consumption Net import
REKK
following to steadier generation because wind and hours. The higher volatility in production is indi-
PV output remains fairly low in the critical week. cated by the steeper “ramp-ups” and “ramp-downs”
(Wind and PV generation levels will nearly dou- of the blue area in Figure ES 6. Nonetheless, all elec-
ble compared to 2017, however.) Consumption peaks tricity demand will be met in the region (unserved
will mostly be managed by increased hydro uti- energy=0 GWh).
lization and increased net imports, whose greater
potential derives from increasing NTC levels. In the
first half of the critical week, net imports will serve Security of supply: Sensitivity of varying
as “gap-fillers” while in the second half of the week weather conditions and interconnector
they will be utilized on a more constant basis (see capacities
Figure ES 5).
We analyzed scenarios with average, high and low
In 2030, the reserve margin will only occasionally generation from hydro, wind and PV (based on his-
reach 100%, while in peak hours it will still be 40– torical data) and a scenario with higher and lower
60%, which represents a sufficient level of reserves. than expected interconnector deployment.
Due to the increased use of renewables and inter-
mittent generation, production will be more volatile In most weather-related sensitivity cases the num-
when compared with 2017, which means that the ber of start-ups increases, with the exception of the
need for reserves will be more pronounced in some low hydro and reference PV/wind case, where start-
13Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Reserve margin in the SEE region for the critical week in winter in 2030 in MW Figure ES 6
70,000 200%
180%
60,000
160%
50,000 140%
Capacity margin [%]
120%
Capacity [MW]
40,000
100%
30,000
80%
20,000 60%
40%
10,000
20%
0 0%
1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133 145 157
Total production Total upward reserve Available import
Missing production Consumption Reserve margin
REKK
ups of conventional power plants decrease. The main TYNDP) would reach a satisfactory level in the 2030
reason for this rather unexpected result is that PV reference case.
and wind generation patterns and hydro availability
(dry or wet year) are not correlated. Consequently, it Figure ES 7 shows the non-satisfied demand for all
may happen that in a dry year with low hydro avail- scenarios. Non-satisfied demand amounts to only
ability and less volatility, more permanent wind a few gigawatt hours in the reference case and re-
conditions will prevail, which would offset overall mains the same in most sensitivity cases. As the
system volatility. Hence, low correlation among var- figure illustrates, the most important impact on
ious RES generation sources is an important enabler non-satisfied demand arises from altered NTC lev-
of vRES system integration. els. With 20% higher NTCs, annual missing produc-
tion drops to zero, while more than 240 GWh/year
The case with a 20% lower value of NTCs yielded demand is left unsatisfied (corresponding to only
more start-ups because countries would have to bal- 0.1% of regional power demand), with 20% lower
ance their systems by relying more on power plants NTCs available. Three countries are primarily af-
within their borders given their limited access to fected: Albania, Kosovo* and North Macedonia. This
import. The higher NTC scenario (20% higher NTCs emphasizes the key role of interconnection capacity
than in the reference case) does not decrease the for security of supply.
level of start-ups. This means that the planned NTC
development in the region (in line with ENTSO-E’s
14ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Missing production values (non-satisfied demand) for the sensitivity scenarios in GWh/year Figure ES 7
300 0.120%
Total missing production/consumption [%]
250 0.100%
200 0.080%
GWh/year
150 0.060%
100 0.040%
50 0.020%
0 0.000%
17
30
V
PV
V
V
PV
V
V
V
C
TC
NT
_P
_P
_P
P
_P
_P
20
_N
20
h_
h_
F_
ow
EF
ow
w
gh
_
gh
w
RE
ig
ig
lo
F
_R
hi
Lo
_h
_h
RE
_l
_l
Hi
o_
o_
o_
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
dr
dr
dr
yd
yd
yd
yd
yd
hy
hy
hy
h
_h
_h
h
_h
F_
_
_
F_
_
w
gh
w
gh
w
gh
RE
RE
Lo
Lo
Lo
Hi
Hi
Hi
AL BA_FED BA_SRP BG GR HR KO* ME MK RO RS
REKK
Even though there is enough spare capacity on the ernization or replacement in the next decade, we
regional level, the lack of interconnectors in the 20% now have an excellent opportunity to introduce the
lower NTC sensitivity case hinders the full use of 50 to 55% share of RES in the region required by the
power plants in neighbouring countries, which, in EU’s 2030 targets for climate and energy. Indeed,
turn, leads to unserved power demand in Albania, the 2030 SEE scenario assessed in this report finds
Kosovo and North Macedonia. This underlines the that RES-E shares of 50% are realistic in terms of
importance of interconnection levels in the SEE re- system flexibility, RES integration and security of
gion. The planned infrastructure development can supply. The scenario projects that the level of avail-
help countries maintain the flexibility and security able upward reserve capacities will decrease rel-
of supply of the regional system, though the lack of ative to 2017 because of higher vRES penetration.
interconnectors can leave some countries vulnerable The available upward reserve capacity margin will
during certain critical hours. still be above 40% in the region during most hours,
and only for a few hours per year (under 15 hours)
will it fall to 35%. This indicates that a higher level of
Conclusions: Pathways for robust RES cross-border capacities within the SEE region would
deployment and security of supply in SEE help maintain the system adequacy throughout all
hours of the year. Moreover, the available downward
With roughly half of the installed hard coal and reserve capacities will increase thanks to vRES po-
lignite generation capacity in SEE requiring mod- tential to provide such services.
15Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
The results also indicate that the projected infra- and the contribution of fossil-based generation to
structure developments of the analysed Decarboni- system flexibility will help avoid zero marginal cost
sation Scenario - characterised by major reductions vRES curtailment in 2030. This underlines the eco-
of coal- and lignite-based generation and steadily nomic potential of efficient RES integration in the
increasing RES generation – will meet the growing region.
demand of the region, achieving a nearly balanced
net import position at the regional level by 2030. As The sensitivity assessment shows that intercon-
coal and lignite production decreases, vRES produc- nections and market integration are key factors for
tion and gas-based generation will take their place maximizing the security of supply and providing
(though the increase of gas-based generation will be the required flexibility for vRES deployment in the
confined to just a few countries in the region). Note SEE region. A limited level of non-satisfied demand
that the annual average utilization of gas plants in will occur in Albania, Kosovo* and North Macedonia
the region is not projected to exceed 45% in 2030 for due to increased network limitations. This under-
our sensitivity cases. Thus, the business model for lines the importance of continuing the implemen-
conventional power plant operators is all about flex- tation of cross-border infrastructure developments.
ibility, not simply about the sale of kilowatt hours. If More importantly, market integration must be deep-
lignite utilization falls below 65%, lignite plants will ened among SEE countries in order to utilize availa-
have a hard time earning sufficient revenue from ble cross-border capacities efficiently. This not only
the power markets. brings security of supply benefits; it also has an eco-
nomic rationale, for it gives the region greater access
The critical week assessment shows that the reserve to the electricity markets of neighbouring countries
margin in the SEE system will stay above a healthy in Central and Eastern Europe. Most importantly,
35% even during critical hours of the assessed weeks, SEE can provide flexibility services to these coun-
which presents a satisfying level for the region en- tries in seasons/years with higher levels of hydro
suring security of supply. At the same time, in most availability.
hours of the year the region maintains an even
higher level of reserves: At over 100% of regional In summary, a diverse mix of flexible generation
consumption in many hours, the SEE region will be technologies in SEE (hydro technologies, flexible
able to provide flexibility services to neighbouring biomass, natural gas and storage) can facilitate the
electricity systems such as those of Hungary and integration of vRES – especially wind and PV. In
Slovakia, where flexible units are likely to be scarcer. particular, reduced flexibility needs and increased
The analysis has shown that the most critical season system reliability can be achieved by integrating
in SEE is autumn, where availability of hydro re- countries and regions with fundamentally differ-
sources is limited due to lower water reservoir levels. ent weather regimes. An interconnected European
This shows the need to diversify flexibility options power system would be highly beneficial for vRES
through geography as well as technology. integration. Indeed, regional cooperation, stronger
power systems and market integration will help
The number of plant start-ups will also stay in the minimize power system costs for consumers while
manageable range – below 40 start-ups a year for maximizing supply security.
any conventional unit. By 2030, the system will
have many dedicated flexible gas units; several coal
and lignite plants will also contribute to the provi-
sion of system flexibility. Variable RES curtailment
will remain low because hydro-based generation
16ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Introduction
With the recently adopted EU 2030 targets for cli- This study takes a deeper look into the future of re-
mate and energy, European power systems are about gional market integration for power systems with
to embark on a major transition. By 2030 an av- high shares of wind and solar in SEE: what kinds
erage of 55% of electricity in Europe’s power grids of flexibility requirements arise from the projected
must come from renewable energy sources. Now growth of these two technologies? And to what ex-
is therefore an auspicious moment for advancing a tent can further power market integration within
clean-energy transition in South East Europe (SEE). SEE and beyond help meet that challenge?
This study builds on the SEERMAP project, which
Countries throughout SEE have high shares of elec- analyzes the region’s energy sector through long-
tricity generated by an aging fleet of coal-fired term scenarios. We focus on the project’s “decarbon-
power plants. Some of the youngest coal plants in ization scenario”, which assumes 93% decarboni-
the Western Balkans were built in 1988, before the zation in the region’s power sector by 2050 (in line
break-up of Yugoslavia. Within the next decade, with EU goals) and a RES-E share of 50% in 2030 in
utility companies and governments will have to de- the SEE region. The applied REKK’s European Elec-
cide whether to modernize or replace roughly 50% tricity Market Model (EPMM) tool captures the in-
of the region’s existing coal and lignite generation terplay between supply, demand and storage over an
capacity. Indeed, the recent SEERMAP project6 has entire calendar year, i.e. 8760 hours. The scenario
demonstrated that deployment of renewable capac- for the energy system in 2030 addresses the follow-
ity in the EU SEE and Western Balkans7 is not only ing questions:
feasible but also has several advantages over fossil
fuel-based investment. →→ Will SEE power demand be met in all hours in
2030?
Solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power – driven →→ Will the SEE power system have a sufficient re-
by significant cost reductions – will almost cer- serve margin to guarantee the security of supply
tainly contribute to more than half of the RES-E in critical situations?
share in Europe in 2030. As wind and solar depend →→ What will be the critical/vulnerable weeks or days
on weather, future power systems will be character- in the system?
ized by fundamentally different generation patterns →→ Will the system also be robust during extreme
from those observed today, significantly increasing weather patterns? (e.g. in years of low precipita-
the need for flexibility in the non-intermittent part tion or with lower number of hours of wind).
of the power system. In meeting the flexibility chal-
lenge, regional cooperation and cross-border power Here are some of the key characteristics of the
system integration offer important ways forward. model (its individual features are described in later
sections):
→→ All hours of a selected year are modelled;
6 See http://rekk.hu/analysis-details/238/south_east_eu-
→→ Its optimization takes places on a (rolling) weekly
rope_electricity_roadmap_-_seermap
basis, with the objective being to minimize sys-
7 In SEE, the EU member states are Bulgaria, Croatia,
tem costs.
Greece and Romania. The Western Balkans countries are
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Mace- →→ The hours during the week are interconnected:
donia, Montenegro and Serbia. the operation of a power plant in a given hour has
17Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030 impact on its availability for the next hours. A yearly modelling sequence consists of 52 weekly optimization steps, where the weeks are also con- nected: information on the last hour of operation for the production units in the modelled week is passed on to the next week. →→ Power plants in the model are represented through higher granularity (e.g. start-up costs, start-up time and minimum utilization rates) than in a typical power generation technology modelling characterisation (e.g. fuel type, fuel efficiency, marginal cost); →→ EPMM covers the entire ENTSO-E power system, including EU member states and the contracting parties of the Energy Community. 18
ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
The modelling approach
The EPMM is a unit commitment and economic dis- power plants operate and their production levels. The
patch model, which during the optimization process model is executed for all weeks and hours (8760) of
satisfies electricity demand in the modelled coun- the year. To increase the robustness of the results, the
tries at minimum system costs while considering model starts the weekly optimization on Wednes-
the different types of costs and capacity constraints days and finishes on Tuesdays, to avoid that the fast-
of the available power plants and cross-border est ramp-up period (Monday morning) would be the
transmission capacities. starting position of the optimisation. EPMM endoge-
nously models 41 electricity markets in 38 countries.8
The model minimizes the production costs for satis-
fying demand. These costs include the start-up and The main inputs and outputs of the model are sum-
shut-down costs of the power plants, the costs of marized in Figure 1.
production (mostly fuel and CO₂ costs) and the costs
that occur in case of RES curtailment.
8 In the cases of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark and the
Ukraine, two markets/price zones are distinguished per
The model simultaneously optimizes all 168 hours of a country; otherwise one market/price zone per country is
week and determines the hours of the week in which assumed.
Main inputs and outputs of the EPMM model Figure 1
Marginal cost Start-up and Available
production shut-down capacities
Inputs
Cost curves of Country Cross-border
power plants consumption capacities
Model
Outputs
Minimum cost Missing Downward and upward Curtailment of Number of
of satisfying production capacities available for RES producers start-ups
consumption reserve services
REKK
19Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
The results of the optimization show how elec- Renewable generation – apart from biomass and
tricity demand can be satisfied at a minimum cost storage hydropower, is included exogenously as-
while yielding the optimal generation mix and the suming zero marginal cost. Generation patterns are
required number of power plants start-ups in the based on European weather data from 2006–2011
modelled region. The potential for missing produc- for PV and wind generation and 2008–2017 for hy-
tion and the available upward and downward capac- dro. These renewable technologies are non-dis-
ities for reserve services are also important outputs patchable but can be curtailed at given costs.
of the model.
We distinguish between three categories of hydro
generation: run of river, pumped storage and reser-
Supply side representation in the model voir. The reservoir hydro units can flexibly produce
electricity with a maximum aggregate production
Power plants are represented at the unit/block level constraint for the entire week. This allows the model
for each country and are divided into twelve tech- to capture the flexibility of hydro generation while
nologies: biomass, hard coal- and lignite-based, ge- placing a realistic limit on its overall contribution to
othermal, heavy and light fuel oil, hydro, wind, PV, weekly and yearly electricity generation.
nuclear, natural gas and tide/wave power plants.
All generation units have the following inputs: in- Demand-side representation in the
stalled capacity, electrical efficiency and self-con- model
sumption. The short-run marginal costs of gen-
eration are calculated based on country- and Power demand is an exogenous input to the hourly
technology-specific fuel prices, variable operational optimization of the power system. Hourly demand
costs, taxes and CO₂ emission costs. Start-up costs data is derived from actual data for 2015, which is
are also included for dispatchable units (thermal, adjusted in the scenarios proportionally based on
nuclear, storage hydropower and pumped storage). the assumed growth of yearly consumption by 2030.
The start-up assumptions are summarized in Table 1. Power demand is met by the available power plants
Start-up costs and constraints for dispatchable technologies. Table 1
Unit Nuclear Lignite Lignite CCGT Other Gas Small Coal Coal
(>500MW) (500MW) (ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
and the import capacities subject to minimisation of prices are not publicly available for many countries
the cost to serve demand. in the EU, which makes it difficult to calibrate natu-
ral gas-based production.
Transmission grid representation To ensure robust results, various weather regimes
are included in the modelling that account for the
In the EPMM model, each country represents one variability of renewable energy resources. This re-
node, so network constraints inside the countries are quired collaboration with the Vienna University of
not considered. Cross-border transmission capaci- Technology (TU Wien), which provided information
ties are represented by net transfer capacities (NTCs) on RES production covering the whole ENTSO-E
values, which put an upper limit on cross-bor- system, including the SEE region. Data on variable
der electricity trading. Power exports and imports, RES production (i.e. solar PV, wind and hydro) and
therefore, may not exceed NTC values in any given on dispatchable RES are derived from TU Wien’s
hour. Imports and exports take place to minimize Green-X model.9 Historical weather data and pro-
system costs and maximize security of supply. jections for future installed capacities were used to
generate RES generation patterns on an hourly basis.
Calibration of the model and input data More input data and assumptions for the EPMM
model can be found in Appendix 1. The information
To ensure robust modelling results, the model was includes details about power plant capacities, fuel
calibrated to the latest available data (2017). Table prices and available NTC capacities for the modelled
2 illustrates the difference between the calibrated region.
model results and actual data for 2017. The differ-
ence between the two data sets is well below 6% for
the main production technologies. The only excep- 9 For a recent study describing the GREEN-X model, see
del Rio et al (2017): A techno-economic analysis of EU
tion is gas units, where the difference is 23% due
renewable electricity policy pathways in 2030, Energy
to the sensitivity of the assumed gas prices. These Policy.
Modelled and actual production share by technology in the EU, 2017. Table 2
GWh Total Nuclear Coal and Natural Run-of- Pumped Wind Bio- HFO, PV Other
lignite gas river, storage mass LFO RES
storage
Model 3 597 254 838 381 849 333 613 272 592 601 -5 223 386 419 177 953 12 894 117 391 14 233
Actual 3 680 400 808 100 798 300 757 300 576 700 n.a. 370 300 174 200 29 300 114 600 12 600
Differ-
ence, 83 146 -30 281 -51 033 144 028 -15 901 5 223 -16 119 -3 753 16 406 -2 791 -1 633
GWh
Differ-
2.3% -3.6% -6.0% 23.5% -2.7% n.a. -4.2% -2.1% 127.2% -2.4% -11.5%
ence, %
REKK, ENTSO-E (2018)
21Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030 22
ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
The SEE power system in 2030
Though situations will vary significantly from average performance of the markets/power sys-
country to country with regard to domestic resource tems and the robustness of the system in critical
availability (hydropower, solar irradiation, wind situations. We conclude with a sensitivity analysis.
speed), renewables are expected to be “mainstream” Throughout this report, the term “SEE region” refers
by 2030 throughout Europe. The assessed decarbon- to the Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia
ization scenario assumes a 2030 RES-E share rela- and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo*, Mon-
tive to gross consumption of 48%10 in Europe and of tenegro and Serbia) and the EU countries Bulgaria,
50% in SEE. Croatia, Greece and Romania.11
This section looks at this scenario in detail. We start
by assessing the aggregated yearly results and then Yearly electricity mix in SEE
study potentially critical weeks with tight supply/
demand situations. In this way, we measure both the Figure 2 shows the annual power mix for the SEE
region in 2017 and 2030.
10 See also Fraunhofer IWES (2015): The European Power
System in 2030: Flexibility Challenges and Integration
Benefits. An Analysis with a Focus on the Pentalateral 11 *This designation is without prejudice to positions on
Energy Forum Region. Analysis on behalf of Agora Ener- status, and it is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ
giewende. Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
Electricity generation mix of the SEE region, 2017 (actual data) and 2030 (decarbonization scenario) Figure 2
300
250
200 58
139
14
[TWh]
150 8
21
100 7 47
3
13
40 42
50
7 1
4
25 36
0
2017 2030
Nuclear Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind
Biomass PV Geothermal and other RES Lignite Consumption
REKK
23Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
The most important change for the region is the eration and a smaller increase in RES generation.
sharply falling share of coal- and lignite-based gen- Meanwhile, the net export positions of Greece and
eration. Compared with 2017, less than half of the Romania will increase because the decreasing coal-
production from these fuels will remain in the sys- and lignite-based generation will be more than com-
tem by 2030. The reduction will be compensated by pensated by natural gas and RES-based generation.
an increase in RES generation of 20 TWh, in natu-
ral gas-based production (25 TWh) and in nuclear
generation (11 TWh). The region will move from a Impact of RES on conventional power
net export to a net import position, but the yearly net plants: Start-ups and utilization rates
import ratio will remain relatively small – 6.8%. The
capacity mix changes significantly in the decar- Both in Europe and in the SEE region, the 2030 sce-
bonization scenario, with a shift away from fos- nario shows a more flexible utilization of power
sil-based capacity towards renewable capacity. The plants based on an increase in the number of start-
changes are driven primarily by rising carbon prices ups per unit. This is a consequence of a lower uti-
in EU countries and decreasing renewable technol- lization of conventional power plants due to the
ogy costs. Although the Western Balkan countries increased generation of variable RES and the dete-
are assumed to have carbon prices only from 2030, riorating economic performance of coal and lignite
in the scenario only 1500 MW new fossil based plants. Climbing fossil-fuel costs, carbon prices and
generation is installed in the SEE region, due to the increasing investment costs place fossil-fuel-fired
assumed economic environment: increasing carbon plants at the end of the merit order curve, resulting
prices elsewhere, rising coal and natural gas prices in a lower number of operation hours. This impact is
and deteriorating utilization rates of fossil gener- further amplified by the growing production of ze-
ation. Over the long-term, lignite- and coal-based ro-cost PV and wind generation, which on account
generation will not be able to reach the required of the “merit order effect” will supplant more and
utilization levels needed to cover the increasing in- more fossil fuel plants from the pool of generators.
vestment costs and meet the higher emission stand- Even though the number of start-ups will increase,
ards set by new European legislation. by 2030 the total start-up costs as a share of variable
On a country-level, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bul- generation costs will only amount to 1% in both the
garia, Kosovo*, North Macedonia, Montenegro and EU and in SEE (see Table 3).
Serbia will become net importers of electricity due
to a strong decrease in coal- and lignite-based gen-
Fossil-based dispatchable power plants and cost of start-ups in 2017 and 2030. Table 3
Number of Start-up
Number Number of Total variable Total start-up
start-ups cost/total
of units start-ups cost, m€ cost, m€
per unit cost
2017 2202 14365 6.5 70636 721 1.02%
Europe
2030 1522 13245 8.7 77664 906 1.17%
2017 167 441 2.6 4443 24 0.54%
SEE
2030 89 798 9.0 5824 60 1.04%
REKK
24ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
At the same time, the utilization rates of the differ- in “flexibility services mode”. In the future electric-
ent types of power plants will have changed signif- ity system, they will provide more system balancing
icantly by 2030, with the utilization of natural gas and flexibility services and receive more of their in-
plants climbing to 40% from 7.5% in 2017 and the come from short-term power markets instead from
utilization of hard coal-fired plants growing from baseload energy sold on the futures and day-ahead
20% to 34% in the SEE region. The utilization of lig- markets.
nite-fuelled plants is projected to fall in Europe and
in the SEE region, down from 81% to around 68%,
due to deteriorating economic performance and re- Transmission grid constraints and RES
duced operating hours (see Table 4). curtailment
To gain a deeper understanding of how electric- The model has the option of curtailing vRES produc-
ity markets function in the modelled years for SEE, ers (variable RES: PV and wind generators) if needed
we analyzed the relationship between utilization for system stability when interconnectors are fully
rates and the number of start-ups in detail. Figure 3 utilized and surplus generation cannot be exported.
shows the 2017 and 2030 yearly average utilization In keeping with European legislation, curtailed RES
rates of non-RES power plants on a unit level. producers are compensated for their curtailment at
the level of their forgone revenue.12 The model does
The most important change between 2017 and 2030 not need to utilize this option often, as just a few EU
is that more and more power plants will be oper- countries – Spain, Portugal and Italy – hit curtail-
ated in “peak load” mode: natural gas power plants ment levels in certain hours. In Europe, curtailment
with low yearly average utilization rates and a high will not exceed 500 GWh a year in 2030,13 and it
number of start-ups (up to 35 times/year). For com- will remain zero in the SEE region. The alternative
parison, the highest number of start-ups for a given of non-compensation of RES curtailment was also
unit in 2017 was less than 20 in SEE. By 2030 more tested, and confirmed robustness of the results. In
than half of the gas-fired units will actively pro-
vide flexibility services. The utilization structure 12 See Art. 12 of the recently adopted Electricity Market
of coal-, lignite- and HFO-LFO-fuelled plants will Regulation.
change similarly by 2030 – increasingly operating 13 This corresponds to 0.014% of European power demand.
Utilization rates for different power plant technologies, 2017 and 2030. Table 4
SEE Europe
2017 2030 Change 2017 2030 Change
Nuclear 84.8% 85.2% 0.3% 79.2% 81.0% 1.7%
Natural gas 7.5% 39.9% 32.4% 27.0% 31.2% 4.1%
Utilization Hard coal 20.2% 33.8% 13.5% 36.2% 46.1% 9.9%
rate Lignite 77.6% 63.3% -14.4% 80.4% 68.4% -12.0%
HFO 0.1% 1.3% 1.2% 4.5% 0.9% -3.7%
LFO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 0.5% -6.8%
REKK
25Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Yearly average utilization rates and number of start-ups (per year) on a unit level
in the SEE region in 2017 (above) and 2030 (below) Figure 3
40
Gas
35
Nuclear
Coal and lignite
30
HFO/LFO
Number of start-ups in a year
25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yearly utilization rate [%]
40
35
30
Number of start-ups in a year
25
20
15
10
5
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yearly utilization rate [%]
REKK
26ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
case of non-compensation curtailment levels in- pattern in the correlation of wind generation. Even
crease slightly due to market-based decisions of RES within the SEE region, wind speeds show weak cor-
producers. However, it still represents a minor level relations, ranging from 11% to 46%. These fairly low
of 500 GWh in Europe. The main reason for this low correlations suggest that wind generation would not
level of vRES curtailment is the availability of flexi- peak at the same time within the region; rather, it
ble hydro resources in the region that can satisfy the would be dispersed over time.14 It also suggests that
flexibility need in the power system according to the the region would follow a different wind generation
model results, the availability of interconnectors, the pattern from northern European countries, which
flexibility potential offered by imports and exports
and the low correlation between RES feed-in across
borders. 14 This confirms earlier research testing the correlation
of wind power feed-in between the countries of the
Pentalateral Energy Forum (Austrian, Belgium, France,
PV generation is highly correlated within the re- Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland)
gion, with correlation coefficients ranging from 87% where correlation coefficients ranged from 24% (Austria
to 100% between the countries, depending on their and Belgium) to 66% (Luxembourg and Belgium). For more
proximity. This is indeed to be expected, as the dif- details, see Fraunhofer IWES (2015): The European Power
System in 2030: Flexibility Challenges and Integration
ference is mainly caused by the sun’s daily perio-
Benefits. An Analysis with a Focus on the Pentalateral
dicity. However, and importantly for easing vRES Energy Forum Region. Analysis on behalf of Agora Ener-
system integration, we observed a very different giewende.
Time series of onshore wind power generation in a simulation for the first week
of 2030 at different levels of aggregation Figure 4
60%
Actual wind generation/installed capacity [%]
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 25 49 73 97 121 145 169
Hours
RO SEE Europe
REKK
27Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
means that wind production would not peak at the Security of supply: Available reserve
same time in the wider European region.15 capacities
As can be seen in Figure 4, periods of little or no a) Downward and upward reserve capacities
wind power in 2030 will be less frequent and total One of the main features of the EPMM model is its
output changes will become softer and slower. These ability to calculate the remaining available upward
effects will help lower flexibility requirements in and downward reserve capacities in all hours for all
the region. countries individually. These reserve capacities can
step in if demand unexpectedly rises in real-time or
if generation unexpectedly drops in real-time (e.g.
due to a power plant outage or lower than forecasted
RES generation). Figure 5 shows the total availa-
15 For example, Grams C. et. al. (2017) find that balancing ble downward reserve capacity for all hours of the
future wind capacity across regions – deploying slightly year (in descending order) in the SEE region. There
more capacity in the Balkans than at the North Sea, say – is no single hour in 2017 or 2030 when a shortage
would eliminate most wind production output variations,
of downward reserve could be identified. Moreover,
better maintain average generation and increase fleet-
wide minimum output. See Grams et al (2017): Balancing
the situation improves in 2030 even more, mainly
Europe’s wind-power output through spatial deployment due to the deployment of RES and natural gas plants,
informed by weather regimes. Nature Climate Change. which can both provide downward regulation. The
Total available downward reserve in the SEE region, in all hours of 2017 and 2030 Figure 5
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Capacity [MW]
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1 8,760
Hours
2017 2030
REKK
28ANALYSIS | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Total available upward reserve in the SEE region, in all hours of 2017 and 2030 Figure 6
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Capacity [MW]
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1 8,760
Hours
2017 2030
REKK
minimum downward reserve capacity is projected able capacity drops below 15% of consumption, and
to be ca. 11 GW in 2030 – this corresponds to 27% of it never falls below 12%. General evaluation criteria
the regional peak load. indicate that a minimum of 5–10% of consumption
is needed for upward reserve capacity to guarantee
For upward reserve capacities, somewhat differ- security of supply. By these lights, the SEE region
ent patterns can be observed. The amount of availa- will have a sufficient level of supply security in
ble upward reserve capacities in 2030 is lower than 2030 (see Figure 7).
in 2017. This is the result of a drop in the number of
dispatchable units fuelled mainly by coal and lignite. b) Missing production
Still, the upward reserve capacities are not expected Another widely used evaluation criterion for secu-
to fall below 5 GW in 2030, which corresponds to rity of supply is the number of hours with missing
12% of the regional peak load. For the vast majority production. There was no such modelled hour in the
of hours in 2030, upward reserve capacities do not region in 2017, while the model predicts low levels
drop below 20 GW (see Figure 6). of missing production in 2030. Table 5 indicates the
number of hours in which capacities are insuffi-
To assess whether this drop is critical, we compared cient. The scenario shows hours with missing pro-
the total available upward reserve capacity with duction in Albania, Kosovo* and North Macedonia.
total consumption in SEE for all hours of the mod- However, the missing production levels occur in one
elled years. There are only 5 hours in which avail- or two hours of the year, which indicate very low
29Agora Energiewende | The Southeast European power system in 2030
Total available upward reserve in the SEE region by percentage of consumption, 2017 and 2030 Figure 7
250%
200%
Total upward reserve/consumption [%]
150%
100%
50%
0%
1 8,760
Hours
2017 2030
REKK
load-shedding requirements. The typical security of
Number of hours with missing production supply standards in the EU range from three to six
in the SEE countries. Table 5
hours of loss-of-load expectation.
Number of hours with missing production
The results on missing production levels and low
2017 2030
cross-border correlation of vRES feed-in empha-
AL 0 1
size the importance of regional cooperation and the
BA_FED 0 0
availability of sufficient interconnection capacity
BA_SRP 0 0
between countries. As can be seen in the sensitiv-
BG 0 0
ity analysis later in the report, increasing intercon-
GR 0 0
nection levels between the countries (represented
HR 0 0
by increasing NTC values) can eliminate missing
KO* 0 2
production hours entirely, because countries with
ME 0 0
this problem can rely on imported electricity from
MK 0 1
neighbouring power systems. Though the sensitiv-
RO 0 0
ity case with decreasing interconnection capacities
RS 0 0
still shows missing production in the system, it re-
REKK
mains a very low fraction of the total.
30You can also read
