
On Thursday 8 October The Economist magazine organized a symposium at Stockholm’s Grand Hotel titled “European Energy Horizons 2014 – The Market, The Consumer, The Politics”. I was very pleased to be invited to attend and discuss the issue “Future Sources of Energy” with a focus on “Where should Europe’s future energy supply come from? What role can renewable energy play in securing Europe’s energy future and energy independence? Is shale gas a viable source of energy to Europe?” (See the programme.)
In recent days I have prepared for the discussion by making a more detailed study of Europe’s energy supplies. With the help of data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy I have prepared a number of quite interesting graphs. BP does not provide data for some of the smaller nations of Europe so the real figures for all of Europe may vary slightly from what is shown below but that would not change the conclusions we can draw. Norway, Switzerland European nations outside EU are also included.
In order to compare electricity production from nuclear power, hydroelectric generation, and other electricity-producing forms of renewable energy we must, like BP, convert quantities of electricity to their equivalent in the heat required to produce the electricity in a thermal power station. These and other forms of energy can then be expressed in terms of oil equivalents (oe). The large decrease in coal use seen during the 1990s was due mainly to the closure of old coal-fired power stations and the increased use of natural gas. Since oil became more expensive in around 2007 consumption of it has decreased and fuel-efficient vehicles have contributed to this trend. We have also seen an increase in electricity production from renewable sources other than hydro such that the amount may soon equal that of hydroelectric generation. In percentage terms, Europe produces more nuclear energy than the rest of the world but we are now seeing a small decrease in this as older reactors are retired without replacements being built. Europe produces 3437 TWh of electricity per year. To state this as oil equivalents I calculate a requirement of heat energy equivalent to 700 million ton oe (Mtoe). Nuclear energy, hydro and other renewables contribute around 400 Mtoe which means that around 300 Mtoe of coal and natural gas is used for electricity generation. I will return to discussion of this later.
During the past 20 years coal consumption in Europe has been more or less constant. Burning coal emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy production than other fossil fuels so from a climate viewpoint we should reduce use of it. Instead what we are seeing is decreased production of coal in Europe but increased importation. This is an undesirable trend in Europe’s energy use.
Regarding use of natural gas we saw a dramatic increase until 2005 when this trend broke and consumption leveled off or maybe even decreased slightly over the subsequent years. Europe’s domestic production of natural gas reached a maximum in 2004 and the trend is now downwards. Importation of natural gas has now stabilized. If I include Norwegian gas production in the domestic numbers for Europe then one can see from the graph below showing the EU’s gas imports that 50% of these come from Russia. If the supply of Russian gas is shut off then Europe will shut down.
If we examine Europe’s oil consumption we see a marked decrease since 2006 but this has not affected the rate of imports since oil production from the North Sea has declined dramatically. In the 10 years following 2002 Europe’s domestic production decreased by 50%. Norway’s new large oilfield Johan Sverdrup is expected to begin production in around 2019 and that production is expected to be around 0,5 million barrels per day. Production from the old fields in the North Sea has then declined to maybe 1,5 million barrels per day. Therefore we can expect the declines in oil production to level off for some years around 2,0 million barrels per day. The level of production will, in any case, be lower than today.
Then we like to examine Europe’s energy self-sufficiency and see if generation from renewable sources can assist us. The image above shows Europe’s imports of oil, coal, uranium and natural gas. It also shows increasing generation of energy from renewable sources other than hydro. By 2020 the generation of hydroelectricity is expected stay at the same level as today. Europe is running out of rivers for hydroelectricity. If the 10% annual growth in energy from renewable sources continues then we will see an increase of 100 Mtoe by 2020. If we are to become less dependent on energy imports then I have shown what this may mean for importation of various forms of energy. If increased use of renewables is to replace 50% of our nuclear energy generation then importation of natural gas, coal and oil cannot decrease.
So what is the answer to the question, “What role can renewable energy play in securing Europe’s energy future and energy independence?” It is important that we continue to invest in renewable energy but this will have only a marginal effect on Europe’s energy independence. I have also studied the possibilities for production of shale gas in Poland and we should not expect any great amount of production there by 2020. It remains to be seen if there is any such production at all. Europe’s energy future is very vulnerable and the issue of our future energy supply should be on every politician’s agenda.
(Swedish)
Torsdagen den 8 maj ordnar The Economist ett seminarium på Grand Hotel under rubriken ”European Energy Horizons 2014 – The Market. The Consumer. The Politics”. Blev mycket glad då de frågade mig om jag ville vara med och diskutera just ”Future sources of energy”, och temat för diskusionen skulle vara ”Where should Europe’s future energy supply come from? What role can renewable energy play in securing Europe’s energy future and energy independence? Is shale gas a viable source of energy to Europe?” (se programmet)
De senaste dagarna har jag förberett mig genom att mer detaljerat studera Europas energiförsörjning och med hjälp av data från BP Statistical Review of World Energy har jag gjort ett anta grafer som är ganska intressanta. BP anger inte data för några av de minsta länderna i Europa så det kan finnas några små avvikelser jämfört med verkligheten, men det ändrar inte slutsatserna.
För att kunna jämföra elproduktionen med vattenkraft, kärnkraft och annan elproducerande förnybar energi måste man som BP gör förvandla elenergin till den värmemängd som behövs för att producera motsvarande el i ett värmekraftverk. För alla energislag används också enheten oljeekvivalenter (oe). Den stora minskningen av kol beror framförallt på att länder som tidigare tillhörde östblocket har stängt gamla kolkraftverk och använder nu mer naturgas. Sedan oljan blev dyr runt 2007 har konsumtionen minskat och bränslesnåla bilar är en bidragande faktor. Vi ser också att förnybar elproduktion ökar och är snart lika stor som vattenkraften. Vi har procentuellt mer kärnkraft i Europa än övriga världen och vi ser nu en liten minskning då äldre reaktorer stängs och det inte byggs nya ersättningsreaktorer. Europa producerar 3437 TWh el och omräknat till oljeekvivalenter fick jag värmevärde till 700 ton oljeekvivalenter. Vatten, kärnkraft och förnybart är cirka 400 toe och det betyder att cirka 300 toe kol och naturgas används för elproduktion. Återkommer med diskussion om detta.
De senaste 20 åren har kolkonsumtionen i Europa varit mer eller mindre konstant. Per energienhet blir det mer koldioxid då vi bränner kol så ur klimatsynpunkt borde konsumtionen minska. Vad som minskar är produktionen inom Europa och importen ökar. Europas energi oberoende har en felaktig trend.
Vad det gäller gas användning ser vi en kraftig ökning fram till 2005 då trenden bröts och konsumtionen planade ut, eventuellt är det en liten minskning de senaste 7 åren. Europas inhemska produktion nådde ett maximum 2004 och trenden är nu nedåtgående. Vad det gäller importen så har ökningen gått över till en konstant import. Då jag räknar norsk gas som produktion inom Europa så ser ni från bilden här nedan, som visar EU:s gas import, att 50% av Europas gasimport kommer från Ryssland. Europa stannar om den ryska gaskranen stängs.
Vad det gäller Europas oljekonsumtion så är det en markant minskning sedan 2006, men det har inte påverkat importen eftersom oljeproduktionen i Nordsjön minskar mycket kraftigt. Under 10 år sedan 2002 har Europas inhemska produktion minskat med 50%. Det stora nya oljefältet Johan Sverdrup i Norge förväntas komma igång med produktion runt 2019 och produktionen kan förväntas ligga runt 500 tusen fat olja om dagen. Då kommer produktionen i ”de gamla fälten” att ha minskat till cirka 1500 tusen fat så vi kan räkna med en liten utplaning vad det gäller minskningen, men produktionen kommer att vara mindre än vad den är idag.
Då är vi framme vid Europas energi oberoende och om förnybar produktion kan hjälpa oss. Bilden här ovan visar Europas import av olja, kol, uran, och naturgas. Den visar också ökningen vad det gäller förnybar energi förutom vattenkraft. Fram till 2020 beräknas vattenkraften vara konstant då vi inte har fler älvar att bygga ut. Om trenden med en ökning med 10% om året fortsätter så har vi en ökning med 100 miljoner ton oljeekvivalenter fram till 2020. Om vi skall bli mindre beroende av import så har jag som exempel visar vad det innebär för olika energislag. Om allt skall ersätta kärnkraften så kan den halveras, men då har vi fortfarande lika mycket import av naturgas, kol och olja.
Vad blir svaret på frågan: “What role can renewable energy play in securing Europe’s energy future and energy independence?” Det är viktigt att ha en fortsatt satsning på förnybar energi, men påverkan på Europas energi oberoendet är marginellt. Jag har också studerat möjligheten för skiffergas i Polen och fram till 2020 skall vi inte förvänta oss någon nämnvärd produktion. Vi får se om det blir någon över huvud taget. Europas energiframtid är mycket sårbar och vår framtida energiförsörjning bör finnas med på varje politikers agenda.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
May 7, 2014
Kjell,
Tack för ett intressant inlägg. Du skrev för något år sen ett inlägg om att Europas energiförsörjning vore säkrare med Ryssland som medlem i EU, vilket nu förefaller avlägset.
Tror du att import av LNG från t.ex. USA kan bli en konkurrent till rysk gas inom överskådlig tid?
aleklett
May 7, 2014
Nej! De stora volymerna av skiffergas från USA är överdrivna. Man kan kanske bli självförsörjande.
aleklett
May 7, 2014
Om Ryssland hade varit med i EU hade vi inte haft det problem som vi nu har.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
May 7, 2014
Kjell,
Jag såg just att EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2014 nu finns på EIAs hemsida http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf . Deras referensfall anger att LNG- exporten från USA ökar till 3,5 tcf (1070 TWh) år 2030 med en spridning mellan 2 och 5 tcf på grund av osäkerhet i gasresurser. Det motsvarar ändå knappt EUs import från Ryssland.
jeroen
May 10, 2014
dear Kjell,
The roll of Renewable energy sources in Europe can be far greater then is envisaged in above analyses:
1) BP is using energy conversion units which are outdated and
2) because Photovoltaics and Moore’s law have both a high tech pedigree (and future.)
1) Using the efficiency of coal and gas power plants to convert the world of electricity to the world of Oil and Gas is a systemic error part of the old and current fossil energy policy framework. We should stop using this and switch tot (PJ) and use real primary energy usage figures. An example : Direct renewable energy usage from Solar PV for mobility (Electric mobility) is far more efficient use of primary energy than using Coal (fired plants) or oil (internal combustion engines). These large efficiency gains fall out of the equation using the BP framework of Oil Equivalent statistics.
2) in many nations the ‘grid parity’ for PV is coming near. The PV industry is based on the High Tech and physical fundamentals which provide the rapid growth of ICT (moore’s law on increased functionality and cost reduction) . Combining sense of urgency (Poetin’s USSR renaissance , climate change), Grid Parity and the high growth logic of high tech sector do not necessary deliver a 10% growth but can increase RES usage dramatically.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
May 10, 2014
Jeroen,
”BP is using energy conversion units which are outdated”
BP and Kjell are making energy conversion between for example wind and coal according to OECD standard, see IEA´s Energy Statistics Manual
Click to access statistics_manual.pdf
Patrick
May 13, 2014
Jeroen
In order to build (mining), transport solar panels you need oil.
You cannot build and transport solar panels with the sun.
In order to build (mining), transport, maintain, and repair windmills, you need oil.
You cannot build, transport, maintain, and repair windmills with wind.
And global oil production is already declining (outside US), global oil exports are also declining. So when oil is gone, all other energies are gone too.
Jeroen
May 19, 2014
Dear Lars Eric
Thanks for the answer. I am getting more confused now because you’re reference and above text do not align as you indicate. In above text the primary energy usage for electricity (in o.e. Equivalents) is calculated using the efficiency of a conventional power plant. “In order to compare electricity production from nuclear power, hydroelectric generation, and other electricity-producing forms of renewable energy we must, like BP, convert quantities of electricity to their equivalent in the heat required to produce the electricity in a thermal power station.”
In the calculation guideline you refer to this is called “partial substition method” page 137 and you’re reference states that this method was abandonded . “Partial substitution .. had unreal effects on the energy balance as transformation losses appeared which had no physical basis.” This is exactly also my argument .
In our time we are reworking the energy system from all angles to meet the challenges ahead. Basically my argument is that the efficiency of new marginal electricity production and the efficiency of the end energy usage can become far better than the current industry average. Using partial substition puts ‘smoke and mirrors’ between real world solutions and the policy analyses which can help implement these new solutions. In the case of using Renewable energy sources for e-mobility solutions the amount of Primary energy needed is at least 50 % less than the conventional energy value chain using the “partial substitution method” . End users using ev’s and car manufacturers providing electric vehicles want to combine EV’s with using RES. There are strong market drivers to combine RES with EV , so this combination is not just wishful thinking and a good example of possible changes.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
May 23, 2014
Jeroen,
You are correct. BP, as well as Kjell in this post, is using the Partial substitution method according to http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013/using-the-review/definitions-and-explanatory-notes.html
On the contrary IEA, OECD uses the Physical energy content method see http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/statistics_manual.pdf
I agree that this is confusing.