energy efficiency in lithuania and some other cee countries in lithuania.pdf · and some other cee...
TRANSCRIPT
INOGATE New ITS Project
Energy efficiency in Lithuania and some other CEE countries
by prof. Vidmantas JankauskasEnergy Regulatory Expert
Tbilisi28 February 2013
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Moldova
Georgia
Armenia
Ukraine
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Belarus
Turkey
Russia
Poland
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Estonia
Italy
Germany
Finland
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
GDP (PPP)/cap
TP
ES
/cap
Relation between energy consumption and GDP
2
Energy intensity of economy (PPP)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Moldova
GeorgiaArmenia
Ukraine
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Belarus
Turkey
Russia
Poland
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Estonia
ItalyGermany
Finland
Denmark Netherlands
Sweden
GDP (PPP)/cap
TP
ES
/GD
P (
PP
P)
3
Electricity consumption and GDP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
TajikistanUzbekistan
MoldovaGeorgia
Armenia
Ukraine
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Belarus
Turkey
Russia
Poland
Latvia
LithuaniaHungary
Estonia
Italy
Germany
Finland
DenmarkNetherlands
Sweden
GDP (PPP)/cap
El/cap
4
Energy intensity in EU Member States in 2007
Eurostat, 2011
Lithuania
Latvia
5
Primary energy intensity in 2010
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Germany
France
EU-27
Portugal
Finland
Slovenia
Lithuania
Latvia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Romania
Bulgaria
kgoe/€
6
Fuel poverty
7
8
Annual progress in energy efficiency in industry
Source: Lapillone and Pollier 2007
Fuel poverty is caused by a convergence of four factors
• Low income, which is often linked to absolute poverty
• High fuel prices, including the use of relatively expensive fuel sources
• Poor energy efficiency of a home, e.g. through low levels of insulation and old or inefficient heating systems
• Under-occupancy: some old people in fuel poverty live in larger than average homes or flats
9
Estimated potential for GHG mitigation in 2030 in different cost categories , transition economies
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Buidlings Industry Agriculture Energy supply Forestry Waste Transport
Gton CO2eq.
<20 <0 0-20 20-100
Cost categories* (US$/tCO2eq)
* For the buildings, forestry, waste and transport sectors, the potential is split into three cost categories: at net negative costs, at 0-20
US$/tCO2, and 20-100 US$/tCO2. For the industrial, forestry, and energy suppy sectors, the potential is split into two categories: at costs
below 20 US$/tCO2 and at 20-100 US$/tCO2.
Source: CEU research for IPCC
10
Why it is difficult to harvest the potentials
• While cost-effective, long payback times
• Substantial capital investment needs
– But very limited liquidity of population and institutions
• Perverse governmrnt’s incentives (e.g. procurement, support schemes)
• Millions of stakeholders to be mobilised
• Huge transaction costs
• Markets, businesses, experts and public awareness not ready
• others11
Co-benefits of improved energy efficiency in CEE buildings
• Employment creation– “producing” energy through energy efficiency or renewables is
more employment intensive than through traditional ways
– a 20% reduction in EU energy consumption by 2020 can potentially create 1 mln new jobs in Europe
• new business opportunities– for developed countries a market opportunity of € 5–10 billion
in energy service markets in Europe
• Increased comfort– noise reduction, reduction in indoor pollution –> reduced need
for cleaning and improved health; property values increased
• Reduced energy costs will make businesses more competitive
12
Poland: development of energy intensity
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
kg
oe
/eu
ro0
0
Intensity of primary energy Climate corrected Intensity of final energy Climate corrected
13
Poland: legislation in energy efficiency
• Law on energy (1997)
• Law on thermal modernisation (1998)
• Law on thermal modernisation and maintenance (2008)
• Law on energy efficiency (2011)
14
Poland: National energy efficiency action plans (NEEAP)
• NEEAP1 (2007)
– National energy efficiency targets
– Exemplary role of the public sector
• NEEAP2 (2011)
– System of white certificates
– System of monitoring of the efficiency results
– Energy Efficiency Fund
– Training auditors for industry
15
Poland: white certificates system
• white certificates are tradable and combined with an obligation to achieve a certain target of energy savings
• covers large scale interventions in EE by energy producers greater than 5 MW and final energy consumers who use more than 400 GWh/year
• projects can include industry installations, the modernisation of buildings, the modernisation of industrial installations, heat grids and plants and other
• for the period 2010-2016, the saving of 1.84 Mtoe of energy would cost EUR 9.05 billion
16
Poland: Thermal & Refurbishment Fund
• The Law on supporting thermal performance improvement projects – 1998• The Law on supporting thermal performance improvement projects and refurbishment –2008/2010.• Ministry’s of Infrastructure Ordinance on the scope and form of the energy effectiveness audit, thermal and refurbishment subsidies, and thermal undertakings effectiveness calculation -2009• Ministry’s of Infrastructure Ordinance on verification of the energy efficiency audit, verification entity requirements - 2009
17
Poland: thermal modernisation process
18
Poland: results for thermal modernisation of buildings until 2010
• Number of applications:• 16 977
• 15753 successfully approved
• On average:• energy savings: 45%
• cost of modernisation: 22 Euro/m2
• cost of reduction of 1GJ: 50 Euro/GJ
Source: KAPE (National Energy Conservation Agency)19
Lithuania: growth rates in 2000-2009
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
GDP Electricity Energy Heat(district)
Heat losses
%
20
Lithuania: energy consumption and saving potential
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Total Residentialbuildings
Publicbuildings
Industry Transport
use savings
TWh
Source: Energy Agency21
Lithuania: energy saving potential
Multifamily houses
24%
Cottages 17%
Public buildings
20%
Services8%
Industry23%
Transport7%
Agriculture1%
Source: Energy Agency22
Lithuania: Energy saving plan for 2008-2016
0,5 1,0
1,5
3,1
4,7
6,3
7,8
9,4
11,0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ene
rgijo
s ta
up
ymo
ro
dik
lis,
%
Suta
up
ytas
en
erg
ijos
kie
kis,
ktn
e
Source: Energy Agency
ktoe
23
Obvious conclusion
• Renovating the buildings of Lithuania is a safe, sure way of increasing energy security, improving quality of life and substantially boosting the economy
www.euractiv.com/energy
24
Lithuania: heat energy consumption in buildings
0
50
100
150
200
250
kWh/m2
New5%
Efficient17%
In-efficient
56%
Very bad22%
25
Requirements for the new buildings in Lithuania
26
Renovation (thermal modernisation) scheme
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Before After
savings
investmentrepayment
heating
kWh/m2
27
Thank you for your attention
28