Energy Transition in Belgium – Choices and Costs

1. Energy Transition in Belgium –
Choices and Costs
Larissa P. N. de Oliveira, Frank Meinke-Hubeny,
Pieter Lodewijks, Jan Duerinck
ETSAP Workshop – 17/06/2018
Gothenburg, Sweden

2. 2
Agenda
Introduction
Times Belgium Exercises
Results
Power capacity & generation
Power system costs
Conclusions
Energy Transition
Modeling

3. 3
Introduction - Current Context in Belgium
Nuclear Phase-out:
6 GW planned to be phased-out by 2025
‘Energy Union’ – EU GHG and RES targets
for 2020 & 2030
Belgium ‘Energie Pact’:
Clear long-term integrated vision
Energy Dependency:
Strategical position of Belgium as a hub for
transmission in EU;
Reliance on electricity and natural gas.
Electrification of Belgium’s Energy System:
Source:
www.modernpowersystems.com

4. 4
Introduction - Timeline
2017 2018
“Experts’ views on possible
energy scenarios for Belgium
till 2030 including their
implications on energy
security and energy system
costs.”
“Assessing the impact of
different levels of natural gas
capacity in for electricity
generation. Showing the
relevance of natural gas to
keep the electric system safe
and affordable.”
“Assessing impacts on costs,
power capacity and
generation towards new
scenarios for the power
sector. Better depiction of
the role of nuclear, offshore
wind and natural gas power
technologies.”

5. 5
Impact

6. 6
Energy system model – TIMES
Building and using a TIMES model
The EnergyVille TIMES model for Belgium
Belgium as geographic region with interconnections to neighbouring countries
Energy Statistics from 2014 (corrected for 2016 data where available) as the
base for the model
Reporting years from 2016 to 2040 (varied among studies)
Key sectors:
Power + Heat
Industry
Commercial
Residential
Agriculture
Transport
To capture variations in balancing demand and supply a 2-hourly time
resolution is used for 10 representative days (‘timeslice tool’).
Technology assumptions aligned with EU and BE literature (JRC, 2013; Meuris
et al, 2017, …)

7. 7
Times Belgium Scenarios & Updates
2016, 2020, 2030
o Step-wise approach for
EE import price.
2016, 2020, 2026, 2030
o + EE import price with
annual volatility;
o Detailing NG power
plants (stock + life);
o NG CHP constraint;
2016, 2020, 2030, 2040
o Updated NG prices;
o Improved nuclear AF;
o 2.2 GW offshore in
2020.
Base + 4 scenarios:
 Central/Base
 10% Import Restriction
 Nuclear Extension 2GW
 Low Fossil Fuel Price
 High Fossil Fuel Price
EnergyVille (2017a) EnergyVille (2017b) EnergyVille (2018)
Base + 2 scenarios:
 Central/Base
 High NG Power Cap.
 Low NG Power Cap.
Base + 1 scenarios:
 Central/Base
 Nuclear Extension 2GW

8. 8
Electricity Trade
Import Price Approach
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
S01Q01
S01Q08
S02Q03
S02Q10
S03Q05
S03Q12
S04Q07
S05Q02
S05Q09
S06Q04
S06Q11
S07Q06
S08Q01
S08Q08
S09Q03
S09Q10
S10Q05
S10Q12
S01Q07
S02Q02
S02Q09
S03Q04
S03Q11
S04Q06
S05Q01
S05Q08
S06Q03
S06Q10
S07Q05
S07Q12
S08Q07
S09Q02
S09Q09
S10Q04
S10Q11
S01Q06
S02Q01
S02Q08
S03Q03
S03Q10
S04Q05
S04Q12
S05Q07
S06Q02
S06Q09
S07Q04
S07Q11
S08Q06
S09Q01
S09Q08
S10Q03
S10Q10
2016 2020 2030
Euro/MWh
1st GW Utilized 2nd GW Utilized 3rd GW Utilized 4th GW Utilized 5th GW Utilized 6th GW Utilized
Import price increases the more capacity is utilized for import flows within Belgium;
Price variation within one period is based on the base year (for calibration) profile
(2014);
Price increase in the long term follows fossil fuel prices trend.

9. 9
Nuclear generation with 2 reactors
EnergyVille (2018)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nuclear Annual Availability in 2030
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nuclear Annual Availability in 2020
EnergyVille (2017a) – 80% average:
EnergyVille (2018) – 80% average:

10. Results
From EnergyVille (2017a)
& EnergyVille (2018)

11. 11
Results Central scenario – EV (2017a)
Power Sector - 2016 to 2030:
Fossil-fuel generation growth by 2030
50% of Belgian generation originates
from renewable sources in 2030
Fossil-fuel generation capacity close to
stable (mostly natural gas)
Nuclear phases out
Renewable capacity grows triples (x3)

12. 12
Results, Scenario Comparison – EV (2017a)
Power Generation, 2020 & 2030
Nuclear extension
reduces NG generation
and imports;
NG generation covers
import restrictions;
Fossil fuel prices
impact import levels;
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Base NuEX Tr10% HighP LowP Base NuEX Tr10% HighP LowP
2020 2030
TWh
Total Generation - TWh
Nuclear Natural Gas Other Fossil
Biomass & Other Ren. Hydro Solar PV
Wind Onshore Wind Offshore Net Imports

13. 13
High and low fuel price scenarios result in the lowest and highest
total energy generation systems costs
Nuclear extension scenario (= partial delay in system transition) results in 11-12%
lower system cost compared to central scenario in 2030
Annual electricity supply costs (2030)
High Fuel
Costs
€6,430 Mi
Low Fuel
Costs
€4,818 Mi
Central
Scenario
€6,179 Mi
10% Import
Restriction
€6,190 Mi
Nuclear
Extension
€5,571 Mi

14. 14
Results, Scenario Comparison – EV (2018)
Power System Costs
Lower gas prices:
lead to cost
reductions;
Nuclear extension lead
to a 4% cost reduction
in 2030:
Main driver of
costs is fuel price
Same cost level in
2040;
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
EV2017
UP18
UP18-Nuc
EV2017
UP18
UP18-Nuc
EV2017
UP18
UP18-Nuc
EV2017
UP18
UP18-Nuc
2016 2020 2030 2040
MillionEuro
Annual Power System Cost Evolution
(only CAPEXfor new investments are shown)
Inv. O&M Fuel Trade Total

15. 15
Conclusions
For the energy transition in Belgium:
RES expansion is key to the energy transition and must happen due to
increased electricity demand;
Natural gas PPs have an important role on flexibility and energy
dependency:
Annual power system costs are more sensitive to fuel prices than
import prices and investment cots;
Extension of 2 GW of nuclear capacity does not provide a long-term
cost advantage to the power system;
Nuclear extension would delay investments in natural gas power
plants;

16. 16
Conclusions
For modeling exercise:
National energy systems models are a good basis to provide facts and
figures regarding technology options and associated costs for the
energy transition;
Stakeholder engagement lead to legitimacy of the work;
Transparency on assumptions and limitations of the exercise to
stakeholders and broader audience;
Further work:
Better depiction of interconnections and electricity import availability;
Enhance grid requirements detailing for large amounts of RES in the
system;
Improve of representation of power costs and total costs;

17. 17
Thank you!
Larissa P. N. de Oliveira
larissa.oliveira@energyville.be

18. CONNECTING TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION TO DECISION
MAKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY
SEE YOU IN BRUSSELS!!
November 28-30