Skip to main content

100% renewables in the EU

 In a Paris Agreement Compatible (PAC) scenario for Europe, initially developed in 2020 and now being upgraded, the Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe and the European Environmental Bureau outline a pathway to 100% renewables in all sectors, which results in the phase-out of coal by 2030, fossil gas by 2035 and oil products by 2040. And the PAC scenario also has no remaining nuclear output in any EU country by 2040, except France, the worst case although, even there, its role ends soon after 2040.            

As EEB’s new updated report on the nuclear phase out notes, in the PAC scenario, ‘105 GW of renewable electricity generation are added in the EU on an annual basis from 2023 onwards, assuming constant deployment rates. The additions come mainly from new and re-powered wind and solar PV capacity, with a supporting role for hydro, solar thermal, geothermal and bioenergy. Flexibility options, such as demand side response, storage technologies, optimised operation, extension of grids and cross-border electricity interconnection are also harnessed and actively developed to integrate renewable generation effectively’.  

It says that between 2020 and 2040, the PAC scenario leads to an EU-wide increase in renewable generation of 1099 TWh of onshore wind, accounting for 29% of the net increase in renewable electricity generation, and 917 TWh of offshore wind power, 24% of the net increase in renewable electricity production in the EU. There is also 1380 TWh of solar photovoltaic (PV) production, representing 36% of the net increase in EU renewable electricity generation. Solar PV & wind technologies together account for more than 90% of the growth in renewable electricity generation in the PAC scenario between 2020 and 2040. The remaining 5% is provided by limited and geographically-specific additions of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and geothermal capacity, as well as re-powering and modernisation of the existing hydro fleet.  

To help make all this happen it looks to planning system improvements. For example it says that ‘the new EU rules on mapping and spatial planning, if combined with participatory permitting and incentives for community projects, could facilitate the deployment of new onshore wind farms and the repowering of those nearing the end of their life’. And it claims that ‘improved regional coordination, better auction design to encourage multiple uses of sea areas and rapid development of the necessary high voltage grid infrastructure will allow growing shares of offshore wind to penetrate large segments of the EU electricity market’. And it says ‘streamlined permitting rules for small-scale installations, a mandate for PV on commercial buildings, strategic spatial planning to concentrate solar development on degraded land are among current legislative changes that make the PAC figures on solar capacity deployment credible’.

Renewables clearly dominate its approach, but, alongside ‘electrification combined with zero-carbon power generation, and decarbonising the remaining sectors’, it also looks to enabling sustainable lifestyles, and improving energy use and processes, via efficiency upgrades, with ‘robust energy savings’. Although it notes that ‘direct electrification based on renewable generation is in itself a factor that greatly improves the efficiency of most energy systems’. 

On system reliability, given the local and temporal variability of some renewable inputs, it claims that ‘greater interconnection between and within countries' transmission systems and appropriate distribution upgrades can optimise the dispatch of renewable electricity to provide the load shifts needed to rely solely on renewable generation. Distributed and utility-scale energy storage solutions and demand-side flexibility tools also have the potential to contribute massively to grid balancing. This combination can efficiently provide the load shifts needed for renewable generation assets to meet 100% of our future electricity needs in a stable manner, both intraday and in the long term’. 

It’s certainly a brave effort. It claims that Europe can reach climate neutrality by 2040 - 10 years earlier than currently agreed by EU governments.  And in the interim, it looks to a 65% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.  To achieve that it says strong increase in renewable energy use and decrease in energy consumption is imperative now: ‘across all EU countries, regardless of the evolution of nuclear capacity. Even if current nuclear capacities are extended in the short to medium term, the role of nuclear energy in the EU energy mix, including countries with nuclear reactors, will remain small and declining. Investments in nuclear extensions may contribute too little and too late to the EU’s transition away from fossil fuels’. And it says competition with the wider energy transition must be avoided: ‘Prioritising nuclear power risks diverting crucial resources and political attention away from more cost-effective and timely solutions’. 

However, it says phasing out nuclear is not only feasible, but is actually seen as ‘a relatively small challenge in the overall decarbonisation process’, given the limited contribution of nuclear to the bloc’s energy needs-  4.7% of the final energy consumption in 2022 in the EU-27. Even so, getting to 100% renewable in all sectors by 2040 will still be a challenge, requiring not just much more funding for new green energy supply and storage technology, but also a major effort to reduce energy demand in key sectors, including buildings and transport. In its developmental update PAC talks of adopting an ‘energy sufficiency’ approach and for some that could mean lifestyle changes- e.g. less flying, less meat eating. 

Some see that sort of approach as being more effective than technical fixes, at least in  some cases. But one of the main energy saving gains that PAC envisages is due to better building design, with over a two thirds reduction in residential energy use by 2050 expected. Transport does less well, at under a 50% cut, and Industry only manages a one third cut, but agriculture sees a two thirds reduction in energy use, while in the tertiary (service) sector it falls by 54%. Taken together, while renewable electricity use increases significantly in most sectors, overall total primary energy demand falls by around 50% by 2050, with most of the fall being by 2040. Let’s hope they are right about that, with behavioral change able to also play a part in moving us to a sustainable social, environmental and economic future. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 bil...