Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 218 Master thesis in Sustainable Development
Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania
Illustrative Electricity Supply
Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania
Lina Blazeviciute
Lina Blazeviciute
Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences Master Thesis E, in Sustainable Development, 30 credits
Printed at Department of Earth Sciences,
Master’s Thesis
Supervisor: Mark Howells
Master thesis in Sustainable Development
Uppsala University Department of
Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 218 Master thesis in Sustainable Development
Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania
Lina Blazeviciute
Contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Background ... 2
2.1 Overview of Lithuanian Energy Sector ... 2
2.1.1 Potential of Renewable Energy Sources in Lithuania ... 2
2.1.2 Potential of Fossil Fuel Resources ... 3
2.2 Policy Instruments ... 3
2.2.1 European Union Directives ... 3
2.2.2 Energy Strategy of Lithuania ... 4
2.3 A Sustainable Energy Future ... 5
2.4 Modeling a Sustainable Energy System ... 6
2.4.1 Global Context ... 6
2.4.2 European Context ... 6
2.4.3 The Baltic Region Context ... 7
2.4.4 Indicators for Sustainable Energy Development (ISED) ... 7
3. Method ... 8
3.1 Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development for Lithuania ... 8
3.2 The Lithuanian LEAP Model ... 8
3.2.1 Model Structure ... 9
3.2.2 Data Collection ... 9
3.2.3 Scenarios ... 9
4. Results ... 11
4.1 Energy Demand ... 11
4.2 Addressing the Energy Insecurity in Lithuania ... 11
4.4 Unmet Domestic Requirements ... 13
4.5 Social Sustainability ... 13
4.5.1 Share of Household Income Spent on Electricity ... 13
4.5.2 Accident Fatalities per energy produced by fuel chain ... 14
4.6 Economic Sustainability ... 15
4.6.1 Fuel Shares in Electricity ... 15
4.6.2 Non-carbon Energy Share in Electricity ... 19
4.6.3 Renewable Energy Share in Electricity ... 19
4.6.4 Net Energy Import Dependency ... 20
4.7 Environmental Sustainability ... 21
4.7.1 GHG Emissions from Energy Produced per Capita and per Unit of GDP ... 21
5. Discussion and Conclusions ... 23
5.1 Assessment of the Scenarios ... 23
5.2 Suggestions to Policy Makers ... 24
5.3 Limitations ... 24
6. Acknowledgements ... 25
7. References ... 26
Appendices ... 29
Appendix A – Final Electricity Demand ... 29
Appendix B – Capacities ... 29
Appendix C – Detailed Scenario Results ... 32
Table 1: Set of EISD (IAEA, 2005). ... 8
Table 2: Assessment of the Scenarios... 23
Figure 1: Lithuanian LEAP Model Structure... 9
Figure 2: Final Energy Demand by Sector and Fuel in 2007 ... 11
Figure 3: Final Energy Demand by Sector to 2050 ... 11
Figure 4: Outputs - Baseline Scenario ... 12
Figure 5: Outputs – No Imports and No Nuclear Scenario ... 12
Figure 6: Percentage of Unmet Requirements in Each Scenario ... 13
Figure 7: The Share of Income Spent On Electricity by Scenarios ... 14
Figure 8: Accident Fatalities per Total Electricity Produced (TWh) by Scenarios... 15
Figure 9: Fuel Shares in Government Policies Scenario ... 16
Figure 10: Fuel Shares in No Nuclear Scenario ... 16
Figure 11: Fuel Shares in No Gas Imports Scenario ... 17
Figure 12: Fuel Shares in No Electricity Imports Scenario ... 18
Figure 13: Fuel Shares in Renewables Scenario ... 18
Figure 14: Total Non-carbon Energy in Share in Electricity by Scenarios ... 19
Figure 15: Total Renewable Energy Share in Electricity by Scenarios ... 20
Figure 16: Net Energy Import Dependency by Scenarios ... 20
Figure 17: Net Imports by Fuels and Years ... 21
Figure 18: GHG Emission of Each Scenario per a) Capita; b) GDP ... 21
Abbreviations
EISD – Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development ETSAP - Energy Technology System Analysis Program EU – European Union
GDP – Gross Domestic Product GHG – Green House Gases
IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency IEA – International Energy Agency
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LEAP - Long range Energy Alternatives Planning System NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NPP – Nuclear Power Plant
O&M – Operation and Maintenance
OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development SEI – Stockholm Environmental Institute
TOE – Tons of Oil Equivalent
Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania
LINA BLAZEVICIUTE
Blazeviciute, L., 2014: Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania.
Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 218, 38 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Abstract: Lithuania has limited domestic energy resources, and is therefore, heavily dependent on imports of oil products and natural gas. Lithuania imported around 90% of its oil and 100% of natural gas in 2009. Particularly, after the accession to the European Union (EU), and decommissioning of main electricity generation source Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), energy security became one of the main concerns. Therefore, it is vital to evaluate different pathways the country could take in order to achieve desirable energy security, and ensure sustainable development of the energy system in Lithuania. The study was conducted using LEAP, the Long range Energy Alternatives Planning System, to develop energy policy analysis. Different scenarios presented in the report show how Lithuanian energy system would react in given different circumstances. Moreover, it demonstrates how implementation of existing energy projects separately or combined together would affect the level of energy security and sustainability in Lithuania.
The research shows that current government policies could lead Lithuania to more secure and sustainable energy future. However, in a long run higher investments in renewable energy might be more environmentally and economically competitive alternative.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Energy Security, Energy System, Sustainable Energy Future, Energy Modelling
Lina Blazeviciute, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania
LINA BLAZEVICIUTE
Blazeviciute, L., 2014: Illustrative Electricity Supply Scenarios and Sustainable Energy Development in Lithuania.
Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 218, 38 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Summary: After the closure of the second block of Ingnalina Nuclear Power Plant, electricity generation has been replaced by natural gas consuming power plants. Lithuania is highly dependent on natural gas resources coming from one supplier, which is Russia. Thereby, Lithuanian energy system became very vulnerable. Energy supply security is one of the main concerns of policy makers Moreover, European Union dictates trends directing member states towards sustainable development. Secure supply is not the only requirement anymore. A secure and sustainable energy future is the desirable outcome.
Over the last decades much research has been conducted, yet in terms of either energy security or sustainability.
This report aims to elaborate potential pathways for Lithuania towards a sustainable and secure energy future. With the help of an energy modelling tool, a few alternative scenarios were analyzed in respect to energy indicators for sustainable development. The report provides an overview of Lithuanian energy system reaction in different circumstances.
Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development (EISD) were used to analyze the plausible future scenarios of Lithuanian energy sector, and to help to reach valuable conclusions. It is clear that the Government is taking right actions, which could improve energy security in Lithuania. However, the results suggests to increase use of renewable energy sources in order to reach sustainable energy future.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Energy Security, Energy System, Sustainable Energy Future, Energy Modelling
Lina Blazeviciute, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
1. Introduction
Many decades ago, when crude oil was sold nearly two dollars a barrel, people became addicted to it. The way of life is built around oil and other fossil fuels. Consequently, the increased need of energy created worldwide environmental problems, and the necessity to look for further solutions, seeking to move away from oil as fast as possible.
Climate Change is not the only problem created by the use of fossil fuels. It is known that these resources are distributed very unevenly around the world. Over 60% of oil reserves are found in the Middle East (Camilla Adelle, 2009). Dependency on a handful of suppliers creates an issue of energy insecurity, especially when those suppliers are politically unstable countries. It is very common for countries full of fossil fuel resources to use energy as a tool of getting more political influence. For instance, Russia is the main supplier of natural gas and oil to Europe and surrounding countries. Since a number of countries largely rely on Russian supplies, it gives it an ability to manipulate and dictate the prices (Grigas, 2012).
After the closure of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, the base load of Lithuania’s electricity generation has been taken over by the natural gas power plants. Supply of the gas is extremely sensitive to economic and political factors.
Thereby, energy security in Lithuania has been decreased to a large extent (Energy Security Research Center, 2013).
Energy security has been an issue for the country since regaining independence. However, preparations for presidency of the Council of the European Union raised the issue of secure energy supply even more. Therefore, it was set as one of the main goals for Lithuania’s presidency ( Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, 2013).
In the times when facing the threat of global warming, sustainability, likewise energy security, is becoming more and more relevant to energy planning. The essential goal of energy is to improve quality of life from social, economic and environmental perspectives. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze potential pathways for Lithuania towards a sustainable and secure energy future. The specific objectives of the thesis are as follows:
• To present an overview of the current Lithuanian energy system, including available fossil and renewable resources;
• To using Long range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) to create an energy model for Lithuania;
• To analyze withdrawn results in support of Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development (EISD);
• To interpret the energy model results with the support of Indicators for Sustainable Energy Development.
2. Background
2.1 Overview of Lithuanian Energy Sector
Lithuania is the largest and southernmost country of the three Baltic States. Lithuania’s territory covers 65.3 thousand km2, and holds population of 3 million people. It is located on the south shore of the Baltic Sea, and bordered by Latvia to the north; Belarus to the east; Poland and The Russian Federation (Kaliningrad Region) to the south (Statistics Lithuania, 2012).
GDP (by purchasing power parity) of the country accounted for more than 64 billion US dollars in 2012, which ranks 87th out of 228 countries of the world (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). The final energy consumption in 2011 was 4696 thousand TOE (Statistics Lithuania, 2011). Lithuania has limited domestic energy resources, therefore, heavily dependent on imports of oil products and natural gas. In 2009 it was ranked as 17th country by dependency on energy imports out of 27 EU member states. Lithuania imported around 90% of its oil and 100% of natural gas in 2009 (European Commission, 2011).
For 50 years, Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union, and was the first country to declare its independence in 1990. After getting back its sovereignty, Lithuania was forced to reorganize its economy, military, as well as energy sectors. In the spring 2004 it became a member of European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). From the Soviet Union Lithuania inherited the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), which was able to satisfy energy needs of the country. Right after regaining independency Ignalina NPP had the highest share in the fuel mix and was seen as the future of Lithuanian energy sector:
The Ignalina plant is, and will be for the foreseeable future a vital component in Lithuania’s energy balance (Vilemas, 1995).
However, one of the requirements of the accession to the EU was closure of Ignalina NPP. First reactor was decommissioned in 2004, the second one - in 2009. Hence, imports and dependency on oil and natural gas increased tremendously. Lithuania, as well as Latvia and Estonia, can import gas only through Russian gas pipelines, which makes Russia the foremost supplier of energy sources for the Baltic States (Maigre, 2010). Thus, energy security, the use of indigenous energy resources, and energy efficiency have been important issues for the Lithuanian Government since independence.
Power systems of the Baltic region were constructed towards large electricity generation, consumption and export.
Consequently, Lithuanian power system has some specific features. Although the country had inherited a strong energy sector, it was constructed to reflect cheap energy. All the energy sectors were managed by state monopolies, with no concern for reforms (Miskinis, et al., 2011). Moreover, it is a unique case within Europe, because all three Baltic States are considered to be an “energy island”. The transmission grids are highly oriented towards Russia and Belorussia. The availability of these interconnections from Lithuania to the other Baltic States is as follows:
− Latvia by four lines of 330kV and three lines of 110kV;
− Belorussia by five lines of 330kV and seven lines of 110kV;
− Kaliningrad region (Russian Federation) by three lines of 330kV and three lines of 110kV (Miskinis, et al., 2011).
Obviously, interconnections with other parts of Europe are very limit. There is only one existing submarine cable between Estonia and Finland of 350MW (0.35GWh) capacity. It was jointly built in 2006. Lithuania has a capacity and has signed agreements for the import/export of 500GWh of electricity per year (Miskinis, et al., 2011).
Dependency on one supplier and lack of transmission grids interconnections results in higher energy prices, energy insecurity and increased vulnerability.
2.1.1 Potential of Renewable Energy Sources in Lithuania
Increased use of renewable sources is one of the goals in dealing with energy insecurity. As it was already mentioned above, Lithuania has very limited domestic energy resources. Yet, there is some unused potential of renewable energy. According to the National Audit Office of Lithuania, there are enough renewables not only to meet the goals set by EU, but also to increase level of energy security in the country.
Solar
Lithuania has around 1690 sunny days a year, which is enough to develop the use of solar energy. According to some specialists, solar energy could amount up to 5% of total energy generation (300MW installed capacity). Hence, that would raise the price rather tremendously. Therefore, the maximum capacity at the expected lowest price could be 80MW (Lietuvos Respublikos Valstybes Kontrole, 2010).
Wind
The potential of onshore wind is quite hard to measure. The total onshore wind energy capacity varies from 400MW to 3000MW. Nonetheless, the recommended capacity is 1000MW. Offshore wind energy is easier to measure, because of known exact offshore territories and economic zones. Potential capacity of offshore wind energy in Lithuania amounts to 1200MW. Yet, none of it is used. The energy activities in Lithuanian offshore economic zone are not regulated by law (Lietuvos Respublikos Valstybes Kontrole, 2010).
Hydro Power
Lithuania has the strictest environmental regulations on hydro energy use out of all EU member states. Most of the hydro energy potential is already used. However, existing hydro power plants have been built long time ago, and the only way to increase hydro energy share in the final mix would be modernization of existing plants and increasing efficiency (Lietuvos Respublikos Valstybes Kontrole, 2010).
Biofuels/Biomass
Lithuania is ranked as the second country in EU by potential for energy production from biomass. Therefore, energy produced from biomass should take a big part in final energy mix. Up to now, the problem of limited use of biofuels is lack of infrastructure applied to biofuels production.
2.1.2 Potential of Fossil Fuel Resources
Lithuania has some indigenous oil resources. In 2012, 107.7 thousand tonnes of oil were extracted (Dumsiene, 2013). However, this is far away from being enough to meet Lithuanian needs. Moreover, most of these sources are exported to Latvian, Ukrainian, Polish and Estonian markets in form of transport fuels (Orlen Group, n.d.).
Very recently a new topic in energy policy discussion has emerged. Lithuania started considering shale gas as a new option for energy security. It is assumed the country might hold up to 113 million m3 of shale gas reserves, with recoverable reserves of 13 million m3 (Skalunudujos.info, 2013). However, due to lack of reliable information, this report will not consider shale gas as an option.
2.2 Policy Instruments
The responsible institution for Lithuania’s energy policies is Ministry of Energy. The goal of the Ministry is as follows:
Lithuania must reduce its dependence on the single external energy supplier. This goal will be achieved by increasing local energy production (including new regional power plant in Lithuania), by establishing alternative supply, and by fostering development of renewable energy sources (Minstry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania,
2012).
Also, since Lithuania accessed EU in 2004, EU directives is one of the man instruments driving Lithuanian energy policy.
2.2.1 European Union Directives
The risk of becoming dependent on politically and economically volatile suppliers, and the fear of Climate Change are the core drivers of EU energy policy. As European Commission states:
The well-being of our people, industry and economy depends on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy (European Comission, 2010).
The main goals of EU energy policy are: sustainability, security of supply and competitiveness. In order to accomplish these goals by 2020 European Commission suggests to reduce GHG emissions by 20%, rising to 30% by 2030; to increase the share of renewable energy to 20%; and to improve energy efficiency by 20% in comparison to
1990 levels (also known as 20-20-20 targets) (European Comission, 2010). The main priorities of the EU energy strategy 2020 are listed and explained below.
Achieving an energy efficient Europe
According to the European Commission, energy efficiency is the most cost effective way to reach the goals of energy security, sustainability and competitiveness. To implement this priority bigger investments in potential energy saving sectors are needed, as well as increasing efficiency in energy supply and reinforcing industrial competitiveness (European Comission, 2010).
Ensuring the free movement of energy
In order to avoid disruptions in energy supplies, and be able to increase use of renewable energy there is a necessity of a more open, integrated, interconnected and competitive energy market. Europe is still deficient in grid infrastructure. Therefore, new grid interconnections must be developed, for instance, connecting the Baltic States with the West, and North of Europe (European Comission, 2010).
Secure, safe and affordable energy for citizens and businesses
The EU citizens seem to be unaware of their rights to different energy suppliers, and low prices. The EU should ensure their involvement in the internal market. Likewise, more information on possibilities of energy savings should be provided. It is also very important to ensure safe nuclear power, secure oil and gas supplies (European Comission, 2010).
Making a technology shift
The goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 20%. To achieve this it is urgent to bring new high performance low- carbon technologies into European markets. The EU is planning to invest large amounts of money for new researches of renewable and low-carbon technologies (European Comission, 2010).
Strong international partnership, notably with the neighbors
Climate change, access to energy resources, energy efficiency are the common problems for most countries around the world. Therefore, better international communication is one of the EU’s priorities. This involves integrating energy markets with neighboring countries, establishing new partnerships, promoting the global role of the EU for a safe, secure and low carbon emissions in the future (European Comission, 2010).
This clearly shows what an important role energy security and sustainable energy plays in implementing European energy strategy.
2.2.2 Energy Strategy of Lithuania
Energy security is a crucial element in Baltic politics. Although Lithuanian government recognized this element in the energy sector, but due to high costs, institutional weaknesses and vested interests in the gas sector, not that much effort has been put to resolve the problem of energy security. Mainly, energy security became a political concern because of the interest to join the EU (Grigas, 2012). As was mentioned above, one of the main goals of the EU is to secure a sustainable energy future. After accession of the EU in 2004 the latest Lithuanian energy strategies promoted sustainable energy as well. The goals of the most recent strategies, the Lithuanian National Energy (Energy Independence) Strategy signed in 2010, will be described below.
The latest National Energy Strategy stresses the importance of reaching energy independence. All the attention will be focused on achieving this goal to 2020. Following the overall EU target 20-20-20, on a national level Lithuania is planning to increase the share of renewable resources by 23%, also increase energy efficiency by 1.5% every year, and decrease GHG emissions by 23% compared to 2008. Moreover, there are plans of new transmission grid lines between Lithuania – Poland (LitPol Link), and Lithuania – Sweden (NordBalt). Integration to European energy markets is of big importance as well. The project of new Ignalina NPP, which caused various discussions in the country, is also in the Strategy. Although, it is not yet clear if the project of new NPP is going to be implemented (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybe, 2010).
It is assumed that implementation of the Strategy will require 29-41 billion litas of investments from government and private sector. Although, energy independence calls for vast investments, it is planned to save 3 to 4 % of GDP every year. Stable energy prices, and new job opportunities are just few other advantages of secure and independent energy sector (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybe, 2010).
Hence, by analyzing Lithuanian National Energy Strategy, it is clear what a vital role energy security and independence plays in forming energy policy. In order to achieve a sustainable energy future in Lithuania EU requirements must be integrated in the Strategy. Increased use of renewable sources, efficiency, and reduction of GHG emissions could improve the situation in the country, both in terms of economic and social development.
2.3 A Sustainable Energy Future
The term sustainable energy has been mentioned above several times. Therefore, this section will explain what sustainable energy future is, why it is important to national policy makers, and how it overlaps with energy security.
The energy system is a very complex and dynamic system. It interacts and impacts other systems as well. For instance, the emissions of pollution while burning fuels can harm human health (society), sick workers reduce the supply of productive labor (economy) and the pollution further damages ecosystems (the environment) (Howells &
Roehrl, 2012). As economy is continuously developing and growing, energy system is expanding as well, demand for energy resources is increasing rapidly. Interconnections between energy and other systems are tremendous. Yet it is very difficult to list all the impacts they have on each other. Hence, the main question emerges: what would be the ways to sustain growing energy demand, without intervening with environment, society or needs of our future generations. As defined by Tesker et al. (2005), sustainable energy is:
A dynamic harmony between the equitable availability of energy – intensive goods and services to all people and the preservation of the earth for future generations.
In other words, sustainable energy future should provide every human-being on the planet with affordable, safe energy, without degrading environment and its resources. However, it is not yet clear how to get there. Many different aspects of this topic must be investigated and understood.
It is rather hard work for energy policy makers to decide which pathways to take towards sustainable energy future.
There are many different perspectives to consider, many of which are very controversial to each other. For instance, Nuclear renaissance, proposing nuclear energy as the most suitable option; and complete opposite: Anti-Nuke saying that nuclear energy should be phased out (Howells & Roehrl, 2012). Twenty Energy system perspectives, suggested in the study carried out by Howells M. and Roehrl R. A., (for example: Empower the poor, Security first, Development first, Free the market, Planetary boundaries and etc.), are divided into goals means and broad policies, and context and limits. Moreover, they have different perceived importance and relevance. Various countries choose different perspective/s to follow, depending on their national, regional strategies.
As what concerns the case of Lithuania, energy policy makers chose Security first as their main goal. Not having indigenous resources and entirely depending on energy imports from one source, are the problems that have maximum priority in energy planning in the country. However, the means of how to reach that goal are not yet clear and changes over time. Debates on new NPP have been on the energy agenda for several years already, and the decision is not made yet. Anyhow, Energy efficiency attained some attention from policy makers, and has been one of the priorities on the National energy strategy.
It is evident, to make a right decision is not that easy. Howells and Roehrl (2012) suggest few actions to take, in order to bring a consensus in decision making process for energy planning:
• Scenarios and indicators;
• Energy assessments;
• Economic efficiency;
• Strategies for modern energy access;
• Evaluation of ecosystem services;
• Develop methodologies.
For this particular study, scenarios and indicators have been chosen. It is expected, scenarios of national energy system together with a set of Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development (EISD) will help to identify the means to reach secure and sustainable energy future in Lithuania.
The purpose of indicators is to determine whether energy use is sustainable, and if not, what would be the ways to change it. It is a core instrument for policy makers to asses and measure current and future effects of energy use on human health, society, economy, air, soil and water (IAEA, 2005).
2.4 Modeling a Sustainable Energy System
The world is living the time of extraordinary changes. The need to shift from fossil fuels to renewables, and fighting the climate change are core issues affecting energy system. Clearly, some changes must be done in order to fulfill needs of growing energy demand in the foreseeable future. Therefore, various organizations, research institutes around the world, invoke energy scenario modeling to get a better understanding of the problems that might emerge in the future, and possible solutions.
In order to understand energy modeling more thoroughly and be able to apply the method to Lithuanian case, a short literature review was conducted of studies that use energy scenario modeling. The use of energy scenarios and EISD globally, in Europe and in the Baltic Region will be described in this chapter.
Energy system is a very complex and dynamic system, so it is its modeling. Energy modeling, energy scenarios and EISD, presented below, are just few of the ways to evaluate sustainable energy system. However, combination of two should give good insights into Lithuanian energy sector; help to monitor where it stands now and what has to be done to develop sustainable energy future.
2.4.1 Global Context
World Energy Outlook (WEO)
WEO is annually provided by International Energy Agency (IEA). It is designed to help for energy policy decision makers by giving a reliable, unbiased statistics and analysis. More or less, it delivers a framework for coherent energy future. IEA uses energy scenarios to project energy demand and supply in the world for the next 25 years.
Different future scenarios broken down by countries, fuel or sector gives an insight into trends in energy markets, and what could they mean for further development, environment or energy security. Moreover, year by year WEO has a different focus on some specific issue, for instance, security of supply, accessibility, or prospects of Russia’s energy policy (IEA, 2013).
Global Energy Assessment (GEA)
IPCC together with 500 independent experts (scientists, businessmen and policy makers) produced the GEA. It is a shared vision addressing energy system challenges of the 21st Century, like climate change, economic and social development, global security and etc. The GEA report looks at the major global challenges and their linkages to energy, investigates the plausible structure of future energy systems, and available resources needed in order to realize sustainable energy future (Johansson, et al., 2012).
Energy [R]evolution A Sustainable World Energy Outlook
The Global Energy [R]evolution series presents a vision of energy future for a sustainable world. It has a focus on renewable energy sources. It is conducted in cooperation with Greenpeace, Global Wind Energy Council and European Renewable Energy Council. The most recent edition of the Energy [R]evolution delivers that with only 1% of the global GDP invested in renewable energy by 2050, 12 million jobs would be created in the sector, and the fuel costs saving would cover the additional investments two times over. The Energy [R]evolution report was chosen by IPCC as one of the benchmark scenarios for the climate mitigation energy scenarios (Teske, et al., 2012).
2.4.2 European Context
Energy Roadmap 2050
One of the goals set by EU is to have a common energy policy for all the member states. EU seeks for a low-carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient energy future by 2050. The Communication Energy Roadmap 2050 invokes energy scenarios to present a set of initiatives to decarbonize European energy sector. It draws particular attention to three main EU energy policy objectives: sustainability, energy security and competitiveness (Decker & Vasakova, 2011).
2.4.3 The Baltic Region Context
Energy Policy Strategies for the Baltic Sea Region for the Post-Kyoto Protocol
The Baltic Sea region is endowed with vast amount of natural resources, and has a high potential in reaching a low- carbon energy future. The study presents a broad analysis of energy future scenarios for the Baltic Sea region Countries. The core intentions are to develop a secure and climate compatible energy system for the year 2020 and beyond. The study suggests Reference and two Low-carbon scenarios. However, scenarios were designed not to predict how the energy future is going to look like in the region, but to demonstrate how to reach a desirable low- carbon future with the lowest costs (Ea Energy Analysis, 2012).
Analysis of Energy Supply Options and Security of Energy Supply in the Baltic States
Energy security is an immense issue in the whole Europe, but the Baltic States suffer the consequences the most, particularly after regaining independence. In order to find a balance between energy security, economic efficiency and environmental protection, IAEA in cooperation with several national organizations conducted a study on Analysis of Energy Supply Options and Security of Energy Supply in the Baltic States. A comprehensive national analyses of energy and electricity demand and their projections; least-cost electricity system expansion; energy resources allocation to power and non-power sectors and environmental impacts has been done. The study quantified and compared the costs and benefits of an integrated regional versus national approach to energy supply in the Region under a range of probable future energy scenarios (IAEA, 2007).
2.4.4 Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development (EISD)
It is reasonable to conclude that sufficient energy is a key to economic development and human well-being.
However, neither fossil, neither renewable nor any other form of energy could be considered to be good or bad. Any energy production or conservation technology comes with risk and waste. In order to achieve sustainable future it is very important to be able to measure the current situation and progress done towards global sustainability.
Policy makers need methods for measuring and assessing the current and future effects of energy use on human health, human society, air, soil and water. They need to determine whether current energy use is sustainable and, if
not, how to change it so that it is (IAEA, 2005).
Therefore a set of sustainable energy development indicators has been presented in a report made by IAEA Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. These indicators cover three main dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. EISD give a clear picture of the whole energy system, shows progress or lack of progress towards sustainable energy future (IAEA, 2005).
The IAEA report suggests a total of 30 indicators in all three sustainable development dimensions. Nonetheless, it is important to consider all three dimensions together, and select a set of appropriate indicators for a given circumstances in a country, or region.
Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Country Studies on Brazil, Cuba, Lithuania, Mexico, Russian Federation, Slovakia and Thailand
The report Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Country Studies on Brazil, Cuba, Lithuania, Mexico, Russian Federation, Slovakia and Thailand is a good example of the use of EISD. It shows how EISD are developed at the national level, how they can be used to evaluate national energy systems and how they help in reviewing the effectiveness of planned energy policies. Each participating country had three years for a research, for selection of the indicators prior to their needs, statistical abilities and energy goals for the country. Thus, it was possible to expect a feasible evaluation of participating countries progress done towards sustainability (IAEA, 2005)
3. Method
In terms of energy, the main objective of Lithuania is to have secure energy supply, with the least cost and no harm to the environment. Considering a sustainable energy future as a desirable outcome for Lithuania, the study was conducted combining predicted future energy scenario analysis with the chosen EISD. The energy system modeling work was carried out using LEAP as a modeling tool.
3.1 Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development for Lithuania
The level of energy security depends on numerous factors, which have different impacts. In order to evaluate impacts of all conditions and circumstances a set of indicators have been chosen. However, since the report has a focus not only on security issues, but is aiming to indicate the progress of development towards sustainable energy, the indicators were chosen that would cover both topics. IAEA indicators for sustainable energy development cover three major dimensions: social, economic and environmental (IAEA, 2005). At least one indicator of each section has been chosen for the assessment. Selection of the indicators has been constrained with data and modelling availabilities. The chosen set of EISD is presented in the table below.
Table 1: Set of EISD (IAEA, 2005).
Social
Theme Sub – theme Energy Indicator Components Equity Affordability Share of household
income spent on fuel and electricity
– Household income spent on fuel and electricity – Household income (total and poorest 20% of population) Health Safety Accident fatalities per
energy produced by fuel chain
– Annual fatalities by fuel chain – Annual energy produced Economic
Theme Sub – theme Energy Indicator Components Diversification
(Fuel Mix)
Fuel shares in energy and electricity
– Primary energy supply and final consumption, electricity generation and generating capacity by fuel type
– Total primary energy supply, total final consumption, total electricity generation and total generating capacity Non-carbon energy
share in energy and electricity
– Primary supply, electricity generation and generating capacity by non-carbon energy
– Total primary energy supply, total electricity generation and total generating capacity
Renewable energy share in energy and electricity
– Primary energy supply, final consumption and electricity generation and generating capacity by renewable energy – Total primary energy supply, total final consumption, total electricity generation and total generating capacity Security Imports Net energy import
dependency
– Energy imports
– Total primary energy supply Environmental
Theme Sub – theme Energy Indicator Components Atmosphere Climate Change GHG emissions from
energy production and use per capita and per unit of GDP
– GHG emissions from energy production and use – Population and GDP
3.2 The Lithuanian LEAP Model
The modelling work was carried out using LEAP (the Long range Energy Alternatives Planning System). The software was developed at Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). It is mainly used for energy policy analysis and climate change mitigation. For this particular study LEAP was chosen for its flexibility, low initial data requirements, and ability to show how energy systems would evolve over time in different scenarios (Heaps, 2012).
3.2.1 Model Structure
The structure of the Lithuanian LEAP model is shown in Figure 1. The base year was set to 2007, first simulation year to 2011, and the end year to 2050.
Figure 1: Lithuanian LEAP Model Structure
3.2.2 Data Collection
Most of the input data required was retrieved from responsible institutions, such as Lithuanian Energy Institute, Lithuanian Department of Statistics, and Lithuanian Ministry of Energy. Additional information was gathered from international databases, namely International Energy Agency (IEA), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) library, World Bank databases.
Most of the data was entered as Key Assumptions, which are independent variables. The module categories then refer to the Key Assumptions input data for the entered shares and formulas.
3.2.3 Scenarios
With the aim to examine how Lithuanian energy system would react under different given circumstances, a variety of scenarios were selected for assessment. Scenarios of the highest interest were chosen based on the planned energy projects which are supposed to increase energy security level. These scenarios show what impact on Lithuanian energy security each of the projects would have separately, or combined together. Also, modelled scenarios show how disruption of gas imports, or not implementing planned projects would affect energy system.
The most essential projects and hazards are listed below:
• Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant (power of 1350MW, Lithuania will receive ~ 500MW);
• NordBalt electricity connection (700MW);
• LitPolLink electricity connection (500MW by 2015, 1000MW by 2020);
• Increase use of renewables (wind gross power of 500MW, hydro – 1031MW, biomass – 224, solar – 10MW by 2020);
• Cut off gas imports;
• Cut off electricity imports.
Even though, many different scenarios were run, only five of them were chosen for further analysis: Government Policies, No Nuclear, No Gas Imports, No Electricity Imports and Renewables. The input data for Government Policies scenario is listed below:
• Demography (populations, household);
• Economy (GDP, value added);
• Final Energy Demand (by sector).
Key Assumptions
• Household (4 categories);
• Industry (11 categories);
• Agriculture;
• Transport;
• Fishing;
• Services.
Demand
• Transmission and Distribution;
• Energy Generation.
Transformation
• Primary Resources;
• Secondary Resources.
Resources
• Hydro 1031MW by 2050;
• Wind 500MW by 2020;
• Solar 10MW by 2020;
• Natural gas and oil phased out by 2050;
• New transmission lines 700MW by 2015, 1200MW by 2016, 2200W by 2020;
• Nuclear power 500MW by 2020;
• Biomass 224MW by 2020 (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybe, 2010).
The input data for No Nuclear scenario is almost the same, it is assumed that only nuclear power is not installed.
Respectively, No Gas Imports has no incoming natural gas, and No Electricity Imports scenario has no electricity imports. All the other data is inherited from the Government Policies. Assumptions for Renewables scenario are presented below:
• Hydro increased by 100MW;
• 1000MW of onshore wind by 2050;
• Introduction of offshore wind to the system, 1200MW by 2050;
• 80MW of solar energy by 2050;
• Biomass increased to 224MW by 2020;
• Natural gas and oil phased out by 2040 (Lietuvos Respublikos Valstybes Kontrole, 2010);
• Projects of LitPolLink, NordBalt and Visaginas nuclear power plant are not implemented.
More detailed data on energy demand and installed capacities could be found in Appendix A and B.
Figure 3: Final Energy Demand by Sector to 2050
4. Results
This part of the report represents the most demonstrative results and analysis. A set of energy indicators for sustainable development were chosen to help make constructive evaluation of the outcomes in each situation. This part consists of few sections. Firstly, the energy demand is discussed, which is assumed to not change in any of the scenarios. Also, with assistance of results extracted from Lithuania’s LEAP model, the issue of energy security is stressed out. Finally, the analysis of results using energy indicators for sustainable development is presented.
4.1 Energy Demand
The final energy demand is assumed to not change within different scenarios. The Household activity level is connected to population, and other sectors correspond to GDP growth. The total final energy demand for the base year 2007 was over 5 million Tonnes of Oil Equivalents (TOE). Figure 2 shows the final energy demand by sector and fuel. As it is shown Transport sector consumes the most energy compared to other sectors.
Fishing is the least consuming sector of all, followed by Agriculture and Services.
Figure 3 shows the changes in energy demand by sectors to 2050. As it can be seen, there was a big
drop in energy consumption in 2009 due to financial crisis. This slowed down Lithuanians economic development. However, as the Figure 3 shows, in around 20 years industry will recover from the recession and become the most energy consuming sector.
Since Lithuanian population has been decreasing past 20 years, it is assumed this process will keep on going.
Using Eurostat database, the assumption of population growth rate being -0.5% a year, has been made
(European Commission, 2012). Therefore, domestic energy use will decrease over the years.
4.2 Addressing the Energy Insecurity in Lithuania
Before trying to find appropriate solutions, it is important to understand the concern of energy security in Lithuania.
In order to illustrate this issue, the results from Baseline and No Imports Scenarios are discussed below.
Figure 2: Final Energy Demand by Sector and Fuel in 2007
Figure 5: Outputs – No Imports and No Nuclear Scenario Figure 4: Outputs - Baseline Scenario
The Baseline scenario mostly reflects present situation of Lithuanian energy system, and how it would react in the future. Lithuania’s energy infrastructure was designed for much bigger capacities than it is used currently (Energy Security Research Center, 2013). Hence, most of the electricity demand would be satisfied. By 2050 only around 4% of demand would be unmet.
There can be seen a big drop in electricity production in 2010.
This is due to decommissioning of the second block of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, which obviously reduced the level of Lithuanian energy security to a high extent.
In the Baseline scenario the total transformation capacity by 2050 would reach 4029 MW. As it is shown in Figure 4 the main part of the energy mix is produced by Steam Turbines, which uses 64% natural gas, and the rest oil as a fuel. Also natural gas is used by Gas Turbines and Gas CCSS. Consequently, only 12% of energy mix would come from renewable energy sources, like wind and hydro.
Hence, the state of the energy system could change to a large extent (Figure 5). The Lithuanian situation would be much worse if none of the existing energy projects would be developed, and the country would face cut off of natural gas. To start with, at the beginning of the simulation period around 3% of the demand would be unsatisfied, and this share would grow up to 36% by 2050. Steam turbines using oil would generate the biggest amount of electricity, which would be around 54%. Followed by hydro, wind and biomass, which would contribute by 46% of the total electricity generation.
These results proves that Lithuanian energy system is very sensitive to any kind of disruptions. Especially, since the country is so called an energy island, and has no connections with Europe. In order to ensure sufficient energy supply, certain actions must be taken.
Withdrawn results of other discussed scenarios from the Lithuanian LEAP model are analyzed in terms of unmet domestic requirements and EISD. The conducted analysis of each indicator and scenarios is presented below.
Detailed results for each indicator and scenarios are presented in Appendix C.
4.4 Unmet Domestic Requirements
The analyzed scenarios were modelled to help to see how Lithuanian energy system would act in different situation, and how each of the foreseen energy projects would affect the system. Therefore, few out of five considered scenarios have some unmet domestic requirements throughout the simulation period. In order to have better and more valuable conclusions, unmet domestic requirements were also taken into account as an indicator, which supposed to improve the evaluation of scenarios. The results can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Percentage of Unmet Requirements in Each Scenario
The Renewables scenario would have the highest share of unmet requirements. As it can be seen in the figure above, in this case energy generated would start failing to satisfy the demand already in 2030. By the end of the simulation period over 23% of domestic demand would be unmet. Similar results can be noted in No Nuclear and Government Policies scenarios, although the share is much lower than Renewables. This is a result of plans to phase out fossil fuels by 2050 in all three scenarios. Accordingly, if natural gas would still stay in the fuel mix, the demand would be satisfied, even without extra electricity import capacities (No Electricity Imports scenario). If natural gas would be cut off, but all the foreseen energy projects would be implemented, the domestic requirements would be unmet to a very low extent. It would amount to 0.34% of total domestic requirements.
4.5 Social Sustainability
One of the goals of energy is to improve quality of life. In order to do so, it should be accessible and affordable to all. Additionally, to have sustainable energy system the negative health impacts of energy supply should be reduced to a minimum. Therefore, below the most important results are evaluated in terms of affordability and safety.
4.5.1 Share of Household Income Spent on Electricity
To evaluate the affordability it was assumed that the share of household income spent on electricity would grow in relation with the annual growth of costs of each scenario. Using data from the report “Energy Consumption in Households” and Lithuanian Department of Statistics database on average monthly wages it was counted that 17%
of household income was spent on electricity in 2009 (Statistics Lithuania, 2011) (Statistics Lithuania, 2013). The equation of total costs of scenarios is presented below:
Total Costs = Capital Costs + Fixed O&M Costs + Variable O&M Costs + Fuel Costs + Unmet Demand Costs For each technology capital, variable and fixed technology operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were taken from Technology Briefs prepared by Energy Technology System Analysis Program (ETSAP) (ETSAP, 2010 - 2013). The fuel costs were pulled out from Eurostat database, where electricity price is 0.143 US dollars per
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percentage %
Government Policies NoElectricityImports NoGasImports
NoNuclear Renewables
produced kWh, natural gas 0.065 US dollars/kWh and oil 0.169 US dollars/kWh (European Commission, 2013), (Eurostat, 2013). In order to count the price for unmet demand, it was assumed that unmet requirements would be produced by oil consuming power plants.
Assuming the share of household income spent on electricity grows in the same rate as total costs, then:
Share of Household Income Spent on Electricity = 2009 Value (17%) + Percentage of Yearly Growth of Total Costs Figure 7 illustrates the variations of the results in each scenario.
Figure 7: The Share of Income Spent On Electricity by Scenarios
The common trend in every scenario can be recognized. Up to 2015 the share of household income spent on electricity would grow. It would be caused by implementation of foreseen energy projects at that time. Most of the scenarios reaches the lowest point around 2040, due to phasing out of fossil fuels which have rather high costs. The share of income spent on electricity by the end of simulation period would be the highest in the case of no gas imports, because natural gas would have to be replaced with oil consuming power plants and electricity imports. The opposite results were shown by Renewable scenario. Since it was assumed that the price of renewable energy sources equals to 0, by 2050 the share of household income spent on electricity would be reduced by 0.1%
comparing to 2009 value. Yet, it is important to stress out that it is not recommended to rely only on renewable electricity generation, due to low availability of the technologies (ETSAP, 2010 - 2013).
By comparing No Nuclear and Government Policies scenarios, it can be seen that implementation of Visaginas NPP project would reduce electricity price to a consumer. However, the difference of the share of income spent on electricity between both scenarios is lower than 0.1%. Whereby, in respect of discussed indicator the necessity of building new nuclear power could be questioned.
Anyhow, the dissimilarities between all five scenarios are so low that it is hard to distinguish which alternative would be the best in terms of affordability.
4.5.2 Accident Fatalities per energy produced by fuel chain
Any kind of energy has its environmental and public health risks. In order to determine safety of each scenario and compare the results, accident fatalities per energy generated were calculated using the number of deaths caused by type of energy per 1 TWh. The death rates by type of energy source are as follows:
• Oil – 36 deaths per TWh;
• Natural gas – 4 deaths per TWh;
• Biomass – 12 deaths per TWh;
• Solar – 0.44 deaths per TWh;
14 14,5 15 15,5 16 16,5 17 17,5 18 18,5
2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Percentage %
Government Policies NoElectricityImports NoGasImports
NoNuclear Renewables
• Wind – 0.15 deaths per TWh;
• Hydro – 0.10 deaths per TWh;
• Nuclear – 0.04 deaths per TWh (Wang, 2011).
Oil, natural gas and biomass have the highest numbers because of high risks in processing, transport, fire accidents.
Also these sources are the major emitters of greenhouse gases. Biomass used in households has more significant deathprint than natural gas due to continuous exposure to smokes. Renewable sources, like solar, wind and hydro, have rather low deaths rates, which are mostly caused by construction of the facilities, or equipment failures.
Generation of one TWh of electricity by nuclear has the lowest impact on human health. The health issues mostly might appear due to exposure to radiation, or transport accidents (Hamilton, 2011) (David Pimentel, 2002).
The figure below presents change in accident fatalities in each scenario during the simulation period, which is the sum of deaths and energy produced by each fuel chain. As it can be seen the Government Policies scenario has the lowest impact on human health and safety. By the end of the simulation period the number of fatalities would be minimized to 18. The reason behind this could be phase out of fossil fuels, increase use of renewables, electricity imports and nuclear, which have much lower deathprint. Renewable scenario stays in the middle, this could be explained by high use of biomass. Whereas, biomass is renewable source, but has great number of deaths per produced TWh of energy.
Figure 8: Accident Fatalities per Total Electricity Produced (TWh) by Scenarios
No Gas Imports and No Electricity Imports would cause high health risks as it can be seen in the Figure 8. If natural gas imports would be cut off, there would be drastic rise in energy produced from oil. Accordingly, if there would be no connection grid lines with Europe, use of natural gas and oil would have to be increased. Consequently, in both cases the number of accident fatalities would keep on growing over the years.
4.6 Economic Sustainability
Development of any economy depends on energy supply. In this section results in terms of economic indicators are presented. To examine the diversification of probable fuel mixes in Lithuania, fuel share, non-carbon energy share and renewable energy share are analysed. Also, in order to evaluate level of security, import dependency is reviewed below.
4.6.1 Fuel Shares in Electricity
So as to get the better understanding of electricity fuel shares in Lithuanian energy system, the results were presented and assessed separately for each scenario.
Government Policies Scenario
In the Figure 9 fuel shares in Government Policies scenario are presented. The energy mix would change fairly radically over the simulation period. At the beginning most of electricity would be generated from oil (30%) and
0 50 100 150 200
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Nuber of fatalities
Government Policies No Gas Imports No Electricity Imports
No Nuclear Renewables
natural gas (55%), which amounts to 85% of total electricity generation. Whereas, by the end of 2050 most of the electricity would be imported through NordBalt and LitPolLink (46%) and nuclear (23%). The change in the share of hydro, wind or biomass over the period would be not so notable. The increase by 2050 comparing to 2011 would be 1%, 5% and 7% respectively.
Figure 9: Fuel Shares in Government Policies Scenario No Nuclear Scenario
In the case where project of Visaginas NPP is not implemented, fuel mix would look rather the same as Government Policies scenario (Figure 10). The difference is that the share of nuclear energy would be fulfilled with imports and natural gas. In the beginning of projected period hydro energy would amount to 9%, wind to 3%, natural gas to 56%, oil to 29.5%, and biomass to 2.5% of total electricity generated. It can be seen in the figure below, that starting 2015, when connection links projects would get implemented, the share of oil and natural gas would start slowly decreasing and by 2050 it would be phased out. By the end of the simulation period imports through LitPolLink and NordBalt links (61%) would contribute the most to the final energy mix of Lithuania. The rest 39% of electricity would come from biomass (13%), hydro (14%), and wind (11%).
Figure 10: Fuel Shares in No Nuclear Scenario 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solar Hydro Wind Oil Natural Gas Electricity Imports Nuclear Biomass
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solar Hydro Wind Natural Gas Oil Electricity Imports Biomass
No Gas Imports Scenario
Assuming Lithuania would not import natural gas from Russia, the final electricity mix would look as it is illustrated in Figure 11. The fuel shares would not change as significantly as in other scenarios throughout the period. For the first 5 years of the period the biggest contributor would be oil, which would amount up to 69% of total electricity generation. Second largest would be hydro energy (20%), wind and biomass would amount to 6% and 5%
respectively. The changes in fuel mix can be seen in 2015, when NordBalt link connecting Lithuania to Sweden is estimated to be implemented. Then the share of imports would quantity to 25% and would increase up to 34%
throughout the projected period. After introduction of nuclear power in 2020 the fuel mix would stay steady up to 2050. In the period of 2020 to 2050 the fuel mix would consist of 35% electricity imports, 26% oil, 17% nuclear, 8%
hydro and 8% biomass, and 6% of wind.
Figure 11: Fuel Shares in No Gas Imports Scenario No Electricity Imports Scenario
In the scenario, where assuming Lithuania would stay an energy island, and would keep on producing most of the electricity from natural gas imported from Russia, the fuel mix would have almost the same shares over the simulation period (Figure 12). Hydro would amount to 9-7%, wind to 3-5%, and biomass from 2.5% to 6.5%
starting 2011 and up to 2050. The only notable change can be seen after projected introduction of nuclear power into the system in 2020. Then oil share would be reduced by 8%, from 30% of total electricity generation in 2011 to 22%
in 2050. Respectively, natural gas would decrease from 57% to 44%. Starting 2020 nuclear would contribute by 15% to the final fuel mix.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solar Hydro Wind Oil Electricity Imports Nuclear Biomass
Figure 12: Fuel Shares in No Electricity Imports Scenario
Renewables Scenario
The fuel mix of electricity generation of Renewables scenario would look rather differently than others, even though the shares at the beginning of the simulation period would be the same (Figure 13). At the starting point most of the electricity would be produced from oil and natural gas, 29.5% and 56% respectively. The share of biomass would slowly increase from 2.5% to 13% of total electricity generated. Energy produced from onshore wind would also increase quite significantly, from 3% up to 21%. However, because of hydro resource constraints, the share of hydro power in the fuel mix would not change that notably. It would increase by 5% throughout the period. The biggest change in the fuel mix would be caused by introduction of offshore wind energy, which was assumed to be introduced in 2014, and the share of it would grow up to 50% in 2050. Furthermore, in this scenario solar energy would be used in an apparent extent. The share of it would amount to almost 2% by the end of the projected period.
Figure 13: Fuel Shares in Renewables Scenario
To sum up, in terms of fuel shares, by the end of the simulation period the results from No Gas Imports and No Electricity Imports look the best. In both cases there would be more energy sources, and none of which would take more than 50% of the total electricity generation. Since diversification of the fuel mix is one of the solutions to energy insecurity, it means in the case of Lithuania, taking into account only indicator of fuel shares, it would worthwhile to keep natural gas and oil in the final energy mix.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Solar Hydro Wind Natural Gas Oil Nuclear Biomass
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Hydro Wind Onshore Solar Natural Gas Oil Biomass Wind Offshore
4.6.2 Non-carbon Energy Share in Electricity
Figure below represents total non-carbon energy shares in each analyzed scenario. As it could have been expected, No Electricity Imports scenario would have the lowest share of non-carbon energy. If transmission gridlines would not be completed, Lithuanian government would be forced to increase the share of oil and natural gas. Whereas, Renewables and Government Policies scenarios seems to be on the top in terms of non-carbon energy shares. In the case of increasing use of renewable sources, the share of non-carbon energy would start grow exponentially, until in 2040 it would reach 87% and stay steady up to the end of the period. However, if all of the government’s energy projects would be implemented, by 2050 the share of non-carbon energy (89%) would be even higher than in Renewables scenario. This is due to the rise in use of biomass in the latter scenario. It is interesting to note, that nuclear power would not make that big of a change to the final share of non-carbon energy. In No Nuclear scenario in 2050 the share of electricity produced from non-carbon sources would reach 86%, which is only 3% lower than Government Policies scenario, where new nuclear power plant is assumed to be built.
Figure 14: Total Non-carbon Energy in Share in Electricity by Scenarios
4.6.3 Renewable Energy Share in Electricity
One of the goals set in Lithuanian Energy Strategy is to have 20% share of renewable energy sources, of which at least 23% must come from electricity production, by 2020 (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybe, 2010). However, if the government would implement all the energy projects that are planned, by that time only 16% of electricity would be produced from renewables (Figure 15). Even if the new nuclear power plant project would be not developed, the share of renewable sources would be 1% higher. Obviously, in the Renewables scenario the share would be uppermost. In 2040, when assuming natural gas and oil would be phased out from electricity production, the share of renewables in this case would reach 100%. As it is shown in the figure below, in scenarios of No Gas Imports and No Electricity Imports, electricity generated from renewables would grow in the same pace as total generation, therefore the share would stay the same throughout the simulation period.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Percentage %
Government Policies No Nuclear No Gas Imports No Electricity Imports Renewables
Figure 15: Total Renewable Energy Share in Electricity by Scenarios
4.6.4 Net Energy Import Dependency
Net energy import dependency indicator is the most valuable to assess the level of countries energy security.
Comparing Figures 14 and 15, there can be seen relations between the share of renewable sources and imports. The more energy is generated from renewables, the less imports there will be in the system, and opposite. Therefore, last 10 years of the simulation period the net imports is equal to 0% in Renewables scenario, due to 100% energy generated from renewable sources. In Government Policies scenario net energy imports would reduce from 86% to 46% by 2050, and since natural gas and oil would be phased out by that time, all of the imports would come as electricity through links to Sweden and Poland. If nuclear power plant would not be built, net imports would amount to 60% of total electricity generation.
Figure 16: Net Energy Import Dependency by Scenarios
Figure 17 illustrates how the shares of imports of different fuels changed in each scenario during the period of simulation. As it was already mentioned above, in Government Policies and No Nuclear scenarios, the imports of natural gas and oil would be reduced to the minimum, and only electricity would be still imported. However, in other scenarios imports of fossil fuels would be decreasing, but not in the same pace. Natural gas and oil would still take rather high share of net imports.
0 20 40 60 80 100
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Percentage %
Government Policies No Nuclear No Gas Imports No Electricity Imports Renewables
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049
Percentage %
Government Policies No Nuclear
No Gas Imports No Electricity Imports Renewables
Figure 17: Net Imports by Fuels and Years
4.7 Environmental Sustainability
The production of energy has immense impact on environment. Going towords sustainable energy future it is very vital to measure those impacts of each scenario. For that reason, an indicator of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was taken into account. It is a dominant indicator on whether energy system is changing climate for the better or the worse.
4.7.1 GHG Emissions from Energy Produced per Capita and per Unit of GDP
For this indicator annual GHG emissions metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent were counted per capita and unit of GDP (million EUR). The results are presented in Figure 18.
Figure 18: GHG Emission of Each Scenario per a) Capita; b) GDP
It is assumed that population of Lithuania would be decreasing over the simulation period. However, GHG emission per capita in the case of No Electricity Imports and No Gas Imports would keep on increasing. This is due to a growing use of fossil fuels in order to be able to satisfy electricity demand. Without transmission gridlines the effect of global warming would be at the highest point, it would reach 2.4 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita. On the other hand, in the other scenarios, results look much better. In the case of renewable use, by 2040 GHG would amount to 0 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita. Implemented government policies, with or without nuclear would also reach 0 point by 2050.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Natural Gas Oil Electricity Natural Gas Oil Electricity Oil Electricity Natural Gas Oil Natural Gas Oil
Government Policies No Nuclear No Gas Imports No Electricity
Imports Renewables
Percentage %
2011 2020 2050
GHG emissions per unit of GDP look rather similar. Except in No Electricity and No Gas Imports scenarios the emissions per GDP would also decrease due to the growth of GDP. Respectively, in the other scenarios GHG per GDP would decrease throughout the simulation period, and would reach 0 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per million EUR by 2050.
