Section 7.2.1 presents the results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis for 2030 and section 7.2.2 the results for 2050. All cost elements are given as the difference in costs between the relevant scenario and the Low NP scenario.
The presented numbers are all annualised and given in millions of real 2018 euros per year.
The tables show the level of each type of cost under each scenario.
7.2.1 2030
The CBA results for 2030 are presented in Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1. The numbers are provided in terms of changes in costs compared to the Low NP scenario for each element, taken from the modelling results. So, for example, looking at the Ambitious NP column (see, e.g., Table 7-1) we see that the total CAPEX on Baltic offshore wind under this scenario is 1159 million € per year higher than the cost for Baltic offshore in the Low NP scenario in 2030. As the increase in offshore capacity replaces onshore capacity and generation, investments in onshore capacity are reduced by 604 million € per year, in addition, onshore OPEX, fuel and carbon costs are reduced compared to the Low NP scenario.
By comparing the numbers in the SUM row, we can see the net cost or benefit implied by selecting one scenario relative to another. The lower the SUM, the lower overall cost of supplying the electricity demanded compared to other scenarios.
Table 7-1: Costs and benefits in 2030. All numbers in millions of € per year, investments are annualised.
Low Ambitious
2030 GC GPC NP GC GPC
CAPEX offshore 61 43 1159 1181 1184
OPEX offshore 1 1 231 232 233
Hub costs 85 85 0 206 206
CAPEX onshore 24 -41 -604 -562 -704
OPEX onshore 11 25 -261 -250 -272
Fuel cost -36 25 -151 -276 -267
Carbon cost -24 -25 -82 -227 -174
Redispatch costs -49 -74 61 -65 -92
Grid reinforcement 0 0 0 0 0
SUM 73 39 353 239 114
Figure 7-1: Costs and benefits in 2030, relative to Low deployment NP scenario
In 2030, we see somewhat higher SUM costs for an ambitious offshore wind power build-out plan. This indicates that, in the short-term, the level of deployment envisaged in the ambitious scenarios is displacing more cost-effective alternative forms of generation. However, when we compare the scenarios with ambitious buildout, the use of regional hubs in the Baltic Sea and regional cooperation clearly provides benefits. A better integration of markets and investments leads to lower overall CAPEX and OPEX, especially on the side of fuel costs and CO2
emissions. In addition, redispatch costs are lower in the scenarios involving hubs and cooperation on targets.
As the detailed grid analysis shows, by supporting alternative paths for trade flows, the development of the hubs can create local congestion on parts of the grid, while simultaneously reducing grid loading in the areas neighbouring existing interconnectors. The implementation of the hubs also allows for excess wind generation to be more easily shared with neighbours, thus reducing redispatch costs. Targeted investments in onshore grid upgrades can significantly reduce the total grid costs of integrating offshore wind, that is the sum of the cost for redispatch and for grid reinforcements. In the cooperation scenarios, total grid costs are lower than in the National Policy scenarios.
It is also worth noting that the GC and GPC scenarios assume that all four hubs are built by 2030 (cf. section 5.2.5 and 5.2.7 for a discussion). It is reasonable to expect that some of these hubs will produce net benefits earlier, i.e. before 2030, while others will produce benefits only later. As such, despite the slightly higher costs for a solution with all four hubs in 2030, the results cannot be interpreted to suggest that there hub solutions are generally not beneficial in 2030 even under a low offshore buildout scenario. In addition, considering the long lead-times for international interconnector projects and the positive cost-benefit ratio for all policy and ambition scenarios in 2050, the cooperation on offshore hubs should start well before 2030.
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
GC GPC NP GC GPC
millions of €/year
CAPEX offshore OPEX offshore Hub costs CAPEX onshore
OPEX onshore Fuel cost Carbon cost Redispatch costs
Grid reinforcements SUM
Low Ambitious
In 2030, regional cooperation scenarios reduce the cost of ambitious deployment. The benefits increase with an increasing level of cooperation, i.e., the reduction in costs under a grid and policy cooperation (GPC) scenario is considerably higher than under the GC scenario. In low deployment scenarios, regional cooperation does not produce benefits in the 2030 timeframe;
however, it makes the overall cost only marginally higher, which may be worth investing as it prepares for significant gain in cost reduction in the longer 2050 timeframe even under low deployment as shown below.
7.2.2 2050
The CBA results for 2050 are presented in Table 7-2 and Figure 6-2. The numbers are provided in terms of changes in costs compared to the Low NP scenario for each element, taken from the modelling results.
Scenarios with a negative SUM have lower total system costs than the National Policy, Low ambition scenario. The table thus show that cooperation on offshore wind power deployment provides lower total costs than the NP scenario with a low offshore wind deployment level.
Moreover, in 2050, ambitious national offshore deployment objectives result in lower costs than those with lower deployment rates.
Table 7-2: Costs and benefits in 2050. All numbers in millions of € per year, investments are annualised.
Low Ambitious
2050 GC GPC NP GC GPC
CAPEX offshore -3 159 2701 2727 2717
OPEX offshore 0 0 373 374 378
Hub costs 210 210 0 454 454
CAPEX onshore -80 -55 -1664 -1819 -2186
OPEX onshore -41 115 -510 -499 -586
Fuel cost -234 -1006 -894 -1642 -1917
Carbon cost -51 -264 -221 -505 -465
Redispatch costs -397 -167 -198 -398 -579
Grid reinforcement 0 0 0 36 36
SUM -596 -1008 -413 -1272 -2148
Figure 7-2: Costs and benefits in 2050, relative to Low deployment NP scenario
Regional cooperation on both grids (GC scenario) and grid and policy cooperation (GPC) scenario shows clear and strong benefits in 2050 in both the Low and Ambitious deployment scenarios. The GPC scenario shows a particularly large potential for cost reduction compared to the national policies (NP) scenario.
The savings from cooperation are driven by three effects: first, by the increased trade capacity, which can be seen by the decrease in total costs from the NP to the grid cooperation (GC) scenario. The additional savings stem to a large part from reduced fuel and carbon costs, indicating that the additional trade flexibility between the Baltic power systems via the offshore hubs creates significant socio-economic benefits. Second, by a more efficient allocation of offshore farms across the Baltic Sea to regions where we expect strongest demand growth, as can be seen by the additional decrease of costs between the GC and GPC scenarios. Third, by a decrease in redispatch costs with increased cooperation – again stemming from a more efficient utilisation of onshore grids due to more efficient allocation of offshore capacity and additional interconnector capacity.
Onshore grids will need to be adjusted to the changing generation and demand patterns, and todays grids will not be able to efficiently handle either the demand increase or new generation capacity. Hence, the grid-related cost and savings reported in Table 7-2 assume an appropriate development of the onshore grids and include the costs for grid reinforcements driven by offshore wind. Considering the long lead times observed for grid reinforcements and grid extensions, it will be necessary to start planning and development of onshore grid upgrades sufficiently early, taking into account expected offshore developments and regional cooperation.
Comparing Low and Ambitious offshore wind scenarios shows the benefit of ambitious offshore wind power deployment in all policy scenarios. Again, the savings that can be achieved on the
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
GC GPC NP GC GPC
millions of €/year
CAPEX offshore OPEX offshore Hub costs CAPEX onshore
OPEX onshore Fuel cost Carbon cost Redispatch costs
Grid reinforcements SUM
Low Ambitious
side of fuel costs and CO2 emissions are the main driver for the savings with ambitious deployment, while the increased CAPEX and OPEX of offshore wind power are to a large extend offset by reduced CAPEX and OPEX of onshore generation capacity. Total redispatch costs are lower in the Ambitious scenario than in the Low deployment scenario.