supported by national market report: the netherlands 2 nd project meeting london, 10 march 2009...

Supported by

www.res-h-policy.eu

National market report:the Netherlands

2nd Project Meeting

London, 10 March 2009

Luuk Beurskens, Marijke Menkveld Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)

www.res-h-policy.eu 2

National market report: the Netherlands

Contents

• Approach• Dutch thermal energy market• Typical Dutch RES-H/C systems• Renewable heating and cooling production (RES-H/C)• Past and existing RES-H/C policy in the Netherlands• Future developments• Conclusions



Approach for compiling the report

• Literature review (November 2008 – January 2009)• Interviews with stakeholders (February 2009)• Draft Dutch version (beginning of March 2009)• Review round among stakeholders (March 2009)• Final Dutch version (end of March 2009)• Final English version (April 2009)



Dutch thermal energy market: heating

•Final heat demand in the Netherlands for the year 2006, broken down into sector and temperature level (Source: ECN)

Final heat demand [PJ]

Temperature in °C In

dus

try

Ch

em

ical

In

d.

Me

tal I

ndu

stry

Oth

er

Indu

stry

Ho

use

ho

lds

Ag

ricu

lture

Se

rvic

es

Re

fine

ry

To

tal

<100 53 12 8 33 280 89 206 0 628

100-250 71 27 0 44 0 0 0 0 71

250-500 84 66 3 15 0 0 0 45 129

500-750 51 51 0 0 0 0 0 49 100

750-1000 69 64 5 0 0 0 0 0 69

>1000 85 25 36 24 0 0 0 11 97

Total 413 245 52 117 280 89 206 105 1093



Dutch thermal energy market: cooling

•Final cooling demand in the Netherlands for the year 2006, broken down into sector and temperature level (Source: Estimates, ECN)

Final cooling demand [PJ]

Temperature in °C In

dus

try

Ch

emic

al In

d.

Me

tal I

ndu

stry

Oth

er

Indu

stry

Ho

useh

old

s

Ag

ricu

lture

Se

rvic

es

Re

fine

ry

To

tal

+10 to +15 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.6 n.a. 54 n.a. n.a.

+10 to -30 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.4 n.a. 15 n.a. n.a.

< -30 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Total n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 n.a. 69 n.a. n.a.



Typical Dutch RES-H/C systems*

• Combined heat and cold supply with underground storage (without heatpump) in service sector

• Aerothermal heat pump combined with gas-fired boiler in households: hybrid system

• Biomass co-firing in large coal-fired power plant • Substitute natural gas (SNG):

─ Short term small/moderate potential: digestion route─ Moderate term (>2015) high potential (>>2015): gasification route

• Renewable share from combustion of biodegradable waste in municipal solid waste: high electric conversion efficiency, no focus on district heating

• * Not meaning representing the largest share



Renewable heating and cooling production

• * Includes cooling

• ** This is 47% of total EfW

• Production of renewable heat in 2006 (Source Statistics netherlands, CBS)

Renewable heat* [TJ]

Solar thermal 599

Heat pumps 2240

Underground storage of heat/cold 547*

Energy from Waste (EfW) 3537**

Biomassa co-firing in large plants 469

Biomass boiler in households 5191

Biomass boiler in industry 1930

Other biomass combustion 3078

Biogas from digestion 2370

Total 19961*



Solar thermal

• Market• Factory-made solar thermal systems: small,

standardised and cost-optimised production• Long payback time: ≥ 15 years • Hybrid systems: solar thermal plus heat pump and solar

thermal plus solar PV (PVT). Problem: norms and certification

• Small and medium size national enterprises, short term focus, positive towards innovation but limited in budgets



Solar thermal

• Policy• Several policy schemes in place (1988 – 2008):

subsidies, promotion campaigns, covenants, technology targets, new housing norms (EPC=1.0, 0.8)

• Covenant successful in cost/price reduction, but not in upscaling of the market

• Incentive schemes based on energy production [GJ], not collector surface area [m2] to stimulate efficient systems

• As of September 2008: new subsidy for solar thermal in existing dwellings (up to 60 000 systems receive 25% to 50% of investment costs until 2011)



Solar thermal

• Lessons• Marketing is very important, maybe more important than price

of a system• Communicate reality: long payback time but other benefits from

solar thermal: environmental aspects and lower energy bill• Private home owners and tenants are more difficult to reach

than social housing sector or other large system operators• New housing norms (EPC=1.0 and 0.8): other measures

(cheaper, easier to install) are preferred over solar thermal • Training of installers is important: a conservative sector• Stop-and-go policy is a thread (communicate policy after 2011!)• Subsidy scheme makes system prices increase



Heat pumps

• Market• Many concepts: heat source, type of heat pump, heat

distribution system, scale, combined systems• Integration of heat pump in building concept is crucial:

high building quality is required• Selling points of heat pumps are: high comfort, better

living conditions (air quality, humidity)• Heat pump regarded as project-specific: high

engineering costs and high investment cost



Heat pumps

• Policy• Several policy schemes in place (1995 – 2008): action

plan, subsidies, information campaigns, demonstration projects, technology targets, new housing norms (EPC=1.0, 0.8), corporate tax deduction

• Discussion on renewable aspect of heat pump: industrial residual heat not considered renewable (± 1995)

• As of September 2008: new subsidy for heat pumps in existing dwellings (up to 7 000 systems receive 20% to 25% of investment cost until 2011)



Heat pumps

• Lessons• Again: training of installers is important: a conservative

sector• Heat pump can be cost-efficient provided that design of

system and building are good• New housing norms (EPC=1.0 and 0.8): other measures

(cheaper, easier to install) are preferred over heat pumps• Focus on regulation (for ground source systems

including underground storage): several governmental bodies are involved in process for licensing



Combined heat and cold supply with underground storage

• Very successful!

• Market: relative few companies which enhances knowledge transfer. Mostly large construction projects with only a few stakeholders, which facilitates the process.

• Policy: demonstration projects ±1993. Because of profitable technology no direct subsidies: only subsidising of feasibility studies (a good strategy!)

• Lessons: competitive technology + few stakeholders + support for feasibility studies = success



Biomass

• Various technologies• Energy from Waste (EfW)• District heating from biomass co-firing in large power plants• Boilers in industry and households• Biogas: landfill gas, digestion of manure and biodegradable

waste streams or energy crops

• Long term option: SNG from gasification in large scale (up to GWs) multi-purpose plant (SNG / electricity / heat)



Biomass

• Market• Many technology types• Many players• Competitive options, mainly because of availability of

cheap biomass input



Biomass

• Policy• For EfW: landfill policy (no combustible waste as of

1996), covenant• MEP subsidy for electricity, focus on electric conversion

efficiency for EfW, biogas, combustion technologies• No policy for biomass in households



Biomass

• Lessons• For EfW: core business is waste destruction: therefore high

caloric waste streams not preferred because the maximum thermal operation constraints limit the throughput of waste (which generates the income)

• MW-size biomass combustion plants sometimes ‘forget’ to contract heat consumers in planning phase: once plant in place no market for heat distribution

• Low-quality biomass streams are interesting because of costs but technological constraints often limit their use

• Increased demand for high-quality biomass will increase price (and imports)

• Small scale regional use of forestry and other residues sometimes embraced by local governments



Future developments

• On request of the Ministry of Economic Affairs the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) performs an outlook to 2020 in order to ex-ante evaluate current policy effectiveness.

• This study is expected to be released end 2009.



Conclusions (additional to technology lessons)

• Most RES-H/C options aren’t competitive at current conventional energy prices

• Future policy should be communicated clearly towards market, avoid stop-and-go situations

• Several technologies benefit from a co-ordinated government approach• Involving installers is crucial for RES-H/C uptake• Avoid fairy-tale promises from RES-H/C: communicate clearly• Quality of buildings and installations is important to realise promises• Standardisation works for some technologies• Various barriers exist: policy is required on all fronts• Political commitment helps a lot• RES-H/C share in NL (20% in 2020) and EU target (14% in 2020) currently

completely unclear • Targeting the consumer market involves a good communication strategy



Thanks!

supported by national market report: the netherlands 2 nd project meeting london, 10 march 2009...

Documents