(as mentioned before), and the IDA 2030 alternative is compared with Ref 2030, assuming that the average oil price is applicable 40 percent of the time, while the low and high oil prices each are applicable 30 percent of the time.
Compared to Ref 2030, the IDA 2030 alternative converts fuel costs into investment costs and also has lower total annual costs. Such a shift in cost structure is very sensitive to two factors: the interest rate and the estimation of the size of total investment costs. Consequently, sensitivity analyses have been made. In the first analysis, the interest rate has been raised from 3 to 6 percent, and in the other, all investment costs have been raised by 50 percent. In both cases, the IDA 2030 alternative is competitive to the reference.
Figure 6.15 gives an indication of the export potential of IDA 2030. Such potential has been estimated on the basis of the Danish development of wind turbine manufacturing and is considered a very rough estimate. However, the estimate provides valuable information on both the different relevant technologies and the size of the total potential. The socioeconomic feasibility and the CO2 emissions of the two energy systems, Ref 2030 and IDA 2030, are shown in Figure 6.16. All measures have been evaluated marginally in both Ref 2030 and IDA 2030. As can be seen, the back-and-forth process has led to the identification of measures that are predominantly feasible. However, some proposals with negative feasibility results have been included in the overall plan for other reasons. Some have good export potentials, whereas others are important to be able to reach the final target of 100 percent renewable energy in the next step. And yet others have important environmental benefits.
The socioeconomic feasibility shown in Figures 6.14 and 6.16 is calculated for a closed system without any exchange of electricity on international markets. On the basis of such calculations, a separate study was conducted of the potential benefits of electricity exchange to assess whether the IDA 2030 energy system in such respects differed from the reference system Ref 2030. The evaluation was done for the three different fuel price levels and the two CO2 emission trade cost levels, as well as for the three Nordic hydropower circumstances: wet, normal, and dry years. The results are shown in Figure 6.17 in terms of socioeconomic net revenues for Danish society. Moreover, the diagram shows the import and export of each system: Ref 2030 and IDA 2030.
The net revenue from exchange is calculated in the EnergyPLAN model by comparing the results of a reference calculation of a closed system to the results of a calculation of an open system. The closed system has no exchange, while the open system benefits from exchange by selling electricity when the price exceeds the marginal production costs of the Danish energy system and buying electricity when the price is lower than the marginal costs. The modeling takes into consideration bottlenecks among the countries. The whole procedure of calculation is based on the assumption that each of the electricity production units optimizes its business-economic revenues.
As can be seen in Figure 6.17, Denmark will be able to profit from the exchange of electricity on the Nordic Nord Pool market in all situations. The net revenue is typically in the order of between 500 and 1000 million DKK/ year. In years with low fuel prices and high electricity market prices, revenues are primarily earned from exporting, while in years with high fuel prices and low electricity prices, revenues are earned from importing electricity. It should be mentioned that not all combinations are equally probable. The electricity market price will, to some extent, follow the changes in the fuel price levels.
Economic savings achieved through individual measures estimated in relation to the energy systems of the Danish Reference and the Danish Society of Engineers' Energy Plant
Was this article helpful?