atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 08/09.2019

More documents

Info

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 394 renewable share of the electricity generated in the ENTSO-E 6 region was 36 % in 2018. There is currently little doubt that this trend will continue and that the share of conventional generation, whether based on fossil fuels or nuclear power, will decrease. This development is reinforced by decisions and plans to abandon existing conventional technologies, albeit with very different developments in the European countries. For system stability, conventional generation has the pleasant characteristic of being very easy to plan. This does not apply to a comparable extent given the dependence of wind and solar power on weather conditions. Further technological solutions, e.g. network expansion, storage or load management, are therefore necessary in order to maintain the assured capacity (Fig. 9). The technical lifetime of power plants can be estimated empirically. There is a certain bandwidth here. Measures to extend the technical lifetime (known as retrofit) play an important role, so that in individual cases operation beyond the technical lifetime is certainly possible. Technical difficulties can also lead to a shorter lifetime. For an estimation of an entire power plant fleet, however, it is perfectly legitimate to use an approach with a fixed set of technical lifetimes. The following technical lifetimes were used to estimate the capacity retirement curve in the power plant fleet (see Table 2). The list of power plants used comprises around 14,500 power plant units (hydropower, natural gas, hard coal, brown coal, oil, nuclear power, biomass, other) from the | | Fig. 9. Installed and assured capacity in Germany (2018). (Source: BDEW and ENTSO-E 2019). | | Fig. 10. Capacity retirement curve in the EU-28 power plant fleet (fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydropower). (Source: Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne (EWI) gGmbH, Europe Beyond Coal). Energy source Technical lifetime in years Brown coal 55 Hard coal 55 Natural gas 45 Oil 50 Hydropower Unlimited Nuclear energy 40 Biomass 40 Other 40 | | Tab. 2. Assumptions used for the technical lifetime of power plants. 28 EU member states. In addition to the technical lifetimes on which Table 2 is based, Fig. 10 also shows the impact of early decommissioning, whether for economic reasons or due to regulatory decisions. Only the controllable types of generation (coal, gas, oil, biomass, nuclear power, hydropower) were taken into account for the illustration. The minimum and maximum load for the EU-28 can be calculated from the ENTSO-E data for the hourly load; the grey band in the graph shows this range, i.e. the load requested by consumers. The peak load can be covered with the conventional power plants mentioned until 2030, and until 2026 if plants are decommissioned before the end of their technical lifetime. Additional, albeit limited, contributions to the assured capacity can be expected from renewable energies. Essentially, the capacity retirement curve shows three phases based on the technical lifetime: 1. 2020-2030: relatively rapid reduction in capacity (around 20 GW per year) 2. 2030-2060: relatively slow reduction in capacity (around 10 GW per year) 3. From 2060: remaining on an even keel Discontinuation of power plant operation before the end of the technical lifetime, whether for economic reasons or for technology phase-out reasons, has essentially the same phases with a slightly steeper decrease. In this case, the capacity retirement curve follows the expansion phases for generation capacities in Europe (Fig. 11). Different types of power plants were preferred in the various decades: the 1960s into the 1970s were the strongest commissioning periods for coal-fired power plants. In the second half of the 1960s and in the first half of the 1970s, there was also a significant increase in oil and gas capacities. The focus of commissioning for nuclear power was in the 1980s, followed by a period of dominant expansion based on natural gas and the current phase of strong growth in renewable energy plants. The linear reduction of around 20 or 10 GW per year mentioned above goes hand in hand with a reduction in the assured capacity. It is possible to counteract this development by various means and to achieve the accustomed level of security of supply. On the one hand, renewable energy sources such as wind and sun will also make a contribution to the assured capacity, albeit to a much lesser extent compared to the installed capacity. However, with the application of new technologies, such as storage systems and smart grids, it will be possible to significantly increase the assured capacity of wind and PV. In addition, non-EU countries, 6 ENTSO-E is an association of European transmission system operators from 36 European countries (EU-28 excluding Malta; Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Northern Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey as observers) (https://www.entsoe.eu) Feature Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer
atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı August/September such as Switzerland and Norway, also contribute to the assured capacity, as do any new plants constructed in the EU. Overall, it can be said that the system is undergoing a period of upheaval in which the intermittent energy sources wind and PV are increasingly having to make their contribution to system stability in order to ensure a secure supply around the clock. And this task will become increasingly important as the number of controllable power plants shrinks. 5 New construction The power plant fleet in the EU-28 will continue to be rejuvenated in the future by the construction of new plants – primarily based on renewable energies; on the conventional side, gas-fired power plants are expected to be the most important (see Fig. 7). This will increase the assured capacity but not necessarily at the same rate as that to which it is being reduced. New plants will thus only be part of the solution; other technologies for maintaining the output margin will have to make a greater contribution than in the past. The probability of implementation depends on the expected profitability of the projects, the political framework conditions and, of course, acceptance locally. Exit plans from a technology in one country provide a more favourable economic environment for other types of production, but also improve the prospects for the same technology in neighbouring countries. Under certain circumstances, therefore, a phase-out in one country can lead to new construction in neighbouring countries. Likewise, the probability of implementing new builds depends on the options in the existing power plant fleet. If retrofit measures pay off, older power plants will be upgraded and there will be less need for new construction. If necessary, existing plants can also be mothballed if the operator assumes that there will again be demand for electricity from its plant in a few years time. However, this certainly involves costs; you cannot simply park a power plant like a car in a garage, but must maintain its operational readiness by means of maintenance and by retaining staff. What all these options have in common, however, is that they are associated with long lead times and therefore require planning over several years. 6 Grid expansion Electricity has been traded across borders for decades. This is made possible by the interconnected European supply system. The electricity grids of the European countries are connected to each other over large distances via so-called cross-border interconnectors. The cross-border exchange | | Fig. 11. Capacity additions in the EU-28 power plant fleet (fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydropower). (Source: Energy Economics Institute at the University of Cologne (EWI) gGmbH, Europe Beyond Coal). of electricity made possible in this way has a number of advantages for national electricity markets. “We can only think about security of supply in a European context ... Germany would hardly be able to manage its phase-out of nuclear and coal without being integrated into a European system.” 7 The differences in production and consumption between European countries can be better compensated. This applies particularly to a large proportion of renewable energies, such as hydropower, wind and solar power. For example, the wind and sun conditions in Europe differ from each other, and the supply of hydropower also differs greatly from region to region. Moreover, peaks in demand in Europe are often not simultaneous (see Table 3). The supra-regional compensation thus possible in the internal market means that less capacity has to be maintained than in a purely national system. Security of the supply can therefore be increased by developing and expanding the cross-border interconnectors. In addition, supply costs tend to fall and prices on wholesale markets align themselves between the linked markets. The joint Price Coupling of Regions (PCR) system now integrates 19 European countries into a comprehensive market coupling system. These include Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, the Scandinavian countries, the Baltic states, the United Kingdom, Poland, Slovenia, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The transmission capacities available for trade between member states are limited. For this reason, the right to use the transmission capacities is auctioned off at the borders or the electricity markets of the countries included are FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 395 Country Highest load Time Lowest load Time Belgium 13,453 MW 19.11., 18:00-19:00 6,067 MW 20.5., 14:00-15:00 Germany 79,074 MW 28.2., 19:00-20:00 35,718 MW 20.5., 5:00-6:00 France 96,328 MW 28.2., 18:00-19:00 30,448 MW 12.8., 6:00-7:00 Greece 9,062 MW 17.7., 12:00-13:00 3,437 MW 9.4., 4:00-5:00 Italy 57,572 MW 1.8., 15:00-16:00 19,511 MW 26.12., 3:00-4:00 Austria 12,073 MW 13.12., 16:00-17:00 4,844 MW 1.7., 4:00-5:00 Hungary 6,572 MW 2.3., 11:00-12:00 2,914 MW 21.5., 5:00-6:00 ENTSO-E 589,716 MW 28.2., 18:00-19:00 264,157 MW 17.6., 5:00-6:00 | | Tab. 3. Illustration of the level and timing of the maximum and minimum loads in selected EU member states in 2018. Source: ENTSO-E, Statistical Factsheet 2018. 7 Leonhard Birnbaum, Der Tagesspiegel, 24 June 2019, “The energy transition has brought about a massive redistribution”. Feature Prospects for Development of Power Generation in Europe ı Stefan Ulreich and Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer
Page 1 and 2: nucmag.com 2019 8/9 Prospects for D
Page 3 and 4: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı A
Page 5 and 6: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 13: atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 8/9 ı A
Page 63 and 64: Kommunikation und Training für Ker

atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 08/09.2019

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?