CLIMATE REPORT - Baltic Pipe · 2019-11-04 · Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic Pipe Project. ... Elektrociepłownia Żerań, working since 1954, where the construction

Clean air, reduced carbon emissions and increased energy security for Poland and its neighbours

CLIMATE REPORT

25 000 lives can be saved annuallyBy replacing coal, oil and wood in buildings with electric heating using heat-pumps, the Baltic Pipe Project can reduce fine particle emissions by 54 percent.

70 million tonnes of carbon emissions reduced annuallyBy utilizing gas combined with wind at a 60/40 ratio. Such a reduction contributes with 58 percent to Poland’s 2030 target of 120 million tonnes emission reduction.

Increased energy security The Baltic Pipe Project is classified as a Project of Common Interest by the European Union and will connect Poland with the Norwegian gas fields, strengthening the European internal energy market and cooperation.

The future use of the pipe-line goes beyond natural gas The pipeline could potentially be utilized to transfer other gases too. Although this would require some modifications and a new license, the pipeline can for example transport methane (CH4) hydrogen (H2), ammonia (NH3) or carbon dioxide (CO2).

KEY FINDINGS — BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE REPORT

This report intends to evaluate possible climate benefits from The Baltic Pipe Project. Using data from reputable sources as Eurostat and EEA, the report features several calculations estimating the effect of the project on a wide range of issues including, but not limited to, air quality, premature mortality, carbon dioxide emis-sions and compliance with international energy goals.

The conclusions and calculations are limited to the conditions and made assumptions described in the report and generate outcomes that are realistic should the described pre-requisites be fulfilled. The report thus illustrates benefits that are fully possible, but the real effects of the project may differ from those described in the report should all described pre-requisites not be fulfilled.

KEY FINDINGS — BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE REPORT

CONTENT

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.1 The Baltic Pipe Project in brief . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2 Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Mr Harald Klomp – Report lead author . . . . . 6

BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 The Baltic Pipe Project can enable significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2.1 The added benefits of combining gas and wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.2.2 The Baltic Pipe can save 25 000 lives annually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

2.2.3 The future use of the pipeline goes beyond natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2.3 The Baltic Pipe Project’s effect on air quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3.1 Greenhouse gas emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.3.2 Air pollution in EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

2.3.3 Air pollution in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

2.3.4 Poland energy system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2.4 The Baltic Pipe Project and the European energy goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2.4.1 EU 2030 targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2.4.2 EU 2050 goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2.5 The importance of ensuring a security of supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

2.5.1 Electricity generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

2.6 Ending notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

AIR POLLUTION IN EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 26

INTEGRATED NATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE PLANS (NECPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.4 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

EUROPE GAS, POWER INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

SECURITY OF SUPPLY – ENERGY LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ENERGY SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.5 Chemical fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.6 Hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.7 Nuclear fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.8 Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.9 Energy conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.10 Electrical energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

PATHWAYS TO 100% CARBON FREE ENERGY SYSTEM . . . 35

3.11 High potential for wind energy in Poland . .35

TECHNICAL TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.12 Unit of energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

3.13 Volume units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

3.14 Greenhouse gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

ENERGY SOURCE DESIGNATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

CARBON DIOXIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

COUNTRY FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.15 EU energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.15.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.15.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.16 Baltic countries energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.16.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

3.16.2 Summary energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

3.17 Czech Republic energy balance . . . . . . . . . . .44

3.17.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


3.18 Poland energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

3.18.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


3.19 Germany energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

3.19.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48


3.20 Sweden energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

3.20.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50


3.21 Denmark energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.21.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52


3.22 Slovak Republic energy balance . . . . . . . . . .54

3.22.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54


3.23 Ukraine energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

3.23.1 Energy use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56


3.24 Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

3.25 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

3.26 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

4 Baltic Pipe Project climate report

BACKGROUND

The creation of a common market for coal and steel in 1951 was the reason for forming the European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor of the European Union. Energy was, and still is, a key vehicle for economic, political and social integration of countries previously divided.

In 2006 and 2009 Europe saw severe disruptions in its gas supply due to political disputes, putting a renewed focus on increased energy security through cooperation. Furthermore, climate change and air pollution are two other issues that European countries have decided to face together through cooperation.

Energy systems must be reliable, affordable and clean, the so-called energy tri-lemma. Today, EU countries import 53 percent of energy consumed representing a cost of € 1 billion per day (Euro-pean Commission).

As for Poland, the country is highly dependent on one single suppli-er for its natural gas. Coal is the largest domestic source of energy. In this context, the Baltic Pipe Project will enable Poland to achieve the following goals:

1 Significant lower carbon emissions

21 Greatly improved air quality

32 Increased energy security

43 Stronger integration with Europe

54 A more diverse energy mix

765 A decreased use of coal

Noteworthy is that this report is intended to verify whether there is any impact on the climate and environment in the southern Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic Pipe Project. The report also aims to study the project’s broader influence on the strategic cooperation for common interests between all countries involved.

All data is backed up by credible sources, and all references and sources can be found in the list of references at the end of this report. Thus, the intent is to first and foremost let the numbers speak for themselves so that conclusions can be easily verified.

The report will compare air quality data from Poland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark as these countries are located closest to the recommended route of the project.

Baltic Pipe Project climate report 5

1.1 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT IN BRIEF

The Baltic Pipe Project is a strategic project for increased cooper-ation, integration and strategic energy security, not only for south Baltic and North Sea, but for all of Europe. Baltic Pipe is thus classi-fied by the EU as a “Project of Common Interest”, PCI.

By October 2022, the Baltic Pipe Project will enable shipment of a variety of gases between the south Baltic Sea Region and the North Sea Region. The pipeline has a capacity of 10 billion cubic meter (m³) of gas per year for gas transfer from Denmark to Poland and 3 billion m³ from Poland to Denmark. If used for shipping methane, this equals around 120 TWh of energy.

The offshore part of the pipeline will run from Denmark to Poland, with both countries having onshore portions of the project as well. The continental shelf in the area is shared by Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Poland and is divided into Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). The planned route goes just north of the German part of the continental shelf, and thus translates via the Swedish EEZ from Denmark to Poland (Figure 1). In short, this stipulates that the respective government of each EEZ the pipeline passes through needs to approve the route.

1.2 TIMELINE

The planned timeline of the project spans over 5 years, and the pro-ject will soon move from the preparation phase as construction of the pipeline begins. The general timeline of the project is illustrated below (Figure 2).

1.3 MR HARALD KLOMP – REPORT LEAD AUTHOR

This report has been independently authored by lead author Mr Harald Klomp. Mr Klomp has a Bachelor in Business Adminis-tration and a Master of Science in Engineering both from Uppsala University including studies at National University of Singapore.

Mr Klomp has been political advisor to Swedish parliamentarians and done several high-profile studies for the Swedish energy com-mission, Swedish confederation of enterprises, Swedish industry, Swedish royal institute of engineering sciences, Swedish fortifi-cations administration to name a few. His focus has been interna-tional energy markets and economics. Mr Klomp has a long back-ground in business co-founding two companies one with an IPO exit and one company sold to a multinational company.

Mr. Klomp currently serves as the CEO of Uppsala Engineering Partner, a ex-pert consultancy within energy issues. He also serves as the Director of the

Board for Imint Intelligence, a Swedish company specialized in real-time video

enchantment software for aerial re-connaissance systems. He has also

served as advisor to the CEO of a company in the Swedish energy industry.

Figure 1 Proposed route for Baltic Pipe Project (source: Baltic Pipe Project).


Figure 2 Baltic Pipe Project timeline.

• Capacity

reservations

• Concept studies

• Surveys studies

• Beginning of the

Environmental

Impact Assessment

studies

2017 2018

• Detailed

engineering

• Surveys end

• Environmental

Impact Assessment

continued

• Business case

• Signing the

Construction

Agreement

2019

• Engineering

continued

• Environmental

Impact Assessment

end

• Permits

• Tender

procedures

2020

• Contract awards

• Start of the

Construction

• Permits continued

2021

• Construction

works

2022

• Commissioning

• Operation


BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CLIMATE BENEFITS

2.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Baltic Pipe will lower carbon dioxide emissions and greatly improve air quality in Poland but will also bring Europe closer to-gether by connecting Poland to gas in the North Sea via Denmark. As the gas supply primarily comes from Norway the Baltic Pipe Project will also create a security of energy supply in Poland.

Poland has, through the EU 2030 goal, committed to reducing its 2017 carbon dioxide emissions by 120 million tonnes. Of these reductions are 43 million tonnes through effort sharing regula-tion, ESR for non-ETS emissions and 77 million tonnes through the Emissions Trade System, ETS.

Today, Poland has one of EU’s largest reliance on coal for use in both power generation (77 percent), district heating (81 percent) and direct use in buildings (26 percent). Furthermore, Poland has one of the worst air pollution situations in Europe. The burning of fuels, mainly coal, yearly emits 146 thousand tonnes of fine particle matter, PM2.5. This alone causes over 46 000 premature deaths annually. Emissions from buildings account for 54 percent of these emissions, causing 25 000 premature deaths every year.

Most of the coal power plants in Poland were constructed in 1970s and should be modernized to meet environmental requirements. Part of them should be replaced by zero- and low-emission tech-nologies. Almost 40% of all power blocks are more than 40 years old and 15% of them are more than 50 years old and they qualify for immediate retirement. According to the Energy Policy of Poland until 2040 project, the oldest coal power plants will be closed down soon. The example of change is CHP coal power plant in Warsaw, Elektrociepłownia Żerań, working since 1954, where the construction of gas turbine takes place. Expected date for gas turbine commissioning is year 2020. The gas turbine will fully sub-stitute the current coal fired generation units.

In short, when operational in 2022, the Baltic Pipe can:

u Add 60 TWh of electricity generation from gas

u Enable 40 TWh of additional wind and solar generation

u Total of 100 TWh electricity generation

u Increase electricity production by 60 percent or

u Replace 60 percent existing generation

u Replace 76 percent of coal generation

u Reduce emissions from buildings to zero

u Reduce fine particle PM2.5 emissions by 54 percent

u Prevent premature death of 25 000 people annually

u Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70 million tonnes

u With 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions reductions

contribute 58 percent to Poland’s 2030 target of 120 million

tonnes emission reduction

Using gas from Baltic Pipe Project to generate 60 TWh electricity combined with an additional 40 TWh from wind or solar a total of 100 TWh clean electricity generation becomes available. This can either be used to replace coal in electricity generation, denoted “BPP clean power” or used to replace coal, oil and wood in build-ings using electrically powered heat-pumps. As emissions from buildings account for about half of the PM2.5 emissions in Poland the later use of this additional electricity reduces PM2.5 emissions the most and is denoted “BPP clean air”.



As can be seen in Figure 3 there is no difference between scenario “BPP clean power” and “BPP clean air” when it comes to green-house gas emissions reductions, for reference also the 2030 target is included in this figure.

In Figure 4 it can be seen that the “BPP clean air” scenario reduces the premature deaths much more than in the “BPP clean power” scenario due to the difference in reduction of PM2.5 emissions (Figure 5).

These benefits are primarily realized in Poland, but as emissions do not stop at the border also neighbouring countries including Sweden and Denmark will benefit from better air quality.

Additionally, Baltic Pipe allows for:

u Integrating Poland to EU financially, politically and socially

u Increasing Poland energy security

u Providing more fuel options

The Baltic Pipe Project has continually for multiple years been designated as a Project of Common Interest, PCI, by the European Commission. This implies that the project has a strategic value not only for Poland, but for Europe as a whole. Concludingly, the Baltic Pipe will increase the political, economic and social integration in Europe, as well as both reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase air quality.

2.2 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT CAN ENABLE A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

In 2017, Poland’s total emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) amounted to 317 million tonnes (Figure 6). Poland’s total greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other greenhouse gases in CO2 equiva-lents is 416 million tons for 2017 (Figure 11). The amount of emis-sion needs to be reduced with 120 million tons in order to reach the country’s 2030 targets (Figure 27). Sixty percent of its carbon dioxide emissions, 200 million tonnes, comes from coal and lignite (Figure 6).

Today

Milli

on to

nnes

per

yea

r

BPP clean power BPP clean air 2030 target

346346

416

296

Poland greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents

Today

Prem

atur

e de

aths

per

yea

r

BPP clean power BPP clean air

21 000

43 70046 020

Poland premature deaths due to PM2.5 emissions

Lorem ipsum

Today

Sum 147Sum 140

Sum 68

Thou

sand

tonn

es p

er y

ear

BPP clean power BPP clean air

21 000

43 70046 020

Poland PM2.5 emissions

Lorem ipsum

BuildingsIndustryRoadEnergyOther

1515

10 215 15

29

15

10

15

29

29

79 79

Poland CO2 emissions 2017 Source: globalcarbonproject.org

Oil 77 MMT (24 %)

Other 11 MMT (3 %)

Gas 38 MMT (12 %)

Coal 200 MMT (61 %)

Figure 3 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce green-house gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents in either the energy sector or in buildings.

Figure 4 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce the number of premature deaths caused by PM2.5 emissions.

Figure 5 Baltic Pipe Project can be used to reduce PM2.5 emissions.

Figure 6 Poland CO2 emissions in 2017, million tonnes excluding other greenhouse gases.


Poland uses about 535 TWh of coal, of which 75 percent is used for producing electricity, 18 percent in buildings and the remain-ing 7 percent in industry (Figure 24). The capacity of the Baltic Pipe pipeline is 10 billion m³ per year or 120 TWh, assuming 12 kWh/m³ (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017).

Electricity generation using gas offers two separate cycles, a gas cycle where air is heated by gas and hot air is expanded. The second cycle is a steam cycle where steam is heated by the exhaust from the gas cycle. The steam is then expanded using a steam turbine. This arrangement is commonly referred to as a combined cycle gas turbine, CCGT.

Coal powerplants, using data from US EIA have an average thermal efficiency of 38 percent. CCGT are more expensive to build but offer a thermal efficiency of 50 percent, i.e. 31 percent more efficient than a coal powerplant. A single-stage gas turbine has a thermal efficiency of about 37 percent, comparable to a coal plant (Energy Information Agency (EIA)). Moreover, gas turbines are considered as a flexible power source in comparison to coal power plants, which is an advantage when comes to planned increased RES share in the Polish electrical grid (2). Coal comes in different qualities from anthracite to lignite or brown coal. The carbon dioxide emis-sions from German lignite plants Jänschwalde, Boxberg, Schwarze Pumpe and Lippendorf were 60 million tonnes in 2015 and the electricity production 50 TWh, i.e. an average of 1200 grams of CO2 per kWh (Vattenfall).

When the gas is converted to electricity using a CCGT Baltic Pipe 120 TWh of gas can thus be converted to 60 TWh of electricity. Because a CCGT has higher thermal efficiency about 160 TWh of coal can be replaced using the Baltic Pipe. Using the average carbon emissions for coal in Poland of about 1 000 grams of carbon

dioxide emissions per kWh it is possible to calculate the benefit of switching from coal to gas (Section 2.5.1). If used instead of coal, the Baltic Pipe Project can annually replace about 30 million tons of CO2.

2 .2 .1 THE ADDED BENEFITS OF COMBINING GAS AND WIND

As described in section 2.5.1 wind energy can be combined with gas at a 60/40 gas to wind ratio. As seen in the previous section Baltic Pipe project can be used to produce about 60 TWh of electricity. This can then be combined with another 40 TWh wind (and/or solar) for a total of 100 TWh. This corresponds to an in-crease of 60 percent in electricity generation compared to today, from 170 to 270 TWh (Figure 23).

As wind has neglectable climate effects (Figure 31), the savings for replacing wind/solar with coal is thus an additional 40 million tonnes annually using the same number for coal emissions as in the section above at 1000 grams per kWh.

By combining gas from Baltic Pipe with wind, a 65 percent boost in energy and climate reduction effect of the project can be achieved about 30 million tonnes annually for coal (see previous section) and 40 million tonnes for solar and wind for a total of 70 million tons of annual CO2 reduction. This corresponds to:

132 percent of Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions of 53 million tonnes.

127 percent of Sweden’s greenhouse gas emissions of 55 million tonnes.

18 percent of Poland’s greenhouse gas emissions of 398 million tonnes.


2 .2 .2 THE BALTIC PIPE CAN SAVE 25 000 LIVES ANNUALLY

A heat pump is a thermal engine in reverse by using mechanical energy to pump heat from the cold side to the hot side of the heat engine. This way the cold side becomes colder (cooling) and the hot side hotter (heating). Heat pumps are thus used for both cooling in refrigerators and air conditioning and for heating.

If used for heating a heat conversion factor is useful. Often man-ufacturers advertise the peak heat conversion factor but as the conversion depends on the outside temperature an annual aver-age is more useful for calculations. The Swedish energy agency, Energimyndigheten in 2014 tested 16 air-heat-pumps and calculat-ed an average heat capacity factor of 2.6-2.7 for the larger units (Energimyndigheten, 2014).

Baltic Pipe annual capacity of 120 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017) gas can be converted to 60 TWh electricity using a CCGT. When converting it to heat using a heat pump 155-160 TWh of heat is generated replacing chemical fuels (coal, gas, wood, etc). Buildings in Poland use about 131 TWh of energy from coal, wood and oil (Figure 7). These fuels can be entirely replaced with heat-pumps using electricity generated using gas from Baltic Pipe.

By replacing fuels in buildings, not only are carbon emissions reduced but significant other air pollutants can also be reduced as many buildings have less optimized combustion and emission con-trol compared to large power-plants.

Looking at the economics of heat-pumps compared to gas furnaces the coefficient of performance, COP need to be 2.8 for the oper-ational cost (OPEX) to be even (Figure 8). This is close to the COP for the heat-pumps tested in Sweden as mentioned earlier in this

section. In addition, some financial incentive is likely needed to make up for the difference in capital cost (CAPEX). A heat-pump has the additional benefit that it can be used for both heating and cooling which a gas-furnace usually cannot. Heat-pumps can also be combined with solar utilizing an in-situ renewable resource. This is especially attractive for cooling purposes during the sum-mer when solar resources are more abundant. Buildings, especially if well-insulated have large thermal inertia allowing heat-pump to act as a flexible demand resource that can be used to balance the grid. Using time-of-day prices and/or taxation can give incentives for heat-pumps to be flexible and lower their operational cost and give additional financial incentive.

Buildings in Poland emit 79 000 tonnes of fine particles per year (Figure 16). The Baltic Pipe can replace 20 percent of final energy of 804 TWh (Figure 21) but 54 percent of total 146 000 tons of PM2.5 emissions (Figure 16).

Emissions of PM2.5 alone annually cause 46,020 premature deaths in Poland of which 54 percent or 24 800 from emissions from build-ings. Baltic Pipe Project can eliminate this by replacing coal, wood and oil in buildings.

Polish energy sector emits 9600 tonnes of PM2.5 or 6.5 percent of total PM2.5 emissions. Combined gas and wind (section 2.2.1) a further 10 percent reduction in PM2.5 from buildings and 40 TWh of electricity (24 percent). This can reduce premature deaths with another 4 100 from emissions from buildings and 700 from emis-sions in energy. Baltic Pipe project could conservatively, every year prevent 25 000 premature deaths.

Poland energy used in buildingsSum 325 TWh, year 2017, source: Eurostat

Coal, wood, Oil 131 TWh

Gas 59 TWh (16 %)

Electricity 59 TWh

Heat 76 TWh

Coal 84 TWh

Wood 35 TWh

Oil 12 TWh

Figure 7 Poland buildings use 131 TWh from coal, wood and oil

Figure 8 Poland gas and electricity prices for medium sized households. Prices including, taxes, levies, transmission, system services, meter rental, distribution and other services (source: Eurostat). Heat-pump COP break-even assumes gas furnace COP of 95 percent.

0,002014

S12014

S22015

S12015

S22016

S12016

S22017

S12017

S22018

S12018

S2

Gas

Gas avg

Heatpump COP break-even

Electricity

Electricity avg

Heatpump COP break-even avg

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

2,4

2,5

2,6

2,7

2,8

2,9

3,0

3,1

3,2

Poland gas and electricity prices for medium householdsPrices including all taxes, levies and VAT. Source: Eurostat (nrg_pc)

2,79

0,13

0,05


25 000 LIVES CAN BE SAVED

ANNUALLY


2 .2 .3 THE FUTURE USE OF THE PIPELINE GOES BEYOND NATURAL GAS

The pipeline is designed to ship natural gas. Natural gas mainly consists of methane (CH4). Methane can have both fossil original (natural gas) and bio origin (biogas). The pipeline can thus carry any mix of these two origins.

The pipeline is mainly intended to ship natural gas from the North Sea to Poland but can ship gas in the other direction from Poland north or from Poland to other countries. The pipeline has a design lifetime of at least 50 years and can thus see different use over its lifetime. With modifications and proper licensing the pipeline could be used to either transport fossil-methane (natural gas, CH4), bio-methane (biogas, CH4), hydrogen (H2), ammonia (NH3) or carbon dioxide (CO2). Using the full capacity of 10 billion m³/year the pipeline can yearly transport one of the following quantities (Swedish Energy Agency, 2017).

2.2.3.1 Hydrogen

Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the uni-verse. As a gas it combines in pairs H2. As it is a very light molecule earth’s gravity is not enough to gaseous hydrogen in the atmos-phere. Virtually all terrestrial hydrogen is thus bound in molecules such as with carbon to form hydrocarbons (Methane, Ethane, etc) or with oxygen to form water (H20).

For industrial purposes hydrocarbons are the most common source of Hydrogen using a process called hydroforming (International Energy Agency, IEA ). Hydrogen is then used in many petrochem-ical processes as well as in fertilizers such as Ammonia (NH3), see Figure 9.

Hydrogen from water can be generated using electricity using electrolysis. In a future with an abundance of cheap electricity it would be possible to generate hydrogen to be transported via pipe-

Gas Quantity Comment

Methane (CH4) 120 TWh Either natural gas or biogas (12 kWh/m³)

Hydrogen (H2) 9 TWh Different origins (3kWh/m3).

Ammonia (NH3) 8 million tonnes Mainly used for agriculture as fertilizer (0,86 kg/m³).

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

20 million tonnes

For geologic storage (CCS) (1.977 kg/m³).

Table 1 Different use for Baltic Pipe.


lines and stored for electricity generation. Baltic Pipe project could be used to transport renewable hydrogen from, as an example off-shore wind farms in the North Sea.

According to the most recent EU researches there is a possibility to maintain 15-30% of safe hydrogen content in natural gas pipelines (Melaina, Antonia, & Penev, 2013). Higher contents require specific materials ensuring the resistance to hydrogen penetration into intercrystallite structures of steal and in most cases it is achieved by building dedicated hydrogen pipelines. For example, the maxi-mum permissible concentration of hydrogen in the gas network in Netherlands and Germany is 12 and 5 percent, respectively (Navas, 2017).

2.2.3.2 Ammonia

Ammonia is used in agriculture as a fertilizer and is manufactured by combining hydrogen and nitrogen. About half of the world’s hydrogen is used to produce Ammonia (Figure 9) (International Energy Agency, IEA ).

If the cost of renewable energy continues to decline it could be possible to manufacture renewable hydrogen for Ammonia pro-duction as described in the previous section. According to Eurostat Poland uses about 1.1 million tonnes of nitrogen (Eurostat). Baltic Pipe could transport that amount in 1.5 months.

Before Baltic Pipe can be used for Ammonia several modifications would need to be made to the pipe-line and compressor stations. The exact modifications required is beyond the scope of this report.

2.2.3.3 Carbon dioxide storage

Carbon capture and storage, CCS is one of the key technologies to achieve net-zero emissions before 2050 and negative emissions beyond. Certain processes like cement production release carbon dioxide as part of the chemical process. For example, when lime-stone, calcium-carbonate (CsCO3) is heated to form calcium oxide (CsO), the main ingredient in cement.

Norway has now created a market for storage open for other countries to store their captured carbon dioxide. The Norwegian state-owned oil and gas company Equinor (former Statoil) together with Finland’s state-owned utility Fortum are creating a market for capture and storage of Carbon dioxide (Equinor). Norway’s Equinor also plans to build a pipeline connecting emission sources in United Kingdom and Netherlands and storage site in Norway (Figure 10). This project is designated by the European Commis-sion as a project of common interest, PCI, to be completed in 2023 (European Commission).

Before Baltic Pipe can be used for Carbon Dioxide several modifi-cations would need to be made to the pipeline and compressor sta-tions. The exact modifications required is beyond the scope of this report. The Baltic Pipe Project could later in its 50-year lifetime be re-designated to transport carbon dioxide to Norway for storage. Concludingly, the future possible uses of the pipeline other than transporting natural gas ensure that the pipeline will remain rele-vant and usable for its entire lifetime.

Figure 9 Global hydrogen demand (source EIA).

Figure 10

CO2 cross-border

transport between

emission sources

in United Kingdom

and Netherlands

and storage site in

Norway.

Cross-border carbone dioxide network

Global demand for pure hydrogen, 1975–2018Mt

0

25

50

75

100

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018e

Refining Ammonia Other

SENO

FI

EE

LVLT

BYRU

RU

PLDE

NLBE

LU

DK

FR

ES

CH AT

ITBA

SI HR

CZSKHU

RO

BGRS

MEALMKXK

GR

UA

MD

PT

UKIE

IS

NORWAY

GERMANYUNITED KINGDOM

NETHERLANDS

DENMARK

1 2

PCI 12.4 – CO2 injectionPCI 12.4 – CO2 terminalPCI 12.4 – CO2 shipping route

Eemshaven Port

12


2.3 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT’S EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY

The combustion of chemical fuels causes ambient air pollution as well as the emission of carbon dioxide, contributing to global warm-ing through the greenhouse effect.

Outdoor ambient air pollution is caused by both natural and human sources. Natural sources include dust, pollen, sea salt, smoke from natural causes and many other. Anthropogenic air pollution, i.e. air pollution caused by humans, is mainly caused by the combustion of oil and solid fuels such as coal and wood.

Air pollution causes stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma. Health effects leading to individual suffering, great societal cost and loss of life.

Human activities contribution to air pollution include:

u Fuel combustion from transportation, cars, trucks, busses,

planes and ships.

u Combustion of solid and liquid fuels for heat and electricity

generation.

u Waste handling from landfills to incinerations.

u Industrial processes such as manufacturing of steel, cement,

oil products, etc

u Residential heating, cooking and lighting with fuels

Humans naturally have effective defence mechanisms to air pollu-tion and other health threats, such as radioactive radiation, bacte-ria, viruses, bad food, etc. If safe levels are maintained, the human body can defend itself and repair potential damages. Although, should these defence mechanisms be repeatedly overwhelmed over long periods of time without time for recovery, negative health effects are to be expected.

The world health organization, WHO, lists the four air pollutants with the strongest evidence of health effects (World Health Or-ganization, WHO, 2018).

1. Particulate matter (PM)

2. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

3. Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

4. Ozone (O3)

Particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10) are linked to several health hazards. Particles with diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) when inhaled into the lungs transfers di-rectly to the blood.

Particular matter causes more than 1000 years of life lost per 100 000 persons in Poland, 700 in Germany 600 in Denmark with Sweden having the best air quality with less than 500 years of life lost due to PM2.5 emissions. (European Environment Agency EEA, 2018)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and Sulphur dioxide (SO2) cause damages to the lungs. When combined with water NO2 forms Nitric acid (HNO3) and SO2 forms Sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Both are strong acids causing negative health effects directly and acid rain. Acid rain causes damage to humans and nature but also to buildings, bridges and other structures. When acid water reaches into the ground it dissolves metals in the ground that reach ground water and drink-ing water sources, these include copper, lead, cadmium and zinc. (Shun-an Zheng, 2012)

Ozone (O3) near earth surface is formed through interaction of oxygen, sunlight and the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).


2 .3 .1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Countries described in this report have different geographies as well as varying abilities to source local energy. Scandinavia has access to large land areas with low populations, suitable for wind and hydro generation as well as forests for biofuels. The North Sea has oil and gas and central Europe has the largest reserves of lignite coal as well as of hard coal. The North Sea and Baltic Sea have large sandbanks that are suitable for offshore wind generation.

The oil crisis of 1973 caused the first major shift in energy away from oil for heating to being mostly used for transport. The oil crisis also saw an expansion of coal and nuclear. Different countries have thus arrived at their respective energy mix for a variety of different reasons.

However, emissions of carbon dioxide have become the focal point of energy systems and have to be eliminated by mid-century to avoid a heating of more than 2 degrees. As illustrated below, different energy systems have different levels of carbon intensity. In a new carbon-neutral world electricity have a pivotal role as electricity can be generated affordable, reliable and at scale without emitting any carbon emissions. Most sectors can relatively easily be electrified such as most processes in buildings and factories. Transportation remains the most difficult to decarbonize but fast development in electric vehicles stand to change this outlook in the coming decade.

Eliminating carbon emissions in electricity generation and electrify-ing as much of society as possible is the path to a zero-carbon world.

Today Germany has the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the EU by some margin. Germany is the only EU country to also make it to the global top ten list placing itself number six after China, USA, India, Russia and Japan (globalcarbonatlas.org). In the EU Poland has the fifth highest greenhouse gas emissions, Sweden and Denmark are placed 18:th and 19:th respectively among EU members (Figure 11).

Eight EU countries have committed to exiting coal at different timepoints, such as France in 2022, Italy and Ireland by 2025 and Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland by 2030 (Carmichael, 2019). Germany, the EU country with the highest greenhouse gas emissions has plans to exit coal in 19 years by 2038. Currently Germany focuses on replacing nuclear on which it is still heavy reliant for its electricity generation (Vaughan, Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038, 2019).

For Poland, the greenhouse gas emissions from coal are dominant followed by emissions from oil. (Figure 12). The emissions from coal have been reduced in half from 400 to 200 million tonnes since peaking in mid 1980s but are still very high compared to other EU countries, both in relative and absolute terms. Natural gas combined with an expansion of renewables and other sources is an obvious bridge fuel to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from coal.

2 .3 .2 AIR POLLUTION IN EU

Air pollution is a major health hazard with many respiratory illnesses. Eurostat makes emission data available from European Energy System. Small particle matter, especially smaller than 2.5 micrometre (PM2.5) is a major health hazard as these particles can enter the bloodstream directly through the lungs (European Environment Agency EEG). There is a strong correlation between the annual concentration and the number of premature deaths (Figure 13).

936

505

482

439

416

357

205

130

119

115

99

85

74

64

64

62

57

55

51

43

25

21

21

18

12

12

10

2 .6

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Poland

Spain

Netherlands

Czechia

Belgium

Romania

Greece

Austria

Portugal

Ireland

Hungary

Finland

Bulgaria

Sweden

Denmark

Slovakia

Croatia

Lithuania

Estonia

Slovenia

Latvia

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Malta

kiloton

Greenhouse gasesCO2, and N2O, CH4, HFC, PFC, SF6, NF3 in CO2 equivalent. All sectors (excluding LULUCF

and memo items, including international aviation), source: Eurostat (env_air_emis), year 2017.

Figure 11 Greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other sources in CO2 equivalents. Source: Eurostat

Poland CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org

Million tonnes

500

400

300

200

100

0

Oil Coal Gas

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

1992

Figure 12 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org

Figure 13 Correlation between air concentration of PM2 .5 and NO2 and premature deaths with Poland marked (source: EEA).

Premature deaths due to air pollution from PM2.5 and NO2Source: European Environment AgencyPremature death per

100 000 persons

200

150

100

50

0

–50

PM2.5 Linear (PM2.5)NO2 Linear (NO2)

Poland

Annual mean concentration µg/m3


Premature deaths attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3Year: 2014 Source: EEAPremature

death

90 000

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

PM2.5 NO2 O3

German

y

Denmar

kLit

huan

iaLa

tvia

Finlan

dSlo

venia

Irelan

dEs

tonia

Cypru

sLu

xembo

urg

Malt

a

Italy

United

King

dom

Polan

dFr

ance

Spain

Roman

iaBulg

aria

Greec

eNet

herla

nds

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Austri

aPo

rtuga

lSlo

vakia

Croat

iaSw

eden

Figure 14 Premature death attributable to PM2 .5, NO2 and O3 (source EEA).

Figure 15 PM2 .5 annual mean in 2016 (source: EEA)

Premature deaths attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3Year: 2014 Source: EEAPremature

death

90 000

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

PM2.5 NO2 O3

German

y

Denmar

kLit

huan

iaLa

tvia

Finlan

dSlo

venia

Irelan

dEs

tonia

Cypru

sLu

xembo

urg

Malt

a

Italy

United

King

dom

Polan

dFr

ance

Spain

Roman

iaBulg

aria

Greec

eNet

herla

nds

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Austri

aPo

rtuga

lSlo

vakia

Croat

iaSw

eden


Germany and Italy have the highest number of premature deaths in the EU with around 80 thousand per year followed by United King-dom, Poland and France with around 50 thousand per year. Fine particle matters being the by far the most problematic (Figure 14).

Poland, Bulgaria, northern Italy and the Balkans have the highest annual mean concentrations of particle matter (Figure 15). The European Environment Agency, EEA compiles a map where the anthropogenic source of PM2 .5 concentration is shown (European Environment Agency, EEG).

2 .3 .3 AIR POLLUTION IN POLAND

Poland has an annual mean of 23 μg/m³, the second highest con-centration of fine particles, PM2 .5 in EU after Bulgaria (Figure 13).

Every year, 46 000 premature deaths in Poland are caused by fine particle emissions, 1 700 by NO2 emissions and 970 through ozone (Figure 14). Particle emissions are highest from buildings (Figure 16, Figure 17). Emissions of Nitrogen oxides are mainly from road emissions (Figure 18) and emissions of Sulphur oxides mainly come from energy production (Figure 19). Buildings in Poland receive 26 percent of its energy from coal, 11 percent biofuels, 10 percent oil all of which are associated with particle and other emissions, especially if burned in furnaces without proper emission control (Figure 21).

Greenhouse gas emissions in Poland are dominated by use of coal (Figure 12).

Buildings

Industry

Road

Energy

Processes

Waste

Agriculture

Transport

Other

79

29

15

9 .6

6 .0

4 .4

3 .2

1 .0

0 .0

kiloton

Particulates < 2 .5 µmYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat

Figure 16 Emissions of PM2 .5 in Poland

Particulates < 10 µmYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat

Buildings

Industry

Agriculture

Energy

Road

Processes

Waste

Transport

Other

125

31

28

22

19

15

4 .5

1 .0

0 .0

kiloton

Figure 17 Emissions of PM10 in Poland

Road

Energy

Buildings

Agriculture

Industry

Processes

Transport

Waste

Other

297

193

155

64

58

18

16

2 .2

0 .0

kiloton

Nitrogen oxidesYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat

Figure 18 Emissions of NOX in Poland

Energy

Buildings

Industry

Processes

Road

Transport

Waste

Agriculture

Other

282

171

117

12

0 .5

0 .1

0 .1

0 .0

0 .0

kiloton

Sulphur oxidesYear: 2017 Source: Eurostat

Figure 19 Emissions of SOX in Poland


2 .3 .4 POLAND ENERGY SYSTEM

Poland uses about 1,222 TWh of primary energy (Figure 20), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 21).

Both district heating heat (Figure 22) and electricity is produced using mainly coal (Figure 23). As previously illustrated, Poland receives most of its primary energy from coal. This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heat-ing (Figure 24). Natural gas use (Figure 25) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.

The final energy use in the Poland shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 26).

2.4 THE BALTIC PIPE PROJECT AND THE EUROPEAN ENERGY GOALS

During recent years, the view of natural gas on an EU-level has been transformed. As the general view on natural gas previously been that it would serve a vital role in the transition to a greener energy use at least until 2035, but that view has now become

even more optimistic. The view has now shifted to that natural gas will fill an important role in the green transition for the foreseeable future.

The EU has set a few long terms energy goals that aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The main methods are energy efficiency and renewable energies, but emissions can be reduced through other means than increasing energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. For 2030, only the goal for greenhouse gas emissions is binding and in this context, natural gas is favourable, given its lower emissions than ignite coal as well as its ability to act as a bridge fuel.

2 .4 .1 EU 2030 TARGETS

The EU 2030 targets were decided in October 2014, one and half year before the Paris Agreement on climate change (European Commission) (UNFCCC, 2016) (European Commission).

The 2030 targets are

u 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels

• 43% reduction within ETS compared to 2005

• 30% reduction non-ETS compared to 2005

District heat production Poland Sum 83 TWh, year 2017

Coal 67 TWh (81 %)

Gas 11 TWh (13 %)

Bio 4 TWh (4 %)

Oil 1 TWh (1 %)

Electricity production Poland Sum 170 TWh, year 2017

Coal 131 TWh (77 %)

Wind 15 TWh (9 %)

Gas 12 TWh (7 %)

Bio 6 TWh (4 %)

Hydro 3 TWh (2 %)

Oil 2 TWh (1 %)

Primary energy Poland Sum 1 222 TWh, year 2017

Coal 578 TWh (47 %)

Oil 349 TWh (29 %)

Gas 180 TWh (15 %)

Bio 85 TWh (7 %)Wind 15 TWh (1 %)

Waste 10 TWh (1 %)Hydro 3 TWh (0 %)

Electricity 2 TWh (0 %)

Final energy Poland Sum 804 TWh, year 2017

Oil 281 TWh (35 %)

Electricity 136 TWh (17 %)Coal 131 TWh (16 %)

Gas 113 TWh (14 %)

Heat 68 TWh (8 %)

Bio 67 TWh (8 %)

Waste 8 TWh (1 %)

Figure 20 Primary energy Poland. Figure 22 Heat production in Poland.

Figure 21 Final energy Poland. Figure 23 Electricity production in Poland.


u at least a 32% share of renewable energy consumption, with

an upward revision clause for 2023

u indicative target for an improvement in energy efficiency at

EU level of at least 32.5%, following on from the existing 20%

target for 2020

u support the completion of the internal energy market by

achieving the existing electricity interconnection target of

10% by 2020, with a view to reaching 15% by 2030

Compared to 2017 years emissions the reductions required are 332 million tons for Germany, 120 for Poland, 10 for Denmark and 15 for Sweden (Figure 27). Of these four countries all but Poland have managed to reduce emissions between 2017 and 2005.

2 .4 .2 EU 2050 GOALS

In November 2018 the European Commission recommended a net zero emissions economy by 2050, in line with the targets agreed in the Paris agreement and the IPCC recommendations. These rec-ommendations are currently under consideration in the European Council and Parliament (European Commission, 2018).

In order to reduce climate emissions, several countries have decid-ed to reduce or fully eliminate their dependencies on coal as several alternatives exist, including natural gas. Gas is a very flexible energy

source with about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal, and gas powered generation is often easier to combine with low carbon options such as wind and solar. Oil is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions for many countries, being used mainly in transportation. Though, electric vehicles are rapidly becoming more affordable and will see a major reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation when becoming more widely availa-ble in the coming years.

After the Paris agreement was signed several countries have com-mitted to eliminating coal from their energy mix. Leading is France pledging to end coal in 2022 followed by the Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom which all target 2025 (Vaughan, UK government spells out plan to shut down coal plant, 2018) (AFP).

Poland coal use Sum 535 TWh, year 2017

Energy sector 1.1 TWh (0 %)

Electricity and heat 402.0 TWh (75 %)

Industry 35.9 TWh (7 %)

Buildings 95.3 TWh (18 %)

None energy 0.8 TWh (0 %)

Poland gas use Sum 200 TWh, year 2017




Transport 4.4 TWh (2 %)

Electricity and heat33.9 TWh (17 %)


All

TWh

Industry Transport Buildings

Final energy PolandYear 2017

CoalOilGasBioWasteHeatElectricitySolar

131 (16%)

281 (35%)

113 (14%)

136 (17%)

36 (19%)

49 (26%)

20 (11%)

55 (30%)

234 (94%)

95 (26%)

38 (10%)

60 (16%)

40 (11%)

95 (16%)

78 (21%)

Country Year

France 2022

United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland 2025

Canada, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland

2030

Figure 24 Coal use in Poland. Figure 26 Poland energy use summary.

Figure 25 Gas use in Poland.


Some of these countries use natural gas as a bridge fuel to more quickly phase out coal. The intent is to copy USA that has had a big success reducing its dependency on coal by increasing natural gas (Figure 28). The intent in the USA is to use natural gas as a bridge fuel to an energy system using renewables (Woolfork, 2009).

For Poland, a secure supply of natural gas can act as a bridge fuel by enabling further investments into renewables, such as wind and photovoltaic energy. As wind energy and photovoltaics are dependent upon weather conditions in order to function properly and generate electricity, there is a need for a reliable alternative when weather conditions are unfavourable. In this context, a se-cure and flexible energy source such as natural gas complement when wind or sun is unable to deliver, and further drive invest-ments into renewables.

2.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING A SECURITY OF SUPPLY

In the winters of both 2006 and 2009 there were severe disrup-tions in gas supply due to political disputes, some of which are still on-going. This became a wake-up call for a common European energy policy. The energy union, projects of common interest as well as national energy and climate plans are all part of this inte-gration effort coordinated by the European Commission on behalf of member states. The Commission has for this purpose compiled an energy security study and a European Energy Security Strategy (European Commission).

Today, the EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes. Energy im-port dependency relates to crude oil (almost 90%), to natural gas (66%), and to a lesser extent to solid fuels (42%) as well as nuclear fuel (40%). For both oil and nuclear fuels, a reasonably well func-tioning global market exists where dependency on a single supplier is less. Nuclear fuels can also be easily stored in large quantities due to its high energy density compared to chemical fuels.

Natural gas is often supplied via pipelines with high dependency on few suppliers. The Baltic Pipe Project is a key project to increase supplier choice for Poland and its neighbours.

The EU has large reserves of coal, especially lignite coal which makes this fuel beneficial from an energy security standpoint but is also a large source of air pollutants and carbon dioxide. Transition-ing away from coal thus takes time and need to address issues like reliability, affordability, jobs and energy security.

2 .5 .1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION

When used for electricity production, gas has about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal as shown in Figure 27. Switching from coal to gas will thus lead to a significant reduc-tion in greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 27). Poland uses lignite coal which has even higher greenhouse gas emissions than hard coal. Poland has 200 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal of which 75 percent is used to produce 131 TWh of electric-ity. Average is thus 150/131 = 1140 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (Figure 12, Figure 23, Figure 24). For simpler calcu-lations, 1000 grams for one kilowatt-hour electricity from coal and 500 grams for gas is used.

All electricity sources are not equal and can thus not always be substituted. Sources that use chemical fuels such as gas, oil, coal, biofuel or waste all need to be supplied continuously with large quantities of fuel. Hydroelectric generation is limited by geographic

availability. Snowmelt is stored for next winter generation. Hydro is flexible and can change its output based on demand. Generation is limited by amount of water available and the height of dams. Wind and solar are dependent on the availability of wind and sun both of which have natural cycles. Interconnection can to some extent even out the variability of both but large variability will always remain.

Each summer, the Swedish transmission system operator Svenska kraftnät publishes their winter follow-up with next winter forecast. In the latest report from 30 June 2019 (Svenska kraftnät, 2019) the report shows the variability of wind over the whole country of Sweden (Figure 29) which measures 500 km east-west and 1500 km north-south (Swedish Institute (SI)).

A measure of how much a generation asset is utilized capacity fac-tor can be used. In Germany wind energy had an average capacity factor of 44 percent and solar 12 percent (Figure 30). Low capacity factors for hard-coal and gas is not due to lack of availability but because they are used as back-up for days with high demand com-bined with little to no wind and solar.

Because of low capacity factors for wind and solar they are used primarily as so-called fuel-savers where they supplement other sources. If wind and gas is matched at 40/60 percent capacity factors emissions can be lowered without sacrificing overall avail-ability.

The median carbon emissions are 820 g/kWh for coal, 490 g/kWh for gas, 41 g/kWh for solar PV – rooftop, 24 g/kWh for hydropower, 12 g/kWh for wind offshore, 12 g/kWh for nuclear and 11 g/kWh for wind onshore (IPCC 2014). Using this information, the average

Sum

ETS

ESR 489 311 -178

447 293 –153

936 604 –332

213 170 –43

203 126 –77

416 296 –120

35 26 –9

16 15 –1

51 41 –10

33 27 –6

23 13 –9

55 40 –15

Germany

2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction 2017 2030 Reduction

Poland Denmark Sweden

Emission targets 2030

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

–200

–400

ETS ESR Sum

936

604

–332

–120

–15–10

416

296

51 41 55 40

Million tonnes

Figure 27 Reduction of 2017 years greenhouse gas emission in

CO2 equivalent to reach 2030 goals of 40% reduction for both

Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) for non-ETS emissions and for

Emissions Trade System (ETS) emissions (data: Eurostat).


from such a combination is 40%*12 g/kWh + 60%*490 g/kWh = 299 g/kWh. Solar is more available in summertime when wind generation is lower so by adding solar emissions can be reduced somewhat further.

2 .6 ENDING NOTES

The Baltic Pipe project is a strategic project that will contribute greatly to the energy security of Poland and its neighbours. The climate and air quality emissions will be reduced, and the Baltic Pipe project will contribute to Poland’s climate goals. Enhanced air

quality in Poland will benefit not just its citizens but also its neigh-bours, as air pollution frequently gets transported with winds to neighbouring countries.

The Baltic Pipe Project is of vital importance to integrating Poland closer to Europe as a whole and its neighbours in particular. The project brings human, economic and political benefits for all coun-tries involved and beyond.

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

Coal Gas

TWh

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

SE 2017/2018 SE 2018/2019 LDC 2018/19 LDC 2018/19

Wind energy production [MWh/h]

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

2018

.11.16

2018

.12.01

2018

.12.15

2019

.01.01

2019

.01.15

2019

.02.

01

201.0

2.15

2019

.03.

01

2019

.03.1

5

Germany electricity capacity factors 2018Source: Fraunhofer

Uranium

Brown coal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro power

Hard coal

Average

Gas

Solar

Oil

81%

71%

67%

44%

35%

34%

30%

17%

12%

2%

Figure 28 Electricity generation from coal and gas in USA (source: BP Statistical Review).

Figure 29 Wind energy production in Sweden winter 2017/2018 and 2018/19 (source: Svenska kraftnät, SvK).

Figure 30 Capacity factors for different electricity generation sources in Germany in 2018 (source: Fraunhofer ISE energy-charts.de).

USA


AIR POLLUTION IN EU

Air pollution is a major health hazard with many respiratory illness-es. Eurostat makes emission data available from European Energy System. Data is made available 18 months after each year. Latest data available when writing this report is from 2017. Particulate matter are fine particles. Poland has the third highest emissions of fine particulate, PM2 .5 matter smaller than 2.5 micrometre (Figure 31) and the second highest for emissions for PM10, particles smaller than 10 micrometre (Figure 32).

Germany has the highest emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx) in EU and Poland in fourth place (Figure 33). Nitrogen oxides, among other things drive the formation of ozone (O3), a potent pollutant and cause of smog. Poland has the highest emissions of Sulphur ox-ides (SOx) in EU followed by Germany (Figure 34). Sulphur oxides combined with water form sulfuric acid, a very potent acid causing acid rain.

APPENDIXES

kiloton

Particulates < 2 .5 µm Total sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)

Italy

France

Poland

Romania

United Kingdom

Spain

Germany

Portugal

Hungary

Czechia

Bulgaria

Greece

Belgium

Sweden

Denmark

Slovakia

Latvia

Finland

Croatia

Austria

Netherlands

Ireland

Slovenia

Estonia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Cyprus

Malta

165

164

147

112

107

105

99

51

48

40

32

26

23

20

20

18

18

18

17

16

14

12

11

9 .2

9 .1

1 .3

1 .3

0 .2

Particulates < 10 µm Total sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)

France

Poland

Germany

Italy

Spain

United Kingdom

Romania

Portugal

Hungary

Greece

Czechia

Bulgaria

Sweden

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

Austria

Ireland

Netherlands

Croatia

Latvia

Slovakia

Lithuania

Estonia

Slovenia

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Malta

254

246

206

196

172

171

143

73

69

57

51

47

40

33

31

29

28

27

27

25

25

23

14

14

13

2 .1

2 .0

0 .4

kiloton

Figure 31 PM2 .5 emissions in EU (source: Eurostat). Figure 32 PM10 emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).


Nitrogen oxidesTotal sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Poland

Spain

Italy

Netherlands

Greece

Romania

Belgium

Czechia

Portugal

Austria

Finland

Sweden

Hungary

Denmark

Ireland

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Croatia

Lithuania

Latvia

Slovenia

Estonia

Luxemburg

Cyprus

Malta

1188

893

807

804

739

709

252

250

232

176

163

159

145

130

124

119

112

110

103

66

55

53

37

35

33

18

15

5 .3

kiloton

Poland

Germany

Spain

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Czechia

Romania

Greece

Bulgaria

Portugal

Estonia

Belgium

Finland

Hungary

Slovakia

Netherlands

Sweden

Cyprus

Ireland

Lithuania

Austria

Croatia

Denmark

Slovenia

Latvia

Luxembourg

Malta

583

315

220

173

144

115

110

107

106

103

48

39

38

35

28

27

27

18

16

13

13

13

13

10

4 .9

4 .0

1 .0

0 .2

Sulphur oxidesTotal sectors of emissions for the national territory (year 2017)

kiloton

Figure 33 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).

Figure 34 Sulphur oxides (SOx) emissions in EU (source: Eurostat).


SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The source of greenhouse emissions in the EU originates mainly from burning of carbon intensive fuels . Oil and coal have the larg-est carbon content per unit of energy. Natural gas carbon content being about half compared to coal. EU emissions from oil peaked during the oil crisis of 1973. Several countries made investments in other forms of energy such as coal, nuclear and later in wind and solar. Natural gas has steadily been increasing in popularity.

Eight EU countries have committed to exiting coal at different timepoints, such as France in 2022, Italy and Ireland by 2025 and Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland by 2030 (Carmichael, 2019). Germany, the EU country with the highest car-bon dioxide emissions has plans to exit coal in 19 years by 2038. Currently Germany focuses on replacing nuclear on which it is still heavy reliant for its electricity generation (Vaughan, Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038, 2019).

For Poland, the carbon dioxide emissions from coal are dominant followed by emissions from oil. (Figure 12). The emissions from coal have been reduced in half from 400 to 200 million tonnes since peak-ing in mid 1980s but are still very high compared to other EU coun-tries, both in relative and absolute terms. Natural gas combined with an expansion of renewables and other sources is an obvious bridge fuel to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from coal.

Danish emissions are dominated by oil followed by almost equal amounts from coal and natural gas (Figure 12). During the oil crisis of the 1973 Denmark made a choice to switch some of its reliability from oil to coal. In the past 20 years the country has switched half of its electricity generation to a wind and imports.

Swedish greenhouse gas emissions are mainly from oil used in transportation followed by coal used in blast furnaces to produce steel with only minor use of natural gas. During the oil crisis of 1973 Sweden decided to switch its reliance on oil for heating to of electricity and district heating. Electricity from nuclear sources and district heating using biofuels and waste. The biggest challenge remaining for Sweden in order to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions is to decarbonize its transportation infrastructure and some parts of its industry (Figure 37).

Emissions from the three Baltic countries comes from oil for trans-portation and shale oil used for electricity generation. Shale oil is in this graph denoted as coal as it has close resemblance with coal (Figure 38).

Poland CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org

Million tonnes

500

400

300

200

100

0

Oil Coal Gas

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

1992

Denmark CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org

Million tonnes

60

40

20

0

Oil Coal Gas

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

1992

Sweden CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org

Million tonnes

100

75

50

25

0

Oil Coal Gas

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

1992

Baltics CO2 emissions by sourceSource: globalcarbonatlas.org

Million tonnes

50

40

30

20

10

0

Oil Coal Gas

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

1992

Figure 37 Greenhouse gas emissions Sweden. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.

Figure 35 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.

Figure 38 Greenhouse gas emissions Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.

Figure 36 Greenhouse gas emissions Denmark. Source: globalcarbonatlas.org.


INTEGRATED NATIONAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE PLANS (NECPS)

As required by the EU’s energy union 2030 strategy EU countries have to supply their national energy and climate plans, NECPs. The first drafts were submitted at the end of 2018 and received com-ments the 18th of June from the European Commission. Final plans have to be submitted end of 2019 (European Commission).

The first plans cover 2021-2030 and will be updated every two years covering ten years. As can be seen from NECP’s for Poland, Denmark, Germany and Sweden only Sweden is on track of meet-ing the non-ETS greenhouse gas emission reduction targets as set out in the effort sharing regulation, ESR (European Commission). The European Commission commented on the NECPs. Below is summary of the greenhouse gas emission reduction plans.

3.1 GERMANY

Germany submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union cover-ing years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Germany has been assigned a 38 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.

Germany is currently not on track of meeting neither its 2020 nor 2030 target (Figure 39).

The climate section of the German plan received the following assessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).

With the existing policies and measures outlined in the draft NECP Germany is not on track to achieve this target.

While Germany’s national and sector-wide greenhouse gas emis-sion reduction targets for 2030 are in line with the German long-term strategy (National Climate Plan 2050), these are not always reflected in sector-specific national contributions (e.g. to the EU energy efficiency target) and policies and measures (e.g. in the transport, building and agriculture sector).

Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumptionMtoe*

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

298 .3278 .3

218 .7194 .3

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

*Germany didn’t express its contribution to the EU 2030 targets. Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.

Primary energy consumption (PEC) Final energy consumption (FEC)

Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption%

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

15 .518

30

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

2020 baseline

Renewable share

2020-based on formula

2030-as from MS

Greenhouse gas emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR)* (compared to 2005)

%

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

–25

–30

–35

–402017-interim target 2020 target 2030 target

–3

–10 –11

–14–23

–38

*Emissions from non-ETS sectors, notably from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste2017 estimates from COM (2018)716 final

Greenhouse gas reduction targets under the ESR

2017 estimates & projections with existing measures

Figure 39 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Germany (source: European Commission).

NECP for Germany


3.2 POLAND

Poland submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union covering years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Poland has been as-signed a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.

Poland is on track of meeting its 2020 target but with current efforts not on track for its 2030 targets (Figure 40).

The climate section of the Polish plan received the following as-sessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).

The draft Polish plan contains a comprehensive analytical basis which shows that additional measures are required to achieve Poland’s 2030 -7% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission target com-pared to 2005 for sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (non-ETS), as set in the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). The draft plan describes qualitatively some planned climate policies and measures, mostly in the transport sector, while scarce infor-mation is provided on GHG emission reduction measures in the building and agriculture sectors.

Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumption

Mtoe

110100

908070605040302010

0

99 .1 96 .490 .9

66 .270 .9 71 .6

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

Mtoe = million tones of oil equivalent.


Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption

%

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

10 .9 15

25

21 .0

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

2020 baseline

Renewable share


2030-as from MS


%

20

15

10

5

0

–5

–102017

interim target2020 target 2030 target

14

11

14

10

14

–7

2005




2017 estimates & projections with additional measures

Figure 40 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Poland (source: European Commission).

NECP for Poland


3.3 DENMARK

Demark submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union covering years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Denmark has been as-signed a 39 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005.

Denmark is on track of meeting its 2020 target but not on track of meeting its 2030 target (Figure 41).

The climate section of the Danish plan received the following assessment by the European Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).

With existing measures, the European Commission estimates that Denmark would miss this target 16 percentage points and have a deficit of 35.6 Million tons of CO2 equivalent over the period 2021-2030. The draft NECP indicates that implementation of ad-ditional measures, use of ETS flexibility and potential credits from LULUCF may be used to reach the non-ETS target, as provided for in the ESR, but it is uncertain whether the described measures will be sufficient. The final plan would benefit from further clarification of the planned use of flexibilities. Significant emission reductions can be achieved through the planned transport policies, but some of these policies need to be further defined. Further efforts to in-crease energy efficiency, notably in buildings, would also contrib-ute to additional emission reductions.

Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumption

Mtoe

25

20

15

10

5

0

18 .6

15 .8

17 .7

14 .6

16 .9

14 .7

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027



Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption

%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

35 .830

55 .0

46

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

2020 baseline

Renewable share


2030-as from MS


%

–10

–20

–30

–40

–502017

interim target2020 target 2030 target

–13

–19

–20

–39

–26

–22




2017 estimates & projections with additional measures

Figure 41 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Denmark (source: European Commission).

NECP for Denmark


3.4 SWEDEN

Sweden submitted a draft National Energy and Climate Plan by end of 2018 according to the rules of the EU energy union cover-ing years 2021-2030. For non-ETS emissions Sweden has been as-signed a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 compared to 2005, the highest target for all EU countries shared only with Luxemburg.

Sweden has already exceeded its 2020 targets in 2017. With current policies Sweden is on track of meeting its 2030 target (Figure 27).

The climate plan for Sweden the following assessment by the Euro-pean Commission on its plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission).

Based on the Swedish projections, the European Commission esti-mates that existing policies may be sufficient to achieve this target. However, the final plan would benefit from including assessments of the impact of individual or groups of policies and measures. Sweden has also set a national 2030 target for emissions not in-cluded in the emissions trading system (non-ETS emissions), which is more ambitious than its ESR target. This high ambition of Swed-ish climate policy is well noted. Sweden has an ambitious target for reducing emissions from transport. The draft NECP shows that Sweden uses carbon and energy taxes as important policies to achieve its targets.

Energy efficiency: Primary and final energy consumptionMtoe

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

42 .5

32 .3

46 .5

32 .6

43 .4

30 .3

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027



Renewable energy: share in gross final energy consumption***%

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

54 .549

65 .0

64

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2008

2010

2012

2013

2019

2020

2021

2023

2025

2028

2029

2030

2022

2024

2026

2027

2020 baseline

Renewable share


2030-as from MS

***Only scenario with existing measures. No contribution to the EU 2030 target confirmed.


%

0–5

–10–15–20–25–30–35–40–45

2017interim target

2020 target 2030 target

–13

–25

–17

–10




Figure 42 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Sweden (source: European Commission).

NECP for Sweden


EUROPE GAS, POWER INFRASTRUCTURE

As part of the energy union, the European Commission has point-ed out several projects of common interest, with the Baltic Pipe Project being named such a project. These projects are intended to enhance trade of energy within the union in order to increase security of supply and political integration as well as decrease cost for consumers with better cross border resource utilization.


SE

NO

FI

EE

LV

LT

BY

RU

RU

PLDE

NL

BE

LU

DK

FR

ES

CHAT

IT

BA

SI HR

CZSK

HURO

BG

RSME

AL MKXK

GRTR

UA

CY

MD

PT

GBIE

IS

RG Continental Europe

RG Nordic

RG Baltic

RG UK

RG Ireland

SECURITY OF SUPPLY – ENERGY LOCATIONIn the winters of both 2006 and 2009 there were severe disrup-tions in gas supply due to political disputes. This became a wake-up call for a common European energy policy. The energy union, projects of common interest as well as national energy and climate plans are all part of this integration effort coordinated by the Euro-pean Commission on behalf of member states. The Commission has for this purpose compiled an energy security study and a European Energy Security Strategy (European Commission).

Today, the EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes. Energy im-port dependency relates to crude oil (almost 90%), to natural gas (66%), and to a lesser extent to solid fuels (42%) as well as nuclear fuel (40%). For both oil and nuclear fuels, a reasonably well func-tioning global market exists where dependency on a single supplier is less. Nuclear fuels can also be easily stored in large quantities due to its high energy density compared to chemical fuels.

Natural gas is often supplied via pipelines with high dependency on few suppliers. The Baltic Pipe Project is a key project to increase supplier choice for Poland and its neighbours.

The EU has large reserves of coal, especially lignite coal which makes this fuel beneficial from an energy security standpoint but is also a large source of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Transi-tioning away from coal thus takes time and need to address issues like reliability, affordability, jobs and energy security.

Electrical grids depend on synchronization of all generators and some large electrical motors designed to be synchronized with the grid. In Europe each grid operates at 50 Hz.

For electricity the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are dependent on a non-EU country for their synchronization (Figure 43). To eliminate this dependency the EU has co-funded several new alternating currents, AC interconnectors with the Baltics. These in-terconnectors are both between Baltic countries and with Poland for AC synchronization. Interconnectors with Finland and Sweden will remain direct current, DC connectors as these countries are not part of the Synchronous grid of Continental Europe.

Figure 43 Grids in Europe (source: ENTSO-E) (ENTSO-E).


SE

NO

FI

EE

LV

LT

BY

RU

RU

PLDE

NL

BE

LU

DK

FR

ES

CHAT

IT

BA

SI HR

CZSK

HURO

BG

RSME

AL MKXK

GRTR

UA

CY

MD

PT

GBIE

IS

RG Continental Europe

RG Nordic

RG Baltic

RG UK

RG Ireland

ENERGY SYSTEMS

This section describes different energy options that exist and how gas can be seen as a preferred source to achieve many important energy system goals. As energy cannot be destroyed or created it is usually useful to look at a flow chart from high entropy (dense) energy sources.

Energy sources can be divided into three categories

u Chemical – oil, coal, gas, wood, etc.

u Nuclear – fission, fusion and radioactive decay

u Natural – wind, solar, rivers, geothermal, etc.

The above categories are based on physical properties of different energy sources and energy fuels. From a climate and air pollution standpoint another way to categorize energy sources as follows¹:

u High emission fuels - coal, oil and wood

u Low emission fuels – gas

u No emission fuels - renewable energy sources (RES) and

nuclear

3.5 CHEMICAL FUELS

Chemical fuels are usually burned with oxygen to extract their energy. These include oil, coal, gas, wood, waste etc. On an atomic scale these energies exchange electrons and the energies ex-changed are measured in electron volts (eV).

Compared to other chemical fuels natural gas has half carbon di-oxide emissions and no solid waste and virtually no particle emis-sions. Burning of other chemical fuels for energy generates large quantities of solid (ash, particles, etc.) and gaseous (carbon dioxide, nitrous- and sulphur oxides, etc.) waste products.

3.6 HYDROGEN

Many of the integrated solutions can be achieved with hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen and its carriers allow for high geographi-cal flexibility. Hydrogen can store significant quantities of energy in tanks or underground. It can be delivered by pipeline (including blending in natural gas networks) and converted into chemicals (e.g. ammonia, synthetic natural gas or other liquid carriers). When the hydrogen is further processed to methane, it is commonly called synthetic natural gas (SNG), as methane is the main energy carrying content in natural gas. In such cases, carbon may come from CO2 captured from large combustion plants such as power stations or industrial facilities.

Hydrogen can be blended in the natural gas infrastructure up to a certain percentage (between 5-20% by volume, as demonstrat-ed by the EC research project NaturalHy). Work is going on in the technical standards organisation CEN/CENELEC, both on the con-tent limits and on the technical aspects at the points of injection. Subsequently the relevant regulations on gas quality and limits of hydrogen at EU level could define safe levels of hydrogen in the nat-ural gas infrastructure and enable the transfer of the low-carbon value of variable RES between the electricity networks and the gas networks.

Hydrogen could also be synthesised to methane, which would ena-ble storage in existing natural gas storages. The potential is signif-icant, as the underground storage sites for methane (natural gas) in Europe (EU-28) have a capacity of approximately 1200 TWh, while the annual electricity generation from all sources in 2014 was around 3000 TWh. In addition, the power-to-gas conversion could exploit the possibility to use the already developed natural gas infrastructure for long-distance transport.

Important to note that there are significant conversation losses to go from power to hydrogen and then again when converting hydro-gen to synthetic methane, etc.

3.7 NUCLEAR FUELS

Nuclear fuels either use fusion of lighter elements into heavier fuelling stars including our sun. Nuclear fission separates heavier elements into lighter, usually by splitting atoms of Uranium (U235) or Plutonium (P239). The third type of nuclear fuels are heat from nuclear decay of unstable elements. An example of this type of fuel is the isotope Plutonium 238 (P238) which is used to power space-craft traveling away from the sun.

On an atomic scale nuclear energy is measured in million electron volts (MeV). Nuclear fuels are thus six orders of magnitude more energy dense than their chemical cousins. Nuclear fuels generate solid waste in small quantities but highly dangerous unless handled properly.

3.8 NATURAL

Natural energy sources include wind, solar, rivers, tidal, wave and geothermal. These sources have no fuel cost but require often more land-use than fuel-based energy sources. Natural sources are also dependent on weather patterns and geography for avail-ability.

3.9 ENERGY CONVERSION

Chemical and nuclear fuels generate heat which can either be used directly or converted into electrical energy in powerplants. A powerplant converts heat into electrical energy using some heat engine. Any heat engine, from small two stroke petrol engines to huge coal or nuclear powerplants can be described using the Car-not heat engine developed by Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824.

The Carnot heat engine tells that when heat flows from a hot to a cold source, in Figure 44 denoted as Th and Tc for the hot and cold side of the engine.

Figure 44 Carnot heat engine.

1 Wood and other bio-fuels are renewable sources but can, if not properly controlled have high air pollution emissions

TH

QH Q

W

CTC

33

When heat flows from the hot to the cold side the difference in energy can be converted to mechanical energy W.

In real heat engines the hot side is limited by materials used to build the engine and the cold side of the engine is limited by ambient temperatures of air and water. The thermal efficiency is thus never larger than the difference between the hot and cold side divided by the cold side (Th-Tc)/Th when measured in degrees Kelvin with absolute zero as reference.

It is possible to reverse the heat engine by using mechanical energy as input. This type of engine is usually called a heat pump and can be used to increase the temperature in for example air or water. Heat pumps are used both for heating by increasing Th or cooling by decreasing Tc.

Carnot heat engine can also be useful to understand large scale flows such as wind where air moves from hot area to a cold area. Ocean currents work the same way with water transferring heat from hot source to a cold such as the gulf stream that moves wa-ter from the equator to the north pole. Solar heat can be used to transfer water from warm sea to cold air using the same heat en-gine principles.

3.10 ELECTRICAL ENERGY

Electricity is closely linked to mechanical energy making it versatile and possible to use for almost all energy related tasks. Electrifica-tion is also a key enabler that allows countries to lower greenhouse gas and other emissions. Baltic Pipe Project is a vital infrastruc-ture to increase electricity generation enabling this electrification strategy.

Electricity is generated by moving a magnet next to an electrical wire, as the electrons in the wire are “pushed”, creating a chain re-action in the wire which transfers the mechanical energy from the magnet to a magnet on the other side of the wire. The first magnet and wire are usually called the electrical generator and the other is usually called the electrical motor. They are fundamentally the same. Mechanical energy used to move the generator magnet is transferred to the motor magnet with typically 90 percent efficien-cy. Because mechanical and electrical energy can be interchanged with almost no losses they can be seen as near identical.

Chemical and nuclear fuels, geothermal steam or solar heat are all converted to electricity using a heat engine creating mechanical energy converted to electricity by a generator. The sun drives our weather systems that are a large-scale heat engine, the resulting flows of air and water drive turbines that turn a generator. Solar photovoltaic (PV) being almost the only way to generate electricity without a heat engine instead using a solar cell.

60

50 3 000

2 000

1 000

40

30

20

10

0 0

3

2

1

0

Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr) Billion tonnes CO2 (GtCO2) Watts per square metre (W/m2)b) Stylized net global CO2 emission pathways d) Non-CO2 radiative forcing pathwaysc) Cumulative net CO2 emissions

a) Observed global temperature change and modeled responses to stylized anthropogenic emission and forcing pathways

Observed monthly global mean surface temperature

Estimated anthropogenic warming to date and likely range

Faster immediate CO2 emission reductions limit cumulative CO2 emissions shown in panel (c).

Maximum temperature rise is determined by cumulative net CO2 emissions and net non-CO2 radiative forcing due to methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols and other anthropogenic forcing agents.

Global warming relative to 1850-1900 (°C)

CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040

Cumulative CO2 emissions in pathways reaching net zero in 2055 and 2040

Non-CO2 radiative forcing reduced a�er 2030 or not reduced a�er 2030

1960

1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100

1980 2000 2020

2017

2040 2060 2080 2100

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Likely range of modeled responses to stylized pathways

Faster CO2 reductions (blue in b & c) result in a higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C No reduction of net non-CO2 radiative forcing (purple in d) results in a lower probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C

Global CO2 emissions reach net zero in 2055 while net non-CO2 radiative forcing is reduced a�er 2030 (grey in b, c & d)

Source: IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

Figure 45 Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.


PATHWAYS TO 100% CARBON FREE ENERGY SYSTEM

Electrification is an important pathway to a carbon free energy system as electricity is an energy carrier that can be generated us-ing non-emitting sources.

As is explained in this report the most air pollution in Poland comes from heating fuels in buildings such as coal (26% of energy use), wood (11%) and oil (10%). Heating is mostly provided during the winter season from mid November to mid March. The assumption is that it is desirable to maximize the use of renewable sources. As there is little sun available during winter wind becomes the only re-newable source that can scale during wintertime in Poland. Other renewable sources such as hydro and geothermal cannot scale due to the limited availability of these sources. Technical limitations of wind energy thus becomes the most important factor to consider when maximizing renewable electricity generation for heating in Buildings during wintertime.

Another important factor to consider is speed. As there is a limited greenhouse gas budget it becomes important to reduce emissions

quickly to increase the likelihood of to limit warming. The longer countries wait with reducing emissions the faster later emission reductions need to be to achieve the same result. For example, achieving an annual emissions reduction of one million tonnes over ten year period has the same result as an annual five million ton re-duction over two years. This is illustrated in Figure 45 from IPCC.

3.11 HIGH POTENTIAL FOR WIND ENERGY IN POLAND

The European Environment Agency did a study ten years ago on the technical, constrained and economic potential of wind energy in Europe (European Environment Agency, 2009). The technical potential looks at the theoretical case where all available land and shallow sea is used to generate wind energy. The constrained also applies social and environmental limits. Finally the study looks at the economic potential of wind in 2020 and 2030. The study as-sumes a carbon price of 22 €/ton in 2020 and 24 €/ton in 2030. These assumptions are pretty accurate given today’s ETS carbon prices of between 20-30 €/ton. The study assumes that onshore and offshore wind (depending on sea depth) will cost around 55 €/MWh in 2020. These assumptions are more or less accurate with todays prices (Lazard, 2018).

The EEA study does disregards the intermittency of wind energy and only looks at the total annual wind energy that can be generated

60

50 3 000

2 000

1 000

40

30

20

10

0 0

3

2

1

0

Cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C

Billion tonnes CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr) Billion tonnes CO2 (GtCO2) Watts per square metre (W/m2)b) Stylized net global CO2 emission pathways d) Non-CO2 radiative forcing pathwaysc) Cumulative net CO2 emissions

a) Observed global temperature change and modeled responses to stylized anthropogenic emission and forcing pathways

Observed monthly global mean surface temperature

Estimated anthropogenic warming to date and likely range

Faster immediate CO2 emission reductions limit cumulative CO2 emissions shown in panel (c).

Maximum temperature rise is determined by cumulative net CO2 emissions and net non-CO2 radiative forcing due to methane, nitrous oxide, aerosols and other anthropogenic forcing agents.

Global warming relative to 1850-1900 (°C)

CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040

Cumulative CO2 emissions in pathways reaching net zero in 2055 and 2040

Non-CO2 radiative forcing reduced a�er 2030 or not reduced a�er 2030

1960

1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100 1980 2020 2060 2100

1980 2000 2020

2017

2040 2060 2080 2100

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Likely range of modeled responses to stylized pathways

Faster CO2 reductions (blue in b & c) result in a higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C No reduction of net non-CO2 radiative forcing (purple in d) results in a lower probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C

Global CO2 emissions reach net zero in 2055 while net non-CO2 radiative forcing is reduced a�er 2030 (grey in b, c & d)

Source: IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

Figure 45 (continued)Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.


for different countries. It has not been updated since 2009 but since many of the assumptions and realities that the study bases its findings on are still valid so are the conclusions.

The available area for off-shore wind varies a lot from country to country in the EU as can be seen in Figure 46. The EU countries with most off-shore wind potential are UK, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany. Poland has more limited technical potential but still approximately of 500 TWh/year of which most can be realized less than 30 km from shore.

When it comes to on-shore wind energy the potential is more evenly spread among EU-countries. In Figure 47 the on-shore wind potential is show for Denmark, Germany, Poland and Sweden as-suming a cost of less than 55 €/MWh. As can be seen the economic potential for on-shore wind is almost equal in Germany, Poland and Sweden.

TECHNICAL TERMS

This report uses several technical terms, which are explained in the following chapter.

3.12 UNIT OF ENERGY

Energy can be measured in several units. This report uses watt-hours, Wh and their kWh, MWh, GWh and TWh counterparts re-spectively.

A kWh is usually used on an individual scale, MWh is a common unit used in wholesale markets between energy producers and sellers. For country to country comparison TWh is a useful unit.

Austria

Belgium

Bulgar

ia

Cypr

us

Czec

h Re

public

Denmar

k

Esto

nia

Finland

Fran

ce

German

Greec

y e

Hunga

ry

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbo

urgMal

ta

Nethe

rland

s

Norw

ay

Poland

Portu

gal

Roman

ia

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spain

Swed

en

Switz

erland

Turk

ey

Unite

d King

dom

Technical potential

Figure 3.4 Available offshore area (km2) for wind energy farms within national jurisdictions

United Kingdom — Jersey

United Kingdom — Guernsey United Kingdom

Turkey Sweden

Spain — Mediterranean Spain — Atlantic

Slovenia Romania

Portugal Poland

Norway Netherlands

Malta Lithuania

Latvia Italy

Ireland Greece

Germany — North Sea Germany — Baltic Sea

France — Mediterranean Sea France — Atlantic Sea

Finland Estonia

Denmark — Faroe Islands Denmark — Bornholm

Denmark Cyprus

Bulgaria Belgium

0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000

Distance to shore (km2)

0–10 km 10–30 km 30–50 km > 50 km Source: EEA, 2008.

Figure 3.5 Unrestricted technical potential for offshore wind energy in 2030 based on average wind speed data

Technical potential (TWh)

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

< 10 km 10–30 km 30–50 km > 50 km

Note: A recent Norwegian study (NVE, 2008) estimates Norwegian offshore wind power capacity to be around 55 300 MW (at maximum depths of 50 m and minimum distances to the coast of 1 km).

Source: EEA, 2008.

Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential 21

0

751

246

7 260

9

253

9

D E NM A RK G E RM A NY POLA ND S WE D E N

TWh/

year

On-shore wind energy potential 2030

sour ce: EEA

Figure 47 On-shore wind energy potential if levelized cost

of energy (LCOE) is lower than 55 €/MWh.

Figure 46 Available offshore area (km²) for wind energy farms

within national jurisdictions.

Unrestricted technical potential for offshore wind energy in 2030 based on

wind speed data


Other units are Joules (J) which is one watt for one second (Ws), as there are 3600 seconds in one hour a Wh is 3600 Ws and a kWh is 3.6 million J or 3.6 MJ.

Ton of oil equivalent or “toe” is traditionally used as an energy unit but not in this report. One ton of oil has an energy content of 11.6 MWh, i.e. one kilo of oil (about a liter) has an energy content of ap-proximately 12 kWh.

Calories (symbol: cal) is also used as a unit of energy, mainly for food. One calorie is defined as the energy required to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius which is 4.184 J. As this is a very small amount of energy the “kcal”, sometimes denoted “Cal” is more commonly used.

As all energy exchanges are scaled up from atomic scales it can be useful to use even smaller units of energy. On the subatomic scale the energy of particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons can be used. The unit used is electronvolt (symbol eV) which is defined as 1.6 x 10-19 J. This unit is used once in this report to compare different fuels and their energy properties.


3.13 VOLUME UNITS

For gases all volumes are stated in standard atmospheric condi-tions. Standard atmospheric pressure (symbol: atm). In reality gas-es are compressed before shipped in pipelines to reduce the flow and increase the pipe capacity.

This report always states gas volumes in standard atmospheric conditions. Volumes are in cubic meters (m³).

3.14 GREENHOUSE GASES

The term greenhouse gases in this report is used to denote the sum of CO2, N2O in CO2 equivalent, CH4 in CO2 equivalent, HFC in CO2 equivalent, PFC in CO2 equivalent, SF6 in CO2 equivalent and NF3 in CO2 equivalent emissions.

ENERGY SOURCE DESIGNATIONS

For most of the energy related figures a energy balances database from Eurostat (Eurostat, 2019) has been used. An energy balance describes what fuels are used their transformation and use. In a closed energy system no energy can be created or lost according to the first law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermody-namics states that energy always moves from high density (low en-tropy) to low density (high entropy). In strict thermodynamic terms energy is never lost although sufficient low density, high entropy, low temperature energy cannot perform any more mechanical work. Energy is thus labeled “lost”, not in a thermodynamic sense but in practical and economic terms.

Eurostat energy balance uses sixty-nine different categories for different fuels and energy sources. Fuels are divided into five main categories (Table 2).

Eurostat has denoted a lists products of the simplified energy bal-ance as presented in Eurostat’s database (Table 3).

For this report, it was desirable for the energy categories tobe slightly different, and thus to combine a few categories and add three more (Table 4).

Eurobase code Eurobase dissemination label: EN

TOTAL TOTAL

C0000X0350-0370 Solid fossil fuels

C0350-0370 Manufactured gases

P1000 Peat and peat products

S2000 Oil shale and oil sands

O4000XBIOOil and petroleum products (exclu-ding biofuel portion)

G3000 Natural gas

RA000 Renewables and biofuels

W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste

N900H Nuclear heat

H8000 Heat

E7000 Electricity

Report Eurobase code

Eurobase dissemina-tion label: EN

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

Coal

C0000X0350-0370+P1000+S2000

Solid fossil fuels Peat and peat products Oil shale and oil sands

GasC0350-0370+G3000

Manufactured gasesNatural gas

Oil O4000XBIOOil and petroleum pro-ducts (excluding biofuel portion)

Bio

RA000-RA100-RA300-RA410-RA420

Renewables and biofuels Hydro powerWind powerSolar thermalSolar voltaic

Hydro RA100 Hydro power

Wind RA300 Wind power

SolarRA420+RA410

Solar photovoltaicSolar thermal

Waste W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste

Nuclear N900H Nuclear heat

Heat H8000 Heat

Electricity E7000 Electricity

Energy type Statistical energy amount

Chemical fuels The calorific energy content when burned with oxygen.

Nuclear fuelsThe heat content extracted when used in a nuclear reactor.

Natural sources such as hydro, wind and solar

The electrical energy generated from these sources.

ElectricityElectrical energy. Electrical energy is electric potential (volt) multiplied by electrical flow (ampere).

Heat

The heat content in a medium (usually water) compared to temperature of outside air, lake, river or sea.

Table 2 Energy source type.

Table 3 Eurostat simplified energy balance sources.Table 4 Translation table between this report categories and

Eurostat categories.


The categories for hydro, wind and solar are sub-categories to the Eurostat category renewables and biofuels. As wind and solar are growing in importance this report has chosen to give them separate categories and label the remainder as bio as most of the remainder is biofuels but also include tide, wave and ocean and geothermal energy.

The Sankey graph used in this report is a subset of all energy flows. Excluded from this report are conversions in oil refineries, coal ovens, gas works, export of fuels, etc.

For a full detailed, interactive analysis of the energy flows used in this report please use the Eurostat Sankey tool. It also allows for time series analysis back to 1990. The tool has sixty-nine energy categories, 134 sections covering 27 years for 39 countries, that is almost ten million datapoints available.

For final energy supply Eurostat uses the term “other” for both buildings and agriculture. As most energy is used in buildings, this report utilizes the designation buildings instead of “other”.

This report only provides a few snapshots to allow the reader to understand the basic structure of each of the studied countries energy systems to put the Baltic Pipe Project in proper context.

CARBON DIOXIDE

Per atom both hy drogen and carbon generate about the same amount of heat. Coal has the lowest hydrogen content and gen-erates almost only carbon dioxide during combustion. Oil used in transport is usually either petrol or diesel. Petrol has approximate-ly eight coal atoms paired with eighteen hydrogen atoms (C8H18) and twelve coal atoms paired with twenty six hydrogen atoms for diesel (C12H26).

Natural gas consists mainly of Methane (CH4) and has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio of all fossil fuels and thus releases the least amount of carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced.

COUNTRY FOCUS

This section provides an overview of the energy systems for the EU, Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Slovak Republic and Ukraine. For final energy supply Eurostat uses the term “other” for both buildings and agriculture. As most energy is used in buildings, this report utilizes the designation buildings instead of “other”. A description of the data presented in this section is available in appendix G.

3.15 EU ENERGY BALANCE

The countries in the European Union have chosen to primarily use a mix of chemical fuels with some nuclear fuels and natural sources such as wind, solar and hydro.

Energy is often divided into two categories; primary energy and final energy. Primary energy are chemical and nuclear fuels, elec-tricity from wind, solar, hydro or imports. Final energy is energy that has been transformed to suit final energy users in industry, transport, buildings and other users. Transformation can be done from fuels to electricity, from fuels to district heating, from crude oil to gasoline and diesel for cars, etc.

Oil is the most important fuel in the EU and is used for transporta-tion and some for heating and non-energy use such as petrochemi-cal use. Use of gas and coal is discussed below.

Report Eurobase code

Eurobase dissemina-tion label: EN

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

Coal

C0000X0350-0370+P1000+S2000

Solid fossil fuels Peat and peat products Oil shale and oil sands

GasC0350-0370+G3000

Manufactured gasesNatural gas

Oil O4000XBIOOil and petroleum pro-ducts (excluding biofuel portion)

Bio

RA000-RA100-RA300-RA410-RA420

Renewables and biofuels Hydro powerWind powerSolar thermalSolar voltaic

Hydro RA100 Hydro power

Wind RA300 Wind power

SolarRA420+RA410

Solar photovoltaicSolar thermal

Waste W6100_6220 Non-renewable waste

Nuclear N900H Nuclear heat

Heat H8000 Heat

Electricity E7000 Electricity

Figure 48 Energy flow EU (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bio

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

int_aviationint_marine

heat

oil

other

wind

nuclear

solarhydroimport

Energy flow EU282017


EU uses about 19 479 TWh of primary energy. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fuels and some nuclear fuels (Figure 49).

3 .15 .1 ENERGY USE

Heat production for district heating (Figure 51) is mainly per-formed using a mix of gas, biofuels and coal. Electricity is produced using nuclear and fossil fuels (Figure 52). This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 53). Natural gas use (Figure 54) is split between use in build-ings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refiner-ies) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.

3 .15 .2 SUMMARY ENERGY USE

Final energy use in the EU shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and and electricity (Figure 55).

District heat production EU28 Sum 670 TWh, year 2017

Nuclear 1 TWh (0 %)

Oil 27 TWh (4 %)

Waste 36 TWh (5 %)

Coal 165 TWh (25 %)

Bio 177 TWh (26 %)

Gas 263 TWh (39 %)

Electricity production EU28 Sum 3 294 TWh, year 2017

Waste 25 TWh (1 %)Oil 61 TWh (2 %)

Solar 119 TWh (4 %)

Hydro 331 TWh (10 %)

Wind 362 TWh (11 %)

Coal 677 TWh (21 %)

Nuclear 830 TWh (25 %)

Gas 696 TWh (21 %)

Bio 192 TWh (6 %)

Primary energy EU28 Sum 19 479 TWh, year 2017

Solar 167 TWh (1 %)Waste 170 TWh (1 %)

Hydro 301 TWh (2 %)Wind 362 TWh (2 %)

Bio 1 885 TWh (10 %)

Nuclear 2 451 TWh (13 %)

Coal 2 730 TWh (14 %)

Oil 6 769 TWh (35 %)

Gas 4 633 TWh (24 %)

Electricity 2 798 TWh (23 %)

Final energy EU28 Sum 12 328 TWh, year 2017

Solar 26 TWh (0 %)Waste 45 TWh (0 %)

Coal 303 TWh (2 %)Heat 564 TWh (5 %)

Bio 1 164 TWh (9 %)

Gas 2 844 TWh (23 %)

Oil 4 584 TWh (37 %)

Figure 49 Primary energy EU in 2017

Figure 50 Final energy EU in 2017.

Figure 51 Heat production in EU.

Figure 52 Electricity production in EU.


Electricity and heat 1 885.0 TWh (85 %)

EU28 coal use Sum 2 216 TWh, year 2017

None energy 19.9 TWh (1 %)Energy sector 7.9 TWh (0 %) Buildings 133.0 TWh (6 %)



EU28 gas use Sum 4 806 TWh, year 2017

Electricity and heat1 533.2 TWh (32 %)


Industry 1 021.7 TWh (21 %)

Buildings 1 782.8 TWh (37 %)

None energy 175.9 TWh (4 %)Energy sector 252.8 TWh (5 %)

Int . shipping 0.3 TWh (0 %)

All

TWh


Final energy EU28Year 2017


4 584 (37%)

2 844 (23%)

2 798 (23%)

312 (10%)

1 022 (34%)

1 035 (34%)

3 524 (93%)

747 (14%)

1 783 (32%)

1 698 (31%)

723 (13%)

Figure 53 Coal use in EU. Figure 55 EU energy use summary.

Figure 54 Gas use in EU.


3.16 BALTIC COUNTRIES ENERGY BALANCE

This report has chosen to combine the energy systems of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They are quite different but small even when combined. The energy use is similar to many other EU countries. Estonia uses oil shale for electricity production which is denoted as coal below. Lithuania has a high share of electricity imports. Baltic countries have a relative high percentage of biofuel use. Oil is mainly used for transportation. Gas is used for district heating and directly in buildings (Figure 56)

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania only use 200 TWh of primary energy combined which is six times smaller than neighbouring Poland. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fuels (Figure 57). Final energy use is dominated energy for buildings, gas, electricity and biofuels and oil for transportation (Figure 58).

3 .16 .1 ENERGY USE

Heat production for district heating is done through the use of biofuels and gas (Figure 59). Electricity is produced using shale oil (similar to coal as a fuel), hydro, gas, bio and wind (Figure 60). Shale oil is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (Figure 61). Gas is predominantly used for electricity generation and non-ener-gy use such as petrochemical industry with some use in buildings and other industries (Figure 62).


The final energy use in the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use sim-ilar energy mix with similar shares of gas, biofuels, heat and elec-tricity (Figure 63).

Figure 57 Primary energy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Figure 58 Final energy use in Estonia Latvia and Lithuania.

Figure 56 Energy flow Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bio

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building


heat

oil

otherwindsolarhydroimport

Energy flow Baltics2017

Waste 2 TWh (1 %)Wind 2 TWh (1 %)

Hydro 5 TWh (2 %)Electricity 6 TWh (3 %)

Gas 39 TWh (19 %)

Bio 46 TWh (22 %)

Oil 54 TWh (26 %)

Coal 52 TWh (25 %)

Primary energy Baltics Sum 206 TWh, year 2017

Coal 3 TWh (2 %)

Gas 13 TWh (10 %)

Heat 23TWh (17 %)


Oil 51 TWh (37 %)

Bio 24 TWh (18 %)

Final energy Baltics Sum 139 TWh, year 2017


Figure 61 Coal use in Baltics.

Figure 62 Gas use in Baltics.Figure 59 Heat production in Baltics.

Figure 63 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania energy use summary.

Gas 9 TWh (41 %)

Bio 14 TWh (59 %)

District heat production Baltics Sum 25 TWh, year 2017

Coal 10 TWh (42 %)

Hydro 6 TWh (24 %)

Gas 3 TWh (15 %)

Bio 2 TWh (10 %)

Wind 2 TWh (9 %)

Electricity production Baltics Sum 24 TWh, year 2017





Baltics coal use Sum 33 TWh, year 2017

Baltics gas use Sum 40 TWh, year 2017







Figure 60 Electricity production in Baltics.

All

TWh


Final energy BalticsYear 2017


51 (36%)

24 (18%)

23 (17%)

24 (17%)

6 (21%)

5 (20%)

4 (15%)

8 (28%)

43 (97%)

7 (10%)

18 (27%)

19 (29%)

16 (24%)


3.17 CZECH REPUBLIC ENERGY BALANCE

The Czech Republic has chosen to primarily use a mix of chemical fuels with some nuclear fuel. The Czech Republic uses mostly coal with some nuclear for electricity production. In 2017 it exported about 13 TWh of electricity to neighbouring countries (Figure 64).

The Czech Republic uses about 518 TWh of primary energy, similar to Sweden. This energy is supplied mainly from fossil chemical fu-els and some nuclear fuels (Figure 65). The energy use is about half from fossil energy, oil and gas and the other half from electricity, bio, heat and coal (Figure 66).

3 .17 .1 ENERGY USE

The heat production for district heating is mainly performed using a mix of gas, biofuels and coal (Figure 67). Electricity is produced using nuclear and fossil fuels (Figure 68). This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, but some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 69). The use of natural gas is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (refineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry (Figure 70).


Final energy use in the Czech Republic shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 71).

Figure 65 Primary energy Czech Republic in 2017. Figure 66 Final energy use Czech Republic in 2017.

Figure 64 Energy flow Czech Republic (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bioelectricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

int_aviationexport

int_marine

heat

oil

other

nuclear

windsolarhydro

Energy flow Czech Republic2017

Primary energy Czech Republic Sum 518 TWh, year 2017

Coal 184 TWh (36 %)

Oil 112 TWh (22 %)

Gas 84 TWh (16 %)


Bio 48 TWh (9 %)

Waste 4 TWh (1 %)

Solar 2 TWh (0 %)Hydro 2 TWh (0 %)

Final energy Czech Republic Sum 284 TWh, year 2017

Oil 77 TWh (27 %)

Gas 68 TWh (24 %)Electricity 57 TWh (20 %)

Bio 34 TWh (12 %)

Heat 25 TWh (9 %)

Coal 20 TWh (7 %)

Waste 3 TWh (1%)


Figure 69 Coal use in Czech Republic.

Figure 70 Gas use in Czech Republic.Figure 67 Heat production in Czech Republic.

Figure 71 Czech Republic energy use summary.

District heat production Czech Republic Sum 34 TWh, year 2017

Coal 19 TWh (58 %)

Gas 11 TWh (34 %)

Bio 2 TWh (8 %)

Elecricity production Czech Republic Sum 87 TWh, year 2017

Solar 2 TWh (3 %)

Hydro 3 TWh (4 %)Bio 5 TWh (6 %)

Gas 6 TWh (7 %)


Coal 41 TWh (48 %)

Czech Republic coal useSum 154 TWh, year 2017






Czech Republic gas use Sum 98 TWh, year 2017







Figure 68 Electricity production Czech Republic.

All

TWh


Final energy Czech RepublicYear 2017


77 (27%)

68 (24%)

34 (12%)

57 (20%)

10 (13%)

28 (36%)

24 (31%)

71 (92%)

39 (30%)

25 (19%)

18 (14%)

32 (25%)


3.18 POLAND ENERGY BALANCE

Poland has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, mainly coal, oil and gas. Most coal and some gas is converted into electricity. Oil is mainly used for transportation and gas is used in several different end use (Figure 72).

Poland uses about 1,222 TWh of primary energy (Figure 73), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 74).

3 .18 .1 ENERGY USE

Both district heating heat (Figure 75) and electricity is produced using mainly coal (Figure 76). As previously illustrated, Poland receives most of its primary energy from coal. This coal is mostly used to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heat-ing (Figure 77). Natural gas use (Figure 78) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation, in the energy sector (re-fineries) and for non-energy use such as petrochemical industry.


The final energy use in the Poland shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 79).

Figure 73 Primary energy in Poland. Figure 74 Final energy use in Poland.

coal

bio

gas

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building


heat

oil

otherwindsolar

importhydro

Energy flow Poland2017

Primary energy Poland Sum 1 222 TWh, year 2017

Coal 578 TWh (47 %)

Oil 349 TWh (29 %)

Gas 180 TWh (15 %)

Bio 85 TWh (7 %)Wind 15 TWh (1 %)

Waste 10 TWh (1 %)Hydro 3 TWh (0 %)


Final energy Poland Sum 804 TWh, year 2017

Oil 281 TWh (35 %)

Electricity 136 TWh (17 %)Coal 131 TWh (16 %)

Gas 113 TWh (14 %)

Heat 68 TWh (8 %)

Bio 67 TWh (8 %)

Waste 8 TWh (1 %)

Figure 72 Energy flow Poland (source: Eurostat).


Figure 77 Coal use in Poland.

Figure 78 Gas use in Poland.Figure 75 Heat production in Poland.

Figure 79 Poland energy use summary.

District heat production Poland Sum 83 TWh, year 2017

Coal 67 TWh (81 %)

Gas 11 TWh (13 %)

Bio 4 TWh (4 %)

Oil 1 TWh (1 %)

Electricity production Poland Sum 170 TWh, year 2017

Coal 131 TWh (77 %)

Wind 15 TWh (9 %)

Gas 12 TWh (7 %)

Bio 6 TWh (4 %)

Hydro 3 TWh (2 %)

Oil 2 TWh (1 %)

Poland coal use Sum 535 TWh, year 2017






Poland gas use Sum 200 TWh, year 2017







Figure 76 Electricity production in Poland.

All

TWh


Final energy PolandYear 2017


131 (16%)

281 (35%)

113 (14%)

136 (17%)

36 (19%)

49 (26%)

20 (11%)

55 (30%)

234 (94%)

95 (26%)

38 (10%)

60 (16%)

40 (11%)

95 (16%)

78 (21%)


3.19 GERMANY ENERGY BALANCE

Germany has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, nuclear and natural sources. All nuclear, most coal and some gas are converted into electricity. Oil is mainly used for transportation and gas is used in several different end use (Figure 80).

Germany uses 3,799 TWh of primary energy (Figure 81), most from coal of which some is converted to electricity before used (Figure 82).

3 .19 .1 ENERGY USE

District heating heat is produced using gas for around half, coal for quarter and the remaining quarter a combination of bio, waste (Figure 83). Electricity in Germany is produced using mainly coal fol-lowed by wind, gas and nuclear (Figure 84). Germany receives most of its primary energy from oil used mainly in transportation. Coal is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, and some is used in buildings for heating (Figure 85). Natural gas use (Figure 86) is split between use in buildings, industry, electricity generation.


Final energy use in the Germany shows that transportation is most reliant on oil, industry and buildings use about equal amounts of gas and electricity (Figure 87). One fifth of the energy used in build-ings comes from oil, mainly used in private houses.

Figure 81 Primary energy in Germany. Figure 82 Final energy use in Germany.

Figure 80 Energy flow Germany (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bio

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

exportint_aviationint_marine

heat

oil

other

nuclear

windsolarhydro

Energy flow Germany2017

Primary energy Germany Sum 3 799 TWh, year 2017

Oil 1 316.2 TWh (35 %)

Gas 876.2 TWh (23 %)

Coal 829.3 TWh (22 %)

Bio 323.6 TWh (9 %)

Nuclear 228.6 TWh (6 %)

Wind 105.7 TWh (3 %)

Waste 52.5 TWh (1 %)

Solar 47.3 TWh (1 %)Hydro 20.2 TWh (1 %)

Final energy Germany Sum 2 380 TWh, year 2017

Solar 7.9 TWh (0 %)Waste 13.1 TWh (1 %)

Coal 52.9 TWh (2 %)Heat 114.1 TWh (5 %)

Bio 176.7 TWh (7 %)

Electricity 519.0 TWh (22 %)

Gas 639.3 TWh (27 %)

Oil 856.7 TWh (36 %)


Figure 85 Coal use in Germany.

Figure 86 Gas use in Germany.Figure 83 Heat production in Germany.

Figure 87 Germany energy use summary.

District heat production Germany Sum 128 TWh, year 2017

Gas 61.1 TWh (48 %)

Coal 36.4 TWh (28 %)

Bio 18.8 TWh (15 %)


Oil 1.3 TWh (1 %)

Electricity production Germany Sum 652 TWh, year 2017

Oil 5.6 TWh (1 %)Waste 7.3 TWh (1 %)

Hydro 26.2 TWh (4 %)Solar 39.4 TWh (6 %)

Bio 51.1 TWh (8 %)


Gas 98.6 TWh (15 %)

Wind 105.7 TWh (16 %)

Coal 241.9 TWh (37 %)

Germany coal use Sum 683 TWh, year 2017

Industry 46.9 TWh (7 %)Buildings 6.0 TWh (1 %)




Germany gas use Sum 935 TWh, year 2017







Figure 84 Electricity production inGermany.

All

TWh


Final energy GermanyYear 2017


857 (36%)

639 (27%)

519 (22%)

262 (40%)

228 (35%)

618 (93%)

214 (20%)

372 (35%)

114 (11%)

279 (26%)


3.20 SWEDEN ENERGY BALANCE

Sweden has chosen to use a mix of chemical fuels, mainly oil and biomass, nuclear fuel and natural sources, mainly hydro and wind. Hydro is available through rivers. Sweden converts nuclear fuels into electricity, other sources of electrical energy are hydro, wind and biofuels.

Sweden uses about 606 TWh of primary energy (Figure 89) of which some is converted to electricity, some of the oil is used in in-ternational aviation and shipping, not included in the final energy use in Figure 90.

3 .20 .1 ENERGY USE

Heat production for district heating is mainly done using biofuels (Figure 91). Electricity is produced using about 40 percent nuclear and hydro respectively and the remaining 20 percent is split about equal between biofuels and wind (Figure 92). Sweden uses rela-tively little coal and is mainly used in industry in blast furnaces for iron production (Figure 93). Sweden uses relatively little gas and is used in industry, in district heating and for non-energy use such as in petrochemical processes (Figure 94). Coal use for blast furnaces is not shown in Eurostat energy balances.


The final energy use in the Sweden shows that transportation is most reliant on oil. Industry uses a mix of oil, biofuel and electricity. Buildings in Sweden use either electricity, biofuels or district heat-ing. (Figure 95).

Figure 89 Primary energy in Sweden. Figure 90 Final energy use in Sweden.

Figure 88 Energy flow Sweden (source: Eurostat).

coalgas

bio

oil

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

int_aviationexport

int_marine

heat

other

nuclear

windsolar

hydro

Energy flow Sweden2017

Waste 10 TWh (2 %)Gas 11 TWh (2 %)

Wind 18 TWh (3 %)Coal 24 TWh (4 %)

Hydro 65 TWh (11 %)

Oil 128 TWh (21 %)

Bio 160 TWh (26 %)


Primary energy Sweden Sum 606 TWh, year 2017


Bio 96 TWh (25 %)

Oil 90 TWh (24 %)

Heat 51 TWh (14 %)

Gas 8 TWh (2 %)Coal 4 TWh (1 %)

Final energy Sweden Sum 376 TWh, year 2017


Figure 93 Coal use in Sweden.

Figure 94 Gas use in Sweden.Figure 91 Heat production in Sweden.

Figure 95 Sweden energy use summary.

District heat production Sweden Sum 51 TWh, year 2017

Bio 40 TWh (79 %)

Waste 6 TWh (13 %)

Gas 2 TWh (5 %)

Coal 2 TWh (4 %)


Hydro 65 TWh (40 %)

Wind 18 TWh (11 %)

Bio 12 TWh (7 %)

Waste 2 TWh (1 %)

Electricity production Sweden Sum 164 TWh, year 2017




Sweden coal use Sum 8 TWh, year 2017







Int . shipping 0.2 TWh (0 %)

Sweden gas use Sum 17 TWh, year 2017

Figure 92 Electricity production in Sweden.

All

TWh


Final energy SwedenYear 2017


90 (24%)

96 (25%)

51 (14%)

127 (34%)

48 (38%)

51 (40%)

19 (20%)

76 (78%) 45 (29%)

74 (48%)

28 (18%)


3.21 DENMARK ENERGY BALANCE

Denmark has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and some wind. Denmark converts a mix of coal, gas and wind to electricity. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of electricity, gas, oil and biomass for heating (Figure 96).

Denmark uses about 212 TWh of primary energy (Figure 97) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 98).

3 .21 .1 ENERGY USE

Heat production for district heating is mainly done using biofuels (Figure 99). Electricity is produced using half wind, one fifth from biofuel and coal and gas for the remainder (Figure 100). Denmark is a net-importer of electricity (Figure 96). Denmark uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 101). Denmark uses gas mainly in buildings, industry, and electricity and district heat (Figure 102).


The final energy use in the Denmark shows that transportation is most reliant on oil. Industry uses a mix of oil, gas, biofuel and elec-tricity. Buildings in Denmark use either electricity, biofuels or dis-trict heating supplemented by some oil and gas (Figure 103).

Figure 97 Primary energy in Denmark. Figure 98 Final energy use in Denmark.

Figure 96 Energy flow Denmark (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bio

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

int_aviation

int_marine

heat

oil

other

windsolarhydroimport

Energy flow Denmark2017

Primary energy Denmark Sum 212 TWh, year 2017

Solar 1.4 TWh (1 %)Electricity 4.6 TWh (2 %)

Waste 5.0 TWh (2 %)Wind 14.8 TWh (7 %)

Coal 18.0 TWh (9 %)

Gas 32.0 TWh (15 %)

Oil 82.7 TWh (39 %)

Bio 53.4 TWh (25 %)

Final energy Denmark Sum 161 TWh, year 2017

Gas 17.7 TWh (11 %)

Heat 29.8 TWh (19 %)

Bio 21.3 TWh (13 %)

Coal 1.4 TWh (1 %)

Oil 59.3 TWh (37 %)



Figure 101 Coal use in Denmark.

Figure 102 Gas use in Denmark.Figure 99 Heat production in Denmark.

Figure 103 Denmark energy use summary.

District heat production Denmark Sum 37 TWh, year 2017


Gas 5.7 TWh (16 %)

Bio 21.1 TWh (59 %)

Coal 5.3 TWh (15 %)

Electricity production Denmark Sum 31 TWh, year 2017

Gas 1.9 TWh (7 %)

Bio 6.4 TWh (22 %)

Coal 6.2 TWh (21 %)

Wind 14.8 TWh (51 %)

Denmark coal use Sum 18 TWh, year 2017




Denmark gas use Sum 33 TWh, year 2017






Figure 100 Electricity production in Denmark.

All

TWh


Final energy DenmarkYear 2017


59 (37%)

21 (13%)

18 (11%)

30 (19%)

31 (19%)

5 (19%)

8 (30%)

3 (11%)

9 (31%)

46 (94%)

10 (11%)

16 (18%)

29 (34%)

22 (26%)


3.22 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ENERGY BALANCE

The Slovak Republic has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and some nuclear and hydro. Slovak Republic converts a mix of main-ly nuclear, hydro, coal and gas to electricity. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of electricity, district heat and elec-tricity (Figure 104).

Slovak Republic uses 201 TWh of primary energy (Figure 105) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 106).

3 .22 .1 ENERGY USE

Heat production for district heating is mainly done using gas fol-lowed by coal, bio and oil (Figure 107). Electricity production in Slovak Republic is done for more than half by using nuclear fuels, splitting the remain between hydro, coal, gas and bio (Figure 108). Slovak Republic is a net-importer of electricity (Figure 104). Slovak Republic uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 109). Slovak Republic gas is mainly used in buildings, industry and for electricity and district heating (Figure 110).


The final energy use in the Slovak Republic shows that transporta-tion is most reliant on oil. Industry mainly uses a mix of gas, electric-ity and some biofuel. Buildings in Slovak Republic use either gas, electricity or district heating (Figure 111).

Figure 105 Primary energy in Slovak Republic. Figure 106 Final energy use in Slovak Republic.

Figure 104 Energy flow Slovak Republic (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bio

electricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building


heat

oil

other

nuclear

windsolarhydroimport

Energy flow Slovak Republic2017

Primary energy Slovak Republic Sum 201 TWh, year 2017

Waste 2.4TWh (1 %)Electricity 3.0 TWh (2 %)

Hydro 4.3 TWh (2 %)Bio 13.6 TWh (7 %)

Coal 39.3 TWh (20 %)

Oil 42.9 TWh (21 %)


Gas 48.1 TWh (24 %)

Final energy Slovak Republic Sum 115 TWh, year 2017

Waste 2.2 TWh (2 %)

Coal 4.7 TWh (4 %)

Bio 6.9 TWh (6 %)

Heat 7.8 TWh (7 %)


Gas 37.0 TWh (32 %)

Oil 30.7 TWh (27 %)


Figure 109 Coal use in Slovak Republic.

Figure 110 Gas use in Slovak Republic.Figure 107 Heat production in Slovak Republic.

Figure 111 Slovak Republic energy use summary.

District production Slovak Republic Sum 10 TWh, year 2017

Gas 4.4 TWh (44 %)

Coal 2.4 TWh (4 %)

Bio 1.8 TWh (18 %)

Oil 1.4 TWh (14 %)

Electricity production Slovak Republic Sum 28 TWh, year 2017

Bio 1.7 TWh (6 %)

Gas 2.2 TWh (8 %)

Coal 3.0 TWh (11 %)

Hydro 4.6 TWh (17 %)


Slovak Republic coal use Sum 16 TWh, year 2017



Buildings 1.2 TWh (7 %)None energy 0.6 TWh (4 %)

Slovak Republic gas use Sum 56 TWh, year 2017







Figure 108 Electricity production in Slovak Republic.

All

TWh


Final energy Slovak RepublicYear 2017


31 (27%)

37 (32%)

26 (22%)

15 (37%)

4 (10%)

12 (31%)

28 (87%)

6 (15%)

13 (30%)

20 (47%)


3.23 UKRAINE ENERGY BALANCE

The Slovak Republic has chosen to mainly use chemical fuels and nuclear. Ukraine converts a mix of mainly nuclear and coal and. Oil is mainly used in transport. Buildings use a mix of gas, electricity and district heat (Figure 112).

Ukraine uses 1 043 TWh of primary energy (Figure 113) of which some is converted to electricity and heat and some is used directly by end users (Figure 114).

3 .23 .1 ENERGY USE

Almost all energy used for district heating is from gas with some coal and biofuel (Figure 115). Electricity production in Ukraine is done for more than half by using nuclear fuels followed by one third coal and the remainder hydro and gas (Figure 116). Ukraine uses coal almost exclusively for electricity production (Figure 117). Ukraine gas is mainly used in buildings, industry and for electricity and district heating (Figure 118).


The final energy use in the Ukraine shows that transportation is most reliant on oil but almost one fifth coming from gas. Industry almost equal amounts electricity, gas, district heating and coal. Buildings in Ukraine use mainly gas followed by electricity or dis-trict heating (Figure 119).

Figure 113 Primary energy in Ukraine. Figure 114 Final energy use in Ukraine.

Figure 112 Energy flow Ukraine (source: Eurostat).

coal

gas

bioelectricity

energysector

nonenergy

industry

transport

building

int_aviationexport

int_marine

heat

oil

other

wind

nuclear

solarhydro

Energy flow Ukraine2017

Primary energy UkraineSum 1 043 TWh, year 2017

Coal 298.8 TWh (29 %)

Gas 285.6 TWh (27 %)


Oil 150.0 TWh (14 %)

Bio 34.8 TWh (3 %)

Hydro 8.9 TWh (1 %)

Final energy UkraineSum 551 TWh, year 2017

Gas 181.0 TWh (33 %)


Oil 105.0 TWh (19 %)

Heat 91.2 TWh (17 %)

Coal 34.2 TWh (6 %)

Bio 21.3 TWh (4 %)


Figure 117 Coal use in Ukraine.

Figure 118 Gas use in Ukraine.Figure 115 Heat production in Ukraine.

Figure 119 Ukraine.energy use summary.

District heat production UkraineSum 106 TWh, year 2017

Gas 82.6 TWh (78 %)

Coal 10.3 TWh (10 %)

Bio 7.5 TWh (7 %)

Oil 3.6 TWh (3 %)Nuclear 1.8 TWh (2 %)

Electricity production UkraineSum 156 TWh, year 2017

Nuclear 85.6 TWh (56 %)Coal 47.8 TWh (31 %)

Hydro 10.5 TWh (7 %)

Gas 8.8 TWh (6 %)Oil 1.3 TWh (1 %)

Ukraine coal use Sum 197 TWh, year 2017







Ukraine gas use Sum 319 TWh, year 2017



Transport 18.7 TWh (6 %)Industry 51.0 TWh (16 %)

Building 111.2 TWh (35 %)


Figure 116 Electricity production in Ukraine.

All

TWh


Final energy UkraineYear 2017


105 (19%)

181 (33%)

91 (17%)

117 (21%)

30 (17%)

51 (29%)

39 (22%)

50 (29%)

85 (76%)

19 (17%)

111 (42%)

52 (20%)

60 (23%)


3.24 INDUSTRY

Energy use in industry is different for different EU countries de-pending on the choice of fuels and the structure of the industry in each country (Figure 120). Danish and Polish industries are similar to the industries in EU as a whole with a mix of fossil fuels and elec-tricity for energy use.

3.25 TRANSPORTATION

The final energy use in transportation is dominated by oil in most counties in EU as well as the countries studied. Sweden and Ukraine being somewhat of an exception with use of 20 percent bio fuel in Sweden and 17 percent gas in Ukraine. Ukraine also has a relative highPshare of electricity in transportation (Figure 121).

3.26 BUILDINGS

Final energy use in buildings differs between countries with most countries using 20-30 percent electricity, natural gas and biofuel supplemented by district heating. Three countries stand out, Ger-many, Poland and Sweden. Germany has a high share of oil at 20 percent. Poland has a high share of coal at 26 percent and relative share of oil at 10 percent. Sweden buildings receive almost half of its energy from electricity and the remaining half from district heating and biofuel making Sweden’s buildings almost fossil free. (Figure 122).

TW

h

Final energy industry

year 2017

10 (13%)10 (13%)36 (19%)36 (19%) 30 (17%)30 (17%)

312 (10%)312 (10%)5 (19%)5 (19%)

1 022 (34%)1 022 (34%)

6 (21%)6 (21%)

28 (36%)28 (36%)262 (40%)262 (40%)

8 (30%)8 (30%) 49 (26%)49 (26%)

15 (37%)15 (37%)51 (29%)51 (29%)

5 (20%)5 (20%)

3 (11%)3 (11%)20 (11%)20 (11%)

48 (38%)48 (38%)

4 (10%)4 (10%)

4 (15%)4 (15%)39 (22%)39 (22%)

1 035 (34%)1 035 (34%)8 (28%)8 (28%) 24 (31%)24 (31%)

228 (35%)228 (35%) 9 (31%)9 (31%) 55 (30%)55 (30%)

51 (40%)51 (40%)

12 (31%)12 (31%) 50 (29%)50 (29%)

coaloilgasbiosolarwasteheatelectricity

EU28 Baltics Czech Republic Germany Denmark Poland Sweden Slovak Republic Ukrainesource: Eurostat

TW

h

Final energy transport

year 2017

3 524 (93%)3 524 (93%) 43 (97%)43 (97%)71 (92%)71 (92%) 618 (93%)618 (93%) 46 (94%)46 (94%) 234 (94%)234 (94%)

76 (78%)76 (78%)28 (87%)28 (87%)

85 (76%)85 (76%)

19 (17%)19 (17%)19 (20%)19 (20%)



TW

h

Final energy buildings

year 2017

95 (26%)95 (26%)747 (14%)747 (14%) 214 (20%)214 (20%)

38 (10%)38 (10%)1 783 (32%)1 783 (32%)

7 (10%)7 (10%)

39 (30%)39 (30%)

372 (35%)372 (35%)

10 (11%)10 (11%)

60 (16%)60 (16%)

20 (47%)20 (47%) 111 (42%)111 (42%)

723 (13%)723 (13%)

18 (27%)18 (27%)

25 (19%)25 (19%)

114 (11%)114 (11%)

16 (18%)16 (18%)

40 (11%)40 (11%)

28 (18%)28 (18%)

19 (29%)19 (29%)

18 (14%)18 (14%)

29 (34%)29 (34%)

59 (16%)59 (16%)

45 (29%)45 (29%)

6 (15%)6 (15%)

52 (20%)52 (20%)

1 698 (31%)1 698 (31%)16 (24%)16 (24%) 32 (25%)32 (25%) 279 (26%)279 (26%) 22 (26%)22 (26%)

78 (21%)78 (21%)

74 (48%)74 (48%)

13 (30%)13 (30%)60 (23%)60 (23%)



Figure 120 Final energy use in industry.

Figure 121 Final energy use in transportation.

Figure 122 Final energy use in buildings.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

AFP. (n.d.). Eight EU countries to phase out coal by 2030. Retrieved from https://news.yahoo.com/eight-eu-countries-phase-coal-2030-162602006.html

Arrhenius, S. (1896). Über den Einfluss des atmosfärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche.

Barteczko, A. (2019, July 10). Poland may need $30 bln from foreign investors to build nuclear plant . Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-nuclear-idUSL8N-24B3HL

Björck, P.-O., & Grahn, M. (1999). A feasibilty study of Hydrogen distribution in present natural gas pipeline systems. Retrieved from http://fy.chalmers.se/~np97magr/reports/h2_1999.pdf

Carmichael, L. (2019, June 18). Only eight EU countries to phase out coal by 2030 . Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-eu-countries-phase-coal.html

Energimyndigheten. (2014, Oct 7). Luftvattenvärmepumpar. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/tester/test-er-a-o/luftvattenvarmepumpar/

Energy Information Agency (EIA). (n.d.). Table 8.2. Average Tested Heat Rates by Prime Mover and Energy Source, 2007 - 2017 . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html

ENTSO-E. (n.d.). Regional Groups. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://docstore.entsoe.eu/about-entso-e/system-operations/regional-groups/Pages/default.aspx

Equinor. (n.d.). Here’s how your CO2 emissions can be stored under the ocean . Retrieved July 13, 2019, from https://www.equinor.com/en/magazine/carbon-capture-and-storage.html

European Commission. (2018, November 28). 2050 long-term strategy. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en

European Commission. (n.d.). 2030 climate & energy framework . Retrieved July 9, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en

European Commission. (n.d.). 2030 Energy Strategy . Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ener-gy-strategy-and-energy-union/2030-energy-strategy

European Commission. (n.d.). CO2 cross-border transport connections between emission sources in United Kingdom and Netherlands and a storage site in Norway. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/maps/pci_fiches/pci_12_4_en_2017.pdf

European Commission. (n.d.). Effort sharing 2021-2030: targets and flexibilities. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/regulation_en

European Commission. (n.d.). Energy security strategy . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/ener-gy-strategy-and-energy-union/energy-security-strategy

European Commission. (n.d.). Energy union and climate. Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/energy-union-and-climate_en

European Commission. (n.d.). National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Retrieved July 8, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/ener-gy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/governance-en-ergy-union/national-energy-climate-plans

European Commission. (n.d.). National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs). Retrieved July 10, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/ener-gy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/governance-en-ergy-union/national-energy-climate-plans

European Commission. (n.d.). Projects of common interest – Interactive map. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/transparency_platform/map-viewer/main.html

European Environment Agency. (2009). Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential. Retrieved August 16, 2019, from European Environment Agency: https://www.eea.europa.eu/pub-lications/europes-onshore-and-offshore-wind-energy-potential

European Environment Agency EEA. (2018). Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe. (22).

European Environment Agency EEG. (n.d.). Premature deaths at-tributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3 exposure in 41 European coun-tries and the EU-28, 2014 . Retrieved July 11, 2019, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/improving-air-quality-in-europe-an/premature-deaths-2014

European Environment Agency, EEG. (n.d.). PM2.5 annual mean in 2016. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/pm2-5-annual-mean-in-1

Eurostat. (2019, Jan 31). Energy balance guide. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/energy-balances

Eurostat. (2019, Jan 31). Energy balances 2019 edition. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/energy-bal-ances

Eurostat. (n.d.). Agri-environmental indicator - mineral fertiliser consumption. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_in-dicator_-_mineral_fertiliser_consumption

Frank Dohmen, A. J. (2019, May 13). German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future. Retrieved from Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

globalcarbonatlas.org. (n.d.). Global Carbon Atlas. Retrieved from http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

Hansen J, L. S. (1987). Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature. 62(11).

Hornsdale Power Reserve. (n.d.). Hornsdale Power Reserve. Re-trieved Aug 19, 2019, from https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . (2018, October 8). Global Warming of 1.5 °C . Retrieved from https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. (2018, Oct 8). Global Warming of 1.5 °C . Retrieved from https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/

International Energy Agency, IEA . (n.d.). The Future of Hydrogen . Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/hydrogen2019/

Lazard. (2018, Nov 8). Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018 . Retrieved from https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-stor-age-2018/

Matt Palmer, D. M. (n.d.). Earth's energy imbalance . Retrieved from https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/earths-ener-gy-imbalance/

Melaina, M., Antonia, O., & Penev, M. (2013). Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues.

Ministerstwo Energii. (2018, Dec 18). Draft "Energy Policy of Poland until 2040". Retrieved from https://www.gov.pl/web/ener-gia/draft-energy-policy-of-poland-until-2040

Nasa. (1984, 1986). The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). Retrieved from https://science.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/

Nasa. (2019). Venus. Retrieved from https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/overview/

Navas, C. (2017). Development of Business Cases for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Applications for Regions and Cities.

PGNiG TERMIKA SA. Elektrociepłownia Żerań website [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019] https://termika.pgnig.pl/elektrocie-plownia-zeran

Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency. Energy sector in Poland. [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019] https://www.paih.gov.pl/files/?id_plik=19609

Polish Power Networks. [Online] [Cited: 28August 2019]https://www.pse.pl/dane-systemowe

Shun-an Zheng, X. Z. (2012). Leaching Behavior of Heavy Metals and Transformation of Their Speciation in Polluted Soil Receiving Simulated Acid Rain. 7(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti-cles/PMC3504143/).

Swedish Energy Agency. (2017, June 19). Värmevärden och emis-sionsfaktorer. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/statistik/branslen/varmevarden-och-emissionsfaktorer1/

Swedish Energy Agency. (2017, June 19). Värmevärden och emis-sionsfaktorer. Retrieved from http://www.energimyndigheten.se/statistik/branslen/varmevarden-och-emissionsfaktorer1/

Swedish Institute (SI). (n.d.). Sweden in brief . Retrieved July 12, 2019, from sweden.se: https://sweden.se/society/swe-den-an-overview/

Svenska kraftnät. (2019, June 30). Kraftbalansen på den svenska elmarknaden vintrarna 2018/2019 och 2019/2020. Retrieved from https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2019/kraftbalansrapport2019.pdf

UNFCCC. (2016, April 22). Paris Agreement . Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Vattenfall. (n.d.). Finansiella rapporter. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from Vattenfall: https://group.vattenfall.com/se/om-oss/vart-foretag/finansiellt/finansiella-rapporter

Vaughan, A. (2018, Jan 5). UK government spells out plan to shut down coal plant. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025

Vaughan, A. (2019, Jan 26). Germany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/germany-agrees-to-end-reliance-on-coal-stations-by-2038

Woolfork, B. (2009, Aug 10). Natural Gas: A Bridge Fuel for the 21st Century . Retrieved from Center for American Pro-gress: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/re-ports/2009/08/10/6513/natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-for-the-21st-century/

World Health Organization, WHO. (2018, 05 02). Ambient (out-door) air quality and health . Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Proposed route for Baltic Pipe project .............................. 6

Figure 2 Baltic Pipe Project timeline .................................................... 7

Figure 3 Poland greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and CO2 equivalents........................................................................ 10

Figure 4 Poland premature deaths due to PM2.5 emissions ..... 10

Figure 5 Poland PM2.5 emissions .......................................................... 10

Figure 6 Poland CO2 emissions in 2017 ............................................ 10

Figure 7 Poland energy used in buildings ........................................ 12

Figure 8 Poland gas and electricity prices for medium sized households ...................................................................... 12

Figure 9 Global hydrogen demand ..................................................... 15

Figure 10 Cross-border carbone dioxide network ...................... 15

Figure 11 Greenhouse gas emissions from CO2 and other sources in CO2 equivalents ............................................... 17

Figure 12 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland. ............................... 17

Figure 13 Correlation between air concentration of PM2.5 and NO2 and premature deaths with Poland marked. ................ 17

Figure 14 Premature death attributable to PM2.5, NO2 and O3 (source EEA). ................................................................................. 18

Figure 15 PM2.5 annual mean in 2016................................................ 18

Figure 16 Emissions of PM2.5 in Poland ..............................................19

Figure 17 Emissions of PM10 in Poland ...............................................19

Figure 18 Emissions of NOX in Poland ................................................19

Figure 19 Emissions of SOX in Poland .................................................19

Figure 20 Primary energy Poland ....................................................... 20

Figure 21 Final energy Poland .............................................................. 20

Figure 22 Heat production in Poland ................................................ 20

Figure 23 Electricity production in Poland ..................................... 20

Figure 24 Coal use in Poland ................................................................. 21

Figure 25 Gas use in Poland................................................................... 21

Figure 26 Poland energy use summary ............................................ 21

Figure 27 Reduction of 2017 years greenhouse gas emission in CO2 equivalent to reach 2030 goals of 40% reduction for both Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) for non-ETS emissions and for Emissions Trade System (ETS) emissions. ........................................ 22

Figure 28 Electricity generation from coal and gas in USA ...... 23

Figure 29 Wind energy production in Sweden winter 2017/2018 and 2018/19 ........................................................................ 23

Figure 30 Capacity factors for different electricity generation sources in Germany in 2018 .......................................... 23

Figure 31 PM2.5 emissions in EU............................................................24

Figure 32 PM10 emissions in EU ............................................................24

Figure 33 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in EU. ...................... 25

Figure 34 Sulphur oxides (SOX) emissions in EU. .......................... 25

Figure 35 Greenhouse gas emissions Poland................................. 25

Figure 36 Greenhouse gas emissions Denmark ........................... 26

Figure 37 Greenhouse gas emissions Sweden. ............................. 26

Figure 38 Greenhouse gas emissions Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 39 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Germany ............................... 27

Figure 40 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Poland .................................... 28

Figure 41 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Denmark ............................... 29

Figure 42 European Commission assessment of National Energy and Climate Plan, NECP for Sweden .................................. 30

Figure 43 Grids in Europe ....................................................................... 32

Figure 44 Carnot heat engine ............................................................... 33

Figure 45 Faster CO2 reductions result in higher probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C .................................. 34-35

Figure 46 Available offshore area (km²) for wind energy farms within national jurisdictions...................................... 36

Figure 47 On-shore wind energy potential if levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is lower than 55 €/MWh ........................... 36

Figure 48 Energy flow EU ....................................................................... 39

Figure 49 Primary energy EU in 2017 ............................................... 40

Figure 50 Final energy EU in 2017 ..................................................... 40

Figure 51 Heat production in EU ......................................................... 40

Figure 52 Electricity production in EU ............................................. 40

Figure 53 Coal use in EU ..........................................................................41

Figure 54 Gas use in EU ............................................................................41

Figure 55 EU energy use summary ......................................................41

Figure 56 Energy flow Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania .................. 42

Figure 57 Primary energy in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ..... 42

Figure 58 Final energy use in Estonia Latvia and Lithuania ..... 42

Figure 59 Heat production in Baltics ................................................. 43

Figure 60 Electricity production in Baltics ..................................... 43

Figure 61 Coal use in Baltics .................................................................. 43

Figure 62 Gas use in Baltics ................................................................... 43

Figure 63 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania energy use summary ....... 43

Figure 64 Energy flow Czech Republic ............................................. 44


Figure 65 Primary energy Czech Republic in 2017 ..................... 44

Figure 66 Final energy Czech Republic in 2017 ............................ 44

Figure 67 Heat production in Czech Republic ............................... 45

Figure 68 Electricity production in Czech Republic .................... 45

Figure 69 Coal use in Czech Republic ................................................ 45

Figure 70 Gas use in Czech Republic ................................................. 45

Figure 71 Czech Republic energy use summary ........................... 45

Figure 72 Energy flow Poland ............................................................... 46

Figure 73 Primary energy Poland ....................................................... 46

Figure 74 Final energy Poland .............................................................. 46

Figure 75 Heat production in Poland .................................................47

Figure 76 Electricity production in Poland ......................................47

Figure 77 Coal use in Poland ..................................................................47

Figure 78 Gas use in Poland ....................................................................47

Figure 79 Poland energy use summary .............................................47

Figure 80 Energy flow Germany.......................................................... 48

Figure 81 Primary energy Germany .................................................. 48

Figure 82 Final energy Germany ......................................................... 48

Figure 83 Heat production in Germany ........................................... 49

Figure 84 Electricity production in Germany ................................ 49

Figure 85 Coal use in Germany ............................................................ 49

Figure 86 Gas use in Germany .............................................................. 49

Figure 87 Germany energy use summary ....................................... 49

Figure 88 Energy flow Sweden ............................................................ 50

Figure 89 Primary energy Sweden ..................................................... 50

Figure 90 Final energy Sweden............................................................ 50

Figure 91 Heat production in Sweden ...............................................51

Figure 92 Electricity production in Sweden ....................................51

Figure 93 Coal use in Sweden ................................................................51

Figure 94 Gas use in Sweden ..................................................................51

Figure 95 Sweden energy use summary ...........................................51

Figure 96 Energy flow Denmark...........................................................52

Figure 97 Primary energy Denmark ...................................................52

Figure 98 Final energy Denmark ..........................................................52

Figure 99 Heat production in Denmark ........................................... 53

Figure 100 Electricity production in Denmark ............................. 53

Figure 101 Coal use in Denmark ......................................................... 53

Figure 102 Gas use in Denmark ........................................................... 53

Figure 103 Denmark energy use summary .................................... 53

Figure 104 Energy flow Slovak Republic ......................................... 54

Figure 105 Primary energy Slovak Republic .................................. 54

Figure 106 Final energy Slovak Republic ......................................... 54

Figure 107 Heat production in Slovak Republic ........................... 55

Figure 108 Electricity production in Slovak Republic ................ 55

Figure 109 Coal use in Slovak Republic ............................................ 55

Figure 110 Gas use in Slovak Republic .............................................. 55

Figure 111 Slovak Republic energy use summary........................ 55

Figure 112 Energy flow Ukraine .......................................................... 56

Figure 113 Primary energy Ukraine .................................................. 56

Figure 114 Final energy Ukraine ......................................................... 56

Figure 115 Heat production in Ukraine ........................................... 57

Figure 116 Electricity production in Ukraine ................................ 57

Figure 117 Coal use in Ukraine ............................................................ 57

Figure 118 Gas use in Ukraine .............................................................. 57

Figure 119 Ukraine final energy use summary .............................. 57

Figure 120 Final energy use in industry ........................................... 58

Figure 121 Final energy use in transportation .............................. 58

Figure 122 Final energy use in buildings .......................................... 58


FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT VISIT BALTIC-PIPE.EU

The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Co-financed by the Connecting Europe Facility of the European Union

Documents

CLIMATE REPORT - Baltic Pipe · 2019-11-04 · Baltic Sea Region that can be derived to the Baltic Pipe Project. ... Elektrociepłownia Żerań, working since 1954, where the construction