• Ingen resultater fundet

Baltic offshore wind power scenarios

5.1 Methodology

5.1.3 Baltic offshore wind power scenarios

installations (CCAPEX), maintenance cost (COPEX), fuel cost (CFUEL), and the socio-economic cost of GHG emissions (CGHG).


Capital cost is calculated using a real discount rate of 5% and a lifetime of 20 years for all technologies, corresponding to the economic requirements for new investments in the model run. For the GHG emissions, only differences in CO2 emissions are taken into account, while effects on other GHG emissions, particle emissions and other pollutants are disregarded. The cost of emissions is set equal to the applied CO2- price.

result, the offshore hubs serve not only as connection points for wind turbines, but also provide interconnector capacity between the connected electricity markets. Around 45% of total Baltic offshore wind power deployment is connected to the four advanced hubs included in these scenarios.

The hubs have been designed exogenously with the overarching and deliberate objective of creating a scenario with broad grid cooperation across the Baltic Sea. For that reason, hubs are included in both in the Southern and Northern parts of the Baltic Sea region and connections are made to all countries in the region. As we will show later, the hub locations in the southern region are considerably more attractive than the northern locations because they connect bidding areas with low prices (Scandinavia) with bidding areas with high prices (Continental Europe).

The specific locations of the hubs have been selected to reduce cost of connecting the wind farms and to reduce the overall LCOE for offshore wind in the region. The configured hubs 1 and 2 in the southern part of the region are made with inspiration from the Baltic InteGrid project, while the design of hubs 3 and 4, in the northern part of the Baltic Sea Region, have been made specifically for this analysis. It is important to stress that the specific hub design is a complex optimization exercise and further efforts may reveal that other hub configurations would be more attractive.

Also, it should be mentioned that the hub design is not static across scenarios. More wind farms and stronger connections are included for the 2050 scenarios compared to 2030 scenarios and the specific wind farms connected to the hubs also vary slightly between the low and ambitious scenarios to accommodate for the variations in offshore wind deployment targets of the individual countries in the region.

The detailed setup of the hubs is illustrated on Figure 5-5 and Table 5-2. More information can be found in Appendix D. The remaining offshore wind power capacity is connected using radial connections to the onshore transmission network.

Figure 5-5 Configuration of the four advanced offshore hubs

Note: The transmission capacities shown represent those in the ambitious deployment scenarios.

The corresponding values for the low scenarios and the connected wind farm capacities are shown in Table 5-2.

In the Grid and Policy Cooperation (GPC) scenarios, the four advanced offshore hubs from the grid cooperation scenarios are also established. However, capacity not connected to the hubs is distributed by the model across the entire Baltic Sea in order to achieve regionally cost- effective deployment of the same overall level of offshore wind power capacity. Unlike the grid cooperation scenarios described above, the model does not enforce nation-specific offshore wind power targets. This change allows the model to select the most attractive offshore wind farm sites, namely those that provide the highest earnings relative to the investment made, from across the whole of the Baltic Sea. Cooperation mechanisms under the RES Directive and the opening of cross-borders support could provide the framework for delivering efficient deployment across national borders as envisioned under this scenario. The total level of regional deployment under these scenarios is set equal to the total level of regional deployment under the national policy scenarios to ensure comparability and allow us to isolate the benefits attributable to policy cooperation.

Table 5-2 Interconnector capacity and the wind capacity related to the four hub configurations in the grid cooperation scenarios and the grid and policy cooperation scenarios

Hub Country

Interconnector Capacity (MW) Wind capacity (MW) Low


Ambitious scenarios

Low scenarios

Ambitious scenarios 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050


Germany 500 1,000 500 2,500 1,000 1,500 600 3,000

Sweden 500 1,000 500 2,500 - - - -

Denmark - - - 500 400 1,500


wind 1,000 2,000 1,000 4,500


Sweden 500 1,500 1,500 3,500 - 1,500 1,000 3,000 Poland 500 1,500 1,500 3,500 1,000 1,500 1,500 2,500

Lithuania 0 500 500 1,500 - - - -


wind 1,000 3,000 2,500 5,500


Estonia21 0 500 500 1,000 - 500 500 1,000 Lithuania 0 500 500 1,000 - 500 500 1,000 Total

wind 1,000 1,000 2,000


Finland 500 750 750 750 490 500 500 500 Sweden 500 750 750 750 467 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total

wind 957 1,500 1,500 1,500

Total 3,000 8,000 7,000 17,000 2,957 7,500 6,000 13,500

Levels of Baltic offshore deployment

At the end of 2017, installed offshore wind power capacity in the Baltic Sea equalled approximately 1.4 GW (see D.3.1). Task 1 has, accounting for a range of possible restrictions, identified potential sites for offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea with a total combined capacity of 93.5 GW. The largest technical potentials found through this exercise exist in Sweden, Denmark, Latvia and Poland. Comparing this technical potential for offshore wind power with external scenarios of potential deployment (see section D.3.1), it is clear that a lack of technically suitable sites is not likely to constrain offshore wind power deployment in the Baltic Sea as a whole. For Germany and Poland however, between 70 – 80 % of the total potential identified is used in the most ambitious scenarios by 2050.

The future deployment of offshore wind power in the region is dependent on how the cost of offshore wind power generation develops relative to other electricity generation technologies, including other renewable energy technologies, as well as the political will to support offshore wind power development through dedicated policies such as an effective CO2 market and/or renewable energy support schemes.22

21 Estonia indicated a low ambition scenario of 1000 MW of wind capacity by 2030 and a high ambition scenario of 2000 MW of wind capacity by 2030 as suitable to their planned


22 The elaboration process of the National Energy and Climate plans was on-going during the finalisation of the study and may result in changes to national deployment plans after the finalisation of the modelling scenarios. Late changes could not be reflected in the modelling.

In this study, two levels of deployment for offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea are explored:

Low and Ambitious scenarios. The two levels shown in Figure 5-6 have been set exogenously based on input from the BEMIP renewable energy working group and a variety of external sources (notably ENTSO-E and Wind Europe). Therefore, the total level of Baltic offshore wind power has not been optimised, but the effect of differences in total deployment levels has been analysed. In the scenarios, the rest of the system is however optimized subject to the restriction imposed in the form of Baltic offshore wind deployment. Hence, increased deployment in Baltic offshore wind will to a large extent replace other generation capacity. Depending on market effects, the capacity mix and the location of generation capacity will also vary according to the market optimization in each scenario.

Figure 5-6 Total level of Baltic offshore wind power capacity in the Low and Ambitious scenarios

The Low scenarios are intended to show a continuation of current expectations and trends, whereas the Ambitious scenarios shows an ambitious but achievable pathway for Baltic offshore wind power deployment assuming a concerted effort to facilitate offshore wind power development in the region. Importantly, the scenarios should not be interpreted as representing either the minimum or maximum deployment levels that could conceivably be observed.

In the Low scenarios the pace of deployment over the period from 2020 to 2030 is equal to that expected in ENTSO-E’s best estimate scenario. In these scenarios, onshore wind and solar power constitute the main measures used to increase RE shares in the European power system. The implied level of 2030 capacity corresponds roughly to the level seen in Wind Europe’s low scenario and is below the levels envisioned by ENTSO-E in its sustainable transition and distributed generation scenarios. By 2050, total capacity is around 20% above the levels shown in ENTSO-E’s sustainable transition and distributed generation scenarios for 2040, but almost 20% below the levels seen in ENTSO-E’s global

Revisions to Estonia’s ambition not reflected in the modelling have however been included as footnotes in the relevant tables and chapters.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Baltic offshore capacity (GW)

Low deployment scenarios Ambitious deployment scenarios

climate action scenario.

Rate of net capacity growth: 400 MW/year (2020-2030), 525 MW/year (beyond 2030)

In the Ambitious scenarios the rate of capacity additions to 2030 is more than doubled compared to the low scenario and thereby well above Wind Europe’s central scenario (570 MW/year between 2020 and 2030), but still below Wind Europe’s high scenario (1,100 MW/year between 2020 and 2030). The total capacity reached in 2050 is 32 GW, not far from the level of 35 GW seen as an ‘upside’ scenario by the Baltic InteGrid project when assuming favourable conditions for offshore wind power deployment.

Rate of net capacity growth: 1000 MW/year (2020-2050)

The distribution of offshore wind power capacities among countries, as imposed by the national policy scenarios, has been determined using input from other references23 and input from the BEMIP RES Working Group based on then current plans. In some cases, these plans were updated during the course of the study and these changes are not reflected in the volumes shown below. As such, national ambitions may vary significantly from the levels of assumed deployment shown.24 In the regional cooperation scenarios, offshore wind power is distributed across the region according to the economically most favourable realisation of regional targets, determined by the modelling. Detailed inputs are shown in Table 5-3.

23 Sources include: ENTSO-E (2018), TYNDP Scenario report 2018; Wind Europe (2018), Offshore Wind in Europe - Key Trends and Statistics 2017; Wind Europe (2017), Wind energy in Europe: Scenarios for 2030; 50Hertz Transmission, Amprion, Tennet TSO, TransnetBW (2018), Szenariorahmen für den netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2030 (Version 2019) – Entwurf der Übertragungsnetzbetreiber; Energinet (2017) – Rapport 2017 Energinets

analyseforudsætninger; Feedback from the BEMIP working group based on BEMIP Renewable Energy Working Group meeting 24th of May 2018 in Brussels, Belgium.

24 For example, in Poland, a 10 GW offshore capacity target as soon as 2030 is being

discussed, aligned with the phase-out of lignite generation. The capacity pathway we use in this study was decided before this new target was proposed. Modelling results indicate that more ambitious targets compared to the ones assumed in this study may be economically beneficial – however, the study does not investigate or identify the optimal capacity level.

Table 5-3 Offshore wind power capacity requirements in MW in the Baltic Sea for regional low and ambitious deployment scenarios (requirement for Baltic Sea region) and for low and ambitious national policies scenarios (requirements for individual countries in the Baltic Sea region)

Applicable geography

2020 2030 2050

Regional cooperation scenarios

Low offshore development Baltic Sea region 2,527 6,445 16,945 Ambitious offshore development Baltic Sea region 2,527 12,695 32,100 National policies scenarios

Low offshore development Denmark* 1,210 1,609 2,109

Sweden 210 700 3,000

Finland 33 500 2,000

Estonia25 0 0 500

Latvia 0 0 500

Lithuania 0 0 500

Poland 0 1,500 4,000

Germany* 1,074 2,136 4,336

Ambitious offshore development Denmark* 1,210 1,859 2,800

Sweden 210 2,000 7,000

Finland 33 2,000 4,500

Estonia26 0 500 1,000

Latvia 0 500 1,000

Lithuania 0 500 1,000

Poland 0 2,000 8,400

Germany* 1,074 3,336 6,400

* Only offshore wind power capacity in the Baltic Sea is considered