eea-energy and environment report 2008

8/14/2019 Eea-Energy and Environment Report 2008

1/100

Energy and environment report 2008

EEA Report No 6/2008


2/100

Cover design: EEACover photo Pawel KazmierczykLeft photo StockxpertRight photo StockxpertLayout: EEA

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen K

DenmarkTel.: +45 33 36 71 00Fax: +45 33 36 71 99Web: eea.europa.euEnquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Legal noticeThe contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commissionor other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor anyperson or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of theinformation contained in this report.

All rights reservedNo part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permissionin writing from the copyright holder. For translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (addressinformation below).

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europaserver (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008

ISBN 978-92-9167-980-5ISSN 1725-9177

DOI 10.2800/10548

EEA, Copenhagen, 2008

REG.NO.DK-000244


3/1003

Contents


Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 5

Executive summary .................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11

1 What is the impact of energy production and use on the environment? ............... 14

1.1 Greenhouse gas emissions ................................................................................17

1.2 Air pollution ....................................................................................................19

1.3 Other energy-related environmental pressures .....................................................26

1.4 Climate change impacts on energy production and consumption .............................29

1.5 Life cycle analysis (LCA) of energy systems .........................................................30

1.6 Scenarios .......................................................................................................34

2 What are the trends concerning the energy mix in Europe and whatare its related environmental consequences? ...................................................... 36

2.1 Energy security ...............................................................................................37

2.2 Has there been a switch in the energy fuel mix?...................................................41

2.3 Scenarios .......................................................................................................43

3 How rapidly are renewable technologies being implemented?.............................44

3.1 Renewable energy deployment ..........................................................................44

3.2 Scenarios .......................................................................................................50

4 Is the European energy production system becoming more efficient? .................51

4.1 Efficiency of energy production ..........................................................................51

5 Are environmental costs reflected adequately in the energy price? ..................... 58

5.1 Estimating external costs of energy production ...................................................58

5.2 The EU ETS .....................................................................................................59

5.3 Estimated external costs ...................................................................................60

5.4 Environmental taxes.........................................................................................625.5 End-use energy prices ......................................................................................63


4/100

Contents

4 Energy and environment report 2008

6 What are the energy consumption trends in households, and whatpolicies exist to improve energy efficiency? ........................................................ 67

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................67

6.2 Energy efficiency policy for household heating and cooling ....................................69

6.3 Household energy consumption and emissions .....................................................71

6.4 Good practice in policy design and evaluation ......................................................77

7 EU trends compared to other countries................................................................ 80

7.1 The context.....................................................................................................81

7.2 Trends ............................................................................................................82

7.3 Energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in USA and China .........................84

References ............................................................................................................... 85

Annex 1 Background to scenarios............................................................................. 90

Annex 2 Data issues on household energy use ......................................................... 92

Annex 3 List of EEA energy and environment indicators ........................................... 96

Annex 4 Description of main data sources ................................................................ 97


5/100


6/100


7/100

Executive summary

7Energy and environment report 2008

Taking a long-term perspective, it is also importantto consider the potential impact of climate change onenergy production and consumption.

1. Climate change will alter energy demandpatterns. Electricity consumption in southernEurope and the Mediterranean region willincrease due to projected temperature increasesand the associated increasing demand for spacecooling. Energy demand for space heating innorthern Europe will decrease, but the net effectacross Europe is difficult to predict.

2. Climate change will affect power production.Due to projected changes in river runoff,hydropower production will increase innorthern Europe and decrease in the south.

Furthermore, across Europe, summer droughtsare projected to be more severe, limiting theavailability of cooling water and thus reducingthe efficiency of thermal power plants.

3. Both types of impacts may lead to changes inemissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gasesfrom energy, which are, however, difficult toestimate at present.

2 What are the trends concerningthe energy mix in Europe andwhat are its related environmental

consequences?

The concept of energy security in Europeencompasses a wide range of issues includingenergy efficiency, diversification of energy supply,increased transparency of energy demand andsupply offers, solidarity among the EU MemberStates, infrastructure and external relations.Together with the energy efficiency, the energyimport dependency aspect of security of supplyhas direct environmental consequences. Some ofthe links between the environment and the energy

import dependency are determined by the fuel mixused to deliver energy services, the level of demandfor those services and the speed with which theseservices have to be delivered. Reducing energyimport dependency can have positive or negativeeffects on the environment, both within the EUand outside its borders, depending on the energysources imported and the ones being replaced. InEurope, a higher penetration of renewable energysources in the energy mix, coupled with a switchfrom coal to gas, resulted in reduced energy-relatedGHG emissions and air pollution but also inincreased dependency on gas imports. However,these environmental benefits were partially offset byincreasing energy consumption and, more recently,by the tendency to increase the use of coal in

electricity generation due to concerns about securityof supply as well as concerns over high and volatileprices for imported fossil fuels.

1. The current energy system within the EU isheavily dependent on fossil fuels. The share offossil fuels in total energy consumption declinedonly slightly between 1990 and 2005: fromaround 83 % to 79 %.

2. Over 54 % of primary energy consumption in2005 was imported, and this dependence onimported fossil fuel has been rising steadily(from 51 % in 2000).

3. Dependence is increasing rapidly for naturalgas and coal. Natural gas imports accounted forsome 59 % of the total gas-based primary energy

consumption in 2005, while for hard-coal-basedprimary energy, imports accounted for 42 %. Oilimports accounted for as much as 87 % in 2005 up from 84 % in 2000 driven by substantialincreases in demand from the transport sector,reflecting a lack of real alternatives in this sectorand low EU oil reserves.

4. The largest single energy exporter to the EU isRussia, having supplied 18.1 % of the EU-27 totalprimary energy consumption in 2005 (up from13.3 % in 2000). Russia supplies 24 % of gas-based primary energy consumption, 28 % oil-based of the primary energy consumption and

is the second largest supplier of coal after SouthAfrica, with 10 % of coal-based primary energyconsumption in 2005

5. Between 1990 and 2005, the final electricityconsumption increased on average, by 1.7 %a year, whereas final energy consumptionincreased only by 0.6 % a year.

6. A change in the energy mix is taking place inEurope. Renewable energy has the highestannual growth rate in total primary energyconsumption, with an average of 3.4 % between1990 and 2005. Second comes natural gas, with

an annual average growth rate of 2.8 % overthe same period. The annual growth rate ofoil consumption slowed down, particularly inrecent years due to its partial replacement inpower generation by gas and coal.

7. The switch to gas due to environmentalconstraints (including concerns over climatechange) and a rapid increase in electricitydemand brought about some environmentalbenefits (reduction of CO

2emissions) but

increased dependency on gas imports. Naturalgas consumption increased, between 1990 and2005, by over 30 %.

Baseline (reference) scenarios from POLES, WEMand PRIMES models show a rising dependence


8/100

Executive summary


on imports of fossil fuels. This is particularly truefor gas, with imports (as a percentage of gas-basedprimary energy consumption) rising from around59 % in 2005 to up to 84 % by 2030. Even in scenarios

built on the assumption of a more stringent policyfor energy and climate the import share of all fossilfuels still rises. In these scenarios, improvements inenergy efficiency and the penetration of renewablesoccur more rapidly but the positive effect is morethan offset by the decline in the EU's indigenousfossil production (and consequently, increasedimports of fossil fuels required to meet the growingenergy demand).

3 How rapidly are renewable

technologies being implemented?

Renewable energy technologies usually haveless environmental impacts than fossil fuel,although some concerns exist with respect to theenvironmental sustainability of particular types ofbiofuels. In recent years, they have accomplishedhigh rates of growth but further action is necessaryto achieve the proposed 2020 goals.

1. In 2005, renewable energy accounted, for 6.7 %of total primary energy consumption in theEU-27 compared to a share of 4.4 % in 1990.

Over the period, the share of renewable energyin final consumption has also increased from6.3 % in 1991 to 8.6 % in 2005.

2. Wind power remains dominant, representing75 % of the total installed renewable capacity in2006 (excluding electricity from large hydropowerplants and from biomass). The strongest growthtook place in Germany, Spain and Denmark which accounted for 74 % of all installed windcapacity in the EU-27 in that year. In the sameyear, Germany alone accounted for 89 % and 42 %of the installed solar photovoltaics and the solar

thermal systems, respectively.3. The share of renewables in the final energy

consumption varies significantly acrosscountries: from over 25 % in Sweden, Latvia andFinland to less than 2 % in the United Kingdom,Luxembourg and Malta. Newer Member Statesshowed the most rapid growth in shares, withincreases of over 10 percentage points in Estonia,Romania, Lithuania and Latvia.

4. From 1990 to 2005, electricity production fromrenewables increased in absolute terms (anaverage of 2.7 % annually), but a significantgrowth in electricity consumption partially offsetthe positive achievement limiting the RES sharein gross electricity consumption to only 14.0 %in 2005.

Baseline (reference) scenarios from POLES,WEM and PRIMES models show that the shareof renewables in primary energy consumption isexpected to increase, to a value between 10 % in

2020 and 18 % in 2030. In scenarios where morestringent policies to reduce GHG emissions,and promotion of RES and energy efficiency areassumed, higher shares of renewables in primaryenergy consumption are envisaged ranging from13 % in 2020 to over 24 % in 2030. The rising shareis also supported by more rapid improvementsin energy efficiency, which reduces the absolutelevel of energy consumption. The estimations varysignificantly depending on the model used and thespecific scenario chosen, since various scenariosmake different assumptions about costs for the

various technologies, the carbon prices and thespeed of improvements in energy efficiency.

Achieving the proposed new target for renewableenergy will require a substantial effort, to fill the gapbetween the current levels (8.5 % in the final energyconsumption in 2005) and the objective of 20 % ofrenewable energy in the final energy consumptionin 2020. To meet the proposed targets, 15 MemberStates will have to increase their national share ofrenewables in the final energy consumption by morethan 10 percentage points compared to 2005 levels.Substantially reducing final demand for energy will

help Europe achieve the target for renewables.

4 Is the European energy productionsystem becoming more efficient?

Increasing the European energy system's efficiencycan reduce environmental effects and dependenceon fossil fuels and can contribute to limit theincrease in energy costs. Whilst in recent years, theefficiency of energy production has increased, thepotential for further improvement is still significant,

for example, through a greater use of combinedheat and power and other energy-related efficienttechnologies that are already available or close tocommercialisation.

1. Between 1990 and 2005, the total energyintensity (total energy divided by GDP) in theEU-27 decreased by an estimated 1.3 % perannum. The energy intensity decreased threetimes faster in the new Member States.

2. Over the period of 19902005, the average levelof efficiency in the production of electricityand heat by conventional public thermal plantsimproved by around 4.2 percentage points,reaching 46.9 % (48.5 %, if district heating is alsoincluded) in 2005.


9/100

Executive summary


3. Some 25 % of the primary energy is lost ingeneration, transport and distribution of energy.The largest share in the energy losses occurs ingeneration (around 3/4 of total losses), hence, the

urgent need to deploy available state-of-the-arttechnologies.

4. In 2005, the share of electricity generated fromcombined heat and power (CHP) plants, intotal gross electricity production in the EU-27,was 11.1 %. CHP can be a cost-effective optionto improve energy efficiency and reduce CO

2

emissions. It could be further enhanced inthe EU.

5 Are environmental costs reflected

adequately in the energy price?

Current energy prices vary significantly among theEU Member States due to differences in tax levelsand structures, subsidies for different forms ofenergy generation and different market structures.Including all relevant externalities to establish thetrue costs of energy use will help provide the correctprice signals for future investment decisions inenergy supply and demand. It is difficult to identifywithin current energy price structures the shareattributed to the adverse external impacts of energyproduction and consumption on public health and

the environment.

1. In 2007, the nominal end-user electricity pricefor households increased, on average, by17 % compared to 1995 levels. This was dueto a combination of factors including a certainlevel of internalisation of environmentalexternalities (via increased taxation and effectsof other environmental policies, such as theEU Emissions Trading Scheme), increasedenergy commodity prices (particularly coal andgas), and other market factors stemming from

the liberalisation process. Significant increases(around 50 %, compared to 1995 levels) occurredin Romania, the United Kingdom, Poland andIreland.

2. In 2007, nominal end-user gas prices forhouseholds increased, on average, by 75 %compared to 1995 levels, mainly because ofincreasing world commodity prices. Increasesabove the average level occurred in Romania,the United Kingdom, Latvia and Poland.

3. Overall, in 2005, the external costs of electricityproduction in the EU-27 were estimated to beabout 0.6 to 2 % of the GDP. The external costsdecreased, between 1990 and 2005, by 4.9 to14.5 eurocents/kWh and reached an averagevalue of 1.8 to 5.9 eurocents/kWh (depending

on whether high or low estimates for externalcosts are used) in 2005. Among factors thatcontributed to this downward trend are thereplacement of coal and oil with natural gas,

the increased efficiency of transformation andthe introduction of air pollution abatementtechnologies. Further efforts are needed todevelop methodologies to better quantify theseexternalities.

6 What is the role of the householdsector in addressing the needto reduce the final energyconsumption and what are theobserved trends?

End-use energy efficiency measures should beimplemented in the residential sector to ensure thatenergy services (i.e. heating, cooling, and lighting)remain affordable. At the same time, improvedenergy efficiency will also deliver environmentaland social benefits. Despite the significant potentialfor cost effective savings, energy consumption in thehousehold sector continues to rise.

1. In 2005, the residential sector in Europeaccounted for 26.6 % of the final energyconsumption. It is one of the sectors with the

highest potential for energy efficiency. Measuresto reduce the heating/cooling demand inbuildings represent a significant part of thispotential. In Ireland and Latvia, measures in theresidential sector account for over 77 % of theoverall national target under the Energy ServicesDirective, while in the United Kingdom, theproportion is just over 50 %. Cyprus estimatesthat the residential sector can deliver savingsof more than 240 ktoe, 1.3 times the nationaltarget set for 2016 (185 ktoe, representing 10 %of the final inland consumption calculated

in accordance with the requirements of thedirective).

2. Between 1990 and 2005, the absolute level offinal household energy consumption in theEU-27 rose by an average of 1.0 % a year.

3. Final household electricity consumptionincreased at a faster rate attaining an annualaverage of 2.1 %.

4. Final energy consumption of households per m2decreased annually by about 0.4 %.

5. Two key factors influence the overall householdenergy consumption: fewer people living inlarger homes and the increasing number ofelectrical appliances. Together, they contributeto a rise in the household consumption of 0.4 %a year.


10/100

Executive summary


7 EU trends compared to othercountries

During the 13th Conference of Parties to the

UN Climate Convention, parties agreed that thereexists a need for a shared view on how to dealwith climate change in the long-term perspective.Alongside a shared view, there should also bea shared responsibility for action given bothhistoric and current trends in generating globalGHG (particularly CO

2) emissions. These trends

vary from country to country. In the EU and incountries such as China and USA, there is a growingrecognition that it is crucial to improve the energyefficiency and expand renewable energy not onlybecause of the current global context of rising energy

demand and energy prices, but also because theseare important measures to reduce CO2

emissions.Experience accumulated in the EU-27 showsthat the consistent implementation over time ofenvironmental and energy policies can be effectivebut much more has to be accomplished in the nearfuture to ensure the substantial reductions in thelevel of CO

2emissions that are necessary to avoid

irreversible effects of climate change.

1. Between 1990 and 2005, the EU-27 experiencedan average GDP growth rate of 2.1 %, whilereducing its energy-related CO

2emissions by

a total of about 3 %. During the same period,CO

2emissions increased by 20 % in USA and

doubled in China. Energy-related CO2

emissionsin Russia decreased by 30 % due to economicrestructuring.

2. From 1990 to 2005, the EU's per capita CO2

emissions decreased by 6.7 %, having becomeless than half of those in USA and about 25 %lower than per capita emissions in Russia. Percapita emissions in China are now 52 % belowthe EU level but they are growing fast due to thepace of economic development and the increase

in the use of coal for power production.3. Between 1990 and 2005, the CO

2emissions

intensity of the public electricity and heatproduction in the EU-27 decreased by 18.2 %while in many other parts of the world,including Russia, the opposite is true. A slightdecrease occurred in China and USA (0.8 % and2.5 %, respectively), partly because of changes inthe renewable production (less hydroelectricitydue to less rainfall) which offset improvementsresulting from the implementation, in recent

years and particularly after 2004, of energyefficiency policies.

4. Policies for energy efficiency and renewableenergy are being implemented in the EU-27,

USA and China, but the overall objectives ofthese policies may differ. For instance, in theEU-27 and USA, environmental protection isone of the key stated policy objectives, whileChina needs to find a balance between theenormous increase in its energy demand andthe subsequent environmental consequences(e.g. increased air pollution). Enhancingsecurity of energy supply is a drivereverywhere.

In all countries, efforts are being made (and are

expected to continue) to boost the renewable energy.Under the WEM (IEA) baseline scenario, by 2030,electricity produced in the EU-27 Member Statesfrom renewable energy could account for as muchas 18 % of the global total, followed by China with17 %, and the United States of America with ashare of 12 %. Under the WEM alternative scenario,electricity generated by China from renewables,could represent as much as 20 % of the global total,followed by the EU-27 with 16 %, and the UnitedStates of America with 11 %. The shares of the EU-27and USA in the global total appear to decrease,because in this scenario all countries are expected

to step up their efforts to increase the share ofrenewables in their energy mix.

Looking at the WEM baseline and alternativescenarios (concerning the possible evolution of theglobal total of CO

2emissions), it is clear that in the

EU-27, as well as in other countries such as Chinaand USA, it is still imperative to take measures todecrease the energy intensity of the economy andto deploy renewable energy faster. According tothe WEM baseline scenario, by 2030, China's shareof the total CO

2emissions in the global total could

be as high as 27 %, surpassing USA and the EU-27with a share of 16 % and 10 %, respectively. Evenconsidering a more stringent energy and climatepolicies, China's share in the global total CO

2

emissions remains significant (26 %), and so doesthat of USA (18 %), followed by the EU-27 (with10 %). Under the alternative scenario, all countriesare expected to reduce their total CO

2emissions,

which explains why the share of USA appears tobe higher and the EU-27 appears to remain at aconstant level.


11/10011

Introduction


Introduction

The issues

The challenge for the 21st century is how to developsustainably and maintain the quality of life for agrowing population with higher expectations forwell-being. Underlying this challenge is the need

for sufficient and sustainable supplies of energy toprovide the economic activity underpinning theseexpectations.

According to the recent World Energy Outlook(IEA, 2007a), if governments around the worldcontinue with current policies, the world's energyneeds would be 55 % higher in 2030 than in 2005,with China and India accounting for much of thisrising demand. Some 84 % of the increase in primaryenergy demand will have to come from fossil fuels.Energy production and use, particularly of fossilfuels, have a number of environmental impacts

including air pollution, greenhouse gas emissionsand adverse impacts on ecosystems.

In the same IEA reference scenario, if no furtheraction is taken to reduce the energy demand,energy-related CO

2emissions will increase by 49 %

by 2030 compared to 2005 levels and all regionswill face higher energy prices in the medium- tolong-term. In addition, energy security risk willbe greater due to the increased EU dependence onfossil fuel imports from a small group of countrieswith high (existing) oil and gas reserves, notably

Middle Eastern members of OPEC and the RussianFederation.

By contrast, according to the latest report from theInternational Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, 2007),to avoid significant impacts of climate change, themaximum global average temperature rise mustnot exceed about 2 C (the EU target). To make thispossible, global CO

2emissions should peak before

the year 2015 and then decrease by 50 to 85 % by2050 (compared to the year 2000).

Emissions will have to be reduced across alleconomic sectors. The need to reduce CO

2emissions

emerged concurrently with the forecasts for arise in energy demand and prices and increased

energy security risks. All of this stimulated actionin Europe. The EU took a number of initiatives tourgently address its energy demands and aims tolead the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

Building on the EU's three principal goals for

energy policy (security of supply, competitivenessand environmental sustainability) on 10 January2007 the Commission proposed an integratedclimate change and energy package (EC, 2007a). On9 March 2007, the Council endorsed the packageand agreed on a target to reduce greenhouse gasemissions (GHG) by 20 % by 2020 (or 30 %, if otherdeveloped countries join a global post-2012 climatechange agreement). The package also includesmandatory targets to increase the EU contributionfrom renewable energy to 20 % of the total finalenergy consumption with a 10 % binding targetfor renewable energy in transport (provided this

target is achieved sustainably). It also introducesa target to increase energy efficiency by 20 %against a baseline/reference scenario with existingpolicies and measures with 2005 as a base year. On23 January 2008, the Commission proposed a seriesof legislative measures to implement the package(EC, 2008a).

Increased energy efficiency is key for achievingsimultaneously environmental and energy securityas well as competitiveness objectives. . In the climatechange and energy package, the Commission

published a first assessment of the National EnergyEfficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs) (EC, 2008b) wheresome positive trends were revealed. A numberof Member States have higher targets than thoserequired under the Energy Service Directive(EC, 2006f), whilst others introduced ambitioustargets for reducing CO

2emissions in the public

sector. However, while significant energy savingsare expected to come from existing measures, muchless emphasis is put on innovative solutions. Manycountries face significant challenges in addressingtransport and spatial planning adequately. Overall,there seems to be a considerable gap between thelevel of ambition and the actual commitmentsas reflected in current measures and resourcesallocated. One of the key areas with the highest


12/100

Introduction


economic potential for reductions is the consumptionofenergy inbuildings as highlighted by the IPCCin its 2007 assessment (IPCC, 2007).

Enhancing renewable energy is another key factorfor reaching the dual goals of security of supplyand reduction in GHG and air pollution emissions.In addition, a more mature market for renewableenergy technologies is expected to bring about anumber of social and economic benefits, includingregional and local development opportunities, exportopportunities, social cohesion and employment. Theglobal market for eco-industries (including renewabletechnologies) is worth about EUR 600 billion a year,and the EU currently holds about one third of theworld market (European Commission, 2007). This

market is likely to grow substantially in the future.

Implemented separately, the three main targets(GHG emissions reduction, renewable energy andenergy efficiency) will not be sufficient for usheringin necessary changes and shifting the Europeanenergy system towards using cleaner and moresustainable energy technologies, whilst ensuringthat the energy supply is competitive and secure.However, if addressed simultaneously, RenewableEnergy Systems (RES) and GHG emissions reductionmeasures are likely to bring about significanttechnological changes. Energy efficiency is,

potentially, the most significant option to reduceEurope's dependency on energy imports. It will alsoplay a key role in helping the Member States to meettheir RES and GHG emissions targets and to maintainenergy services (i.e. heating, cooling and lighting) ataffordable levels.

Enhancing energy efficiency is often a verycost-effective policy, too. As a result of the triplechallenge we are facing today (climate change, energysecurity and rising energy prices), it is crucial to runa systematic assessment of the true cost of energy

supply, complete with external costs includingdamage to the environment and human health. Onthe energy supply side, investment decisions mustbe based upon the true cost of each energy option.On the demand side, energy policies should triggera change in the consumers' behaviour in order tominimise the costs imposed on the society as a whole.However, internalising environmental externalities for instance, via carbon taxes or the introduction of aCO

2price through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme

(EU ETS) in the cost of energy generation tendsto increase prices for the end-consumer. To ensurethat energy services remainaffordable, while at thesame time delivering environmental (e.g. reductionsin CO

2emissions) and social benefits (higher quality

of life), it is necessary to implementend-use energy

efficiency measures, to minimise the overall demandfor energy.

The scope and the objectives of the EER

This report assesses key drivers, environmentalpressures and some impacts from the productionand consumption of energy, taking into account themain objectives of European policy on energy andenvironment: security of supply, competitiveness andenvironmental sustainability.

The energy and climate (CARE) package proposedby the European Commission on energy and climatechange represents a milestone in the process of

integrating energy and environmental policy inEurope. Given the challenges ahead, it is important,for the purpose of the report, to show future scenariosfor energy production and consumption as differentenergy pathways may have different environmentalconsequences. For this purpose, scenarios consideredwere those described in POLES, WEM and PRIMESmodels. The structure of the EER follows the DriversPressures State Impact Responses (DPSIR) conceptualframework used to report on environmental issues,with each of the building blocks identified inFigure 0.1.

The report addresses six main questions.

Chapter 1: What is the impact of energy productionand use on the environment?

Chapter 2: What are the trends concerning theenergy mix in Europe and what are itsrelated environmental consequences?

Chapter 3: How rapidly are renewable technologiesbeing implemented?

Chapter 4: Is the European energy productionsystem becoming more efficient?

Chapter 5: Are environmental costs reflectedadequately in the energy price?

Chapter 6: What are the energy consumption trendsin households, and what policies exist toimprove energy efficiency?

Chapter 7: EU trends compared to other regions.

The EEA has a set of energy and environmentindicators and Core Set of Indicators (CSI indicators)which are used in this report to underpin the


13/100

Introduction


analysis. However, to strengthen the analysis,in particular with respect to renewable energy,energy efficiency, security of supply, and energyaffordability, some new indicators have been

developed and some old ones were improved.For example, there are new indicators to monitorthe share of renewable energy in final energyconsumption, energy import dependency, energyefficiency in transformation and energy efficiencydevelopments in the households sector.

A concluding chapter is included to describe trendsin the EU as compared to other countries.

Figure0.1 The DPSIR conceptual framework applied to energy and environment issues

(3) See http://reports.eea.europa.eu/index_table?sort=Thematically for further information.

Drivers

- Energy consumption by economic sectors- Heat and electricity production- The choice of fuel mix for energy production

(also determined by security of supply concerns)

Pressures

- GHG emissions- Air and water pollution- Land-use change- Waste and oil spills

State

- Air quality- Water quality- Land use- Biodiversity- Global temperature (and other changes

in the climate)

Impacts

- Human health- Potential loss of biodiversity- Increased competition for land- Wider economic and social costs

Responses

- Policies to reduce GHG emissions,including targets

- Policies to enhance renewables andenergy efficiency, including targets

- Policies to internalise externalenvironmental costs

However, a number of topics are not covered inthis report, since they are much more extensivelydiscussed and presented in several other EEAreports (3). These are as follows:

Transportandenvironment('TERM');

Greenhousegasemissiontrendsandprojections(analysisofprogresstowardstheKyototargets);

Biodiversityandwaterindicator-basedassessmentreport.


14/10014

What is the impact of energy production and use on the environment?


1 What is the impact of energyproduction and use on the

environment?

Main messages

The production and consumption of energy placesa broad range of pressures on the environmentand on public health, some of which have beendecreasing. Key trends observed in Europe include:

1. Energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions remain dominant, accounting for80 % of the total emissions, with the largestemitting sector being electricity and heatproduction, followed by transport.

2. Between 1990 and 2005, energy-relatedGHG emissions in the EU-27 fell by 4.4 %but a significant part of this occurred in thebeginning of the 1990s due to structuralchanges taking place in the economies ofthe EU-12 Member States (4). The intensityof CO

2emissions from public conventional

thermal power plants in the EU-27 decreasedby 27 % due to efficiency improvements andthe replacement of coal with gas in the powersector.

3. Between 1990 and 2005, energy-relatedemissions of acidifying substances,tropospheric ozone precursors and particles inthe EU-27 decreased by 59 %, 45 % and 53 %,respectively, mainly due to the introduction ofabatement technologies in power plants andthe use of catalytic converters in road transport.Improvements in reducing air pollution

(e.g. SO2 and NOX) recently showed a tendencyto slow down due to the increased use of coalin power and heat generation.

4. The annual quantity of spent fuel from nuclearpower generation declined by 5 % over theperiod of 19902006 despite a 20 % increase inelectricity production. However, the high-levelwaste continues to accumulate, exceeding atotal of 30 000 tonnes of heavy metal in 2006.Currently, there are no commercially availablefacilities for permanent storage of this waste.

Other energy-related pressures include:

(a) Life-cycle GHG emissions from electricityproduction vary considerably between differentenergy sources. The electricity productionfrom coal and gas generates the highest level of

emissions estimated (in 2000) to be approximately1 000 CO2-eq./kWhel for coal and 500 CO

2-eq./

kWhel for gas, with far lower emissions forrenewable sources such as solar PV, windand small hydro (ranging from 38 CO

2-eq./

kWhel for solar thermal to 166 CO2-eq./kWhel for

wind). Estimated GHG emissions for electricityproduction from woody biomass can varyfrom 1 600 CO

2-eq./kWh to + 200 CO

2-eq./

kWh, depending on the type of feedstock, thecombustion technology used and whether or notit is being used in combined heat and power CHPproduction mode.

(b) Since the 1990s, despite increased production, oildischarges from installations have diminished.

(c) Since 1990, accidental spills from oil tankers havealso decreased significantly.

Baseline (reference) scenarios shown in POLES, WEMand PRIMES models indicate that, compared to 2005,primary energy consumption is likely to increase by1026 %, by 2030, with fossil fuels maintaining a highshare in all cases. If this proves to be the case, futureenvironmental pressures from energy production andconsumption are likely to increase. Only scenarios

involving more stringent policies for energy andclimate change show the possibility that the absoluteincrease in primary energy consumption will slowdown and actually start to decline between 2020and 2030, primarily due to greater improvementsin energy efficiency. In these scenarios, the positivetrend of declining environmental pressures associatedwith the consumption and the production of energywould continue due to significant reductions inprimary energy demand as well as higher penetrationrates for renewable energy. For instance, by 2030,

(4) Member States that joined the EU from 2004 onwards: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.


15/100



CO2

emissions can be reduced by about 20 % to 30 %(compared to 2005).

In the long-term, it is also important to consider

the potential impact of climate change on energyproduction and consumption:

Climatechangewillalterenergydemandpatterns. Electricity consumption will increasein Southern Europe and the Mediterraneanregion due to projected temperature increasesand the associated increases in the demandfor space cooling. Energy demand for spaceheating will decrease in northern Europe,

but the net effect across Europe is difficult topredict.

Climatechangewillaffectpowerproduction.Dueto projected changes in river runoff, hydropower

production will increase in northern Europe anddecrease in the south. Furthermore, across Europesummer droughts are projected to be moresevere, limiting the availability of cooling waterand thus reducing the efficiency of thermal powerplants.

Bothtypesofimpactsmayleadtochangesinemissions of air pollutants and greenhousegases from energy which are, however, currentlydifficult to estimate.

Box 1.1 Abatement technologies

Air pollution

Abatement technologies can be used to reduce or eliminate airborne pollutants, such as particles, sulphur

oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, odours, and other pollutants

from flue or exhaust gases. SO2

emissions can be reduced through flue gas desulphurisation systems. 'Wet

scrubbers' are the most widespread method and can be up to 99 % effective. Electrostatic precipitators

can remove more than 99 % of particulates from the flue gas. Emissions of NOX

can be either abated or

controlled by primary measures or flue gas treatment technologies. The former include burner optimisation;

air staging; flue gas recirculation; and low NOX

burners. Primary measures for NOX

control are now

considered integral parts of a newly built power plant, and existing units retrofit them whenever they are

required to reduce their NOX

emissions. Other examples of NOX

abatement include catalytic converters for

use in vehicles. These technologies will be particularly important for Large Combustion Plants (> 50 MW)

given the formal implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) (EC, 2001c).

Improvements in road transport abatement will continue to be driven by the Euro standards (see EEA,

2008a for further information on transport and environment trends). For Light Duty Vehicles, new Euro 5/6

standards have already been agreed by the Council and the Parliament (EC, 2007b). The implementing

legislation is currently under preparation and Euro 5 will enter into force in September 2009. The main

effect is to reduce the emissions of PM from diesel cars from 25 mg/km to 5 mg/km. Euro 6 is scheduled to

enter into force in January 2014 and will reduce mainly the emissions of NOX

from diesel cars even further:

from 180 mg/km to 80 mg/km. Similar proposals and legislation are being developed for the next stage

of standards for heavy-duty vehicles: Euro 5 (due to enter into force in October 2008) and new Euro 6

proposals (EC, 2007c).

Carbon capture and storageAmong other options for reducing significantly CO

2emissions, in the power sector and energy-intensive

industries, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) can be a promising solution. This technology is

best applied to large stationary sources such as power generation or oil refineries, which have large,

concentrated streams of CO2

emissions. CO2

can be captured at various stages of the combustion process

and then be transported to storage sites.

For a limited number of applications capture of CO2

is a commercially run industrial process, but to transfer

it to large-scale power plants and to reduce costs and associated energy losses, improvements have to

be made. In a pre-combustion capture process, CO2

is removed prior to combustion, leaving a hydrogen-

rich fuel stream. Post-combustion can be applied to existing power plants, but it is the option with the

largestimpact on the overall plant production efficiency. Capture of CO2

with oxy-fuel combustion is based

on the use of oxygen instead of air in combustion, thus producing a more pure CO2

stream for easier

storage. Depending on the power plant type and the capture process, it is possible to avoid some 80 % of

the CO2emissions compared to a plant without CCS. The negative factor is that large scale CCS technologies

require substantial amounts of energy and lead to efficiency losses in the process, ranging from 10 to 40 %

(IPCC, 2005), thus leading to potential increases in upstream environmental pressures.


16/100



Box 1.1 Abatement technologies (cont.)

Storage of CO2in geological repositories, such as depleted oil or gas reservoirs, aquifers and coal beds, is

generally considered a safe option with manageable environmental impacts. Nevertheless, it is imperative to

introduce and maintain rigorous conditions on the selection, operation and closure of the geological storage siteand clear provisions on monitoring for and reporting of leakage.

Further developments in CCS are being pushed by both industry and policy initiatives. The EU Strategic

Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) (EC, 2006b) recognised the need to have CCS demonstration projects in

order to accelerate the learning curve about the real potential of these technologies. In January 2008, the EC

adopted a proposal for a Directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. This has been done to enable

environmentally safe CCS development by providing a legal framework to manage environmental and human

health risks, remove barriers in the existing environmental legislation and introduce provisions for ensuring

environmental integrity throughout the life-cycle of the plant (site selection up to post closure) (EC, 2008e).

The CO2captured and stored will be recognised as not emitted under the EU ETS, creating de facto an incentive

for operators to store their CO2emissions instead of venting them to the atmosphere. For this purpose, CCS

installations can be opted into Phase II (20082012) of the EU ETS, and will be explicitly included in Phase III

(20132020) of the scheme. In addition, a Communication on promotion of demonstration plants was issued.

By the end of 2008, the Commission is expected to publish its recommendations on financing CCS as part of a

wider communication on financing its proposed Strategic Energy Technology Plan (EC, 2007d).

There is, currently, a number of CCS projects operational worldwide. The longest running project is Sleipner in

Norway. It is part of an offshore platform in the middle of the North Sea. Since 1996 it has been sequestering,

1 Mt/year (Statoil, 2007). The Weyburn project in southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada, is currently the world's

largest carbon capture and storage project sequestering approximately 2 million tonnes a year (EnCana,

2008). The total global storage capacity for the main geological storage reservoirs was estimated by the IEA

Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (2008) and is summarized in the table below (based on injection costs of up

to USD 20 per tonne of CO2stored). The Commission's CCS Impact Assessment (EC, 2008i) provides storage

estimates per Member State. The calculations were conducted using data from Gestco, Castor and Geocapacity

projects and power generation capacity from the Primes model. The injection capacity was estimated at 0.5 Gt

of CO2up to 2030 (in the most favourable scenario for CCS uptake (5)). Annual energy-related CO

2emissions

in Europe in 2005 were approximately 4 Gt of CO2. Figures estimated in the CCS impact assessment are notdirectly comparable with global capacity estimated by the IEA in the table below.

A number of new pilot plants are being currently

developed around the world. In April 2008, the

TNO-CATO post-combustion pilot plant at the E.ON

coal-fired power plant was officially opened on the

Maasvlakte (TNO-CATO, 2008). This multi-purpose

test facility utilises the post-combustion capture.

The pilot plant diverts flue gases from the power

plant,after which a special amino solvent scrubs

90 % of the CO2

from the flue gases. It is then

regenerated again by heating and extracting the

pure CO2. This is the most advanced capture

technology today. It has the advantage of being easily adaptable to the large existing base of power

stations. In order to reduce the CO2

emissions from existing power plants, post-combustion capture is the

only viable multi-applicable solution. Other methods, such as pre-combustion capture, are only applicable

for new power plants and will, therefore, be only a part of the total solution. However, looking ahead, it is

not yet clear, which option(s) will prove to be more viable in the longer term. For example, Vattenfall are

focusing significant efforts on Oxyfuel technology (with a new 30 MW demonstration plant which opened in

September of 2008), whilst continuing to undertake work on large-scale post-combustion demonstration

projects (Vattenfall, 2008).

(5) The scenario referred to is Option 2, variant 2d, which assumes that from 2020 onwards, apart from enabling CCS under EU ETS, a

mandatory requirement to apply CCS is placed on new coal and gas-fired power plants and that existing plants are being retrofitted

between 2015 and 2020. At the moment, the climate change and energy package does not foresee that such a mandatory

requirement be introduced.

Storage option Total global

capacity Gt CO2

Depleted oil and gas fields 920

Deep saline aquifers 40010 000

Non-minable coal seams > 15

World energy-related CO2emissions in 2005 = 27 Gt CO

2

Source: IEA GHGR&D, 2008; IEA.


17/100



1.1 Greenhouse gas emissions

In 2005, the total greenhouse gas emissions in theEU-27 was 5 177 Mt CO

2-equivalent comprising

82.5 % CO2; 8.1 % CH4; 8.0 % N2O, while theremaining 1.4 % corresponded to the fluorinatedgases. Energy-related emissions continue to be thedominant representing approximately 80 % of thetotal emissions (see Figure 1.1), with the largest

Figure 1.1 Structure of total greenhouse gasemissions by sector, EU27, 2005

Note: (i) Greenhouse gas emissions are those coveredby the Kyoto Protocol and include carbon dioxide(CO

2), methane (CH

4), nitrous oxide (N

2O) and

three fluorinated gases, hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride (SF

6).

(ii) Greenhouse gas emissions have been calculatedin t CO

2-equivalent using the following global

warming potentials (GWP) as specified in the KyotoProtocol: 1 t CH

4= 21 t CO

2-equivalent; 1 t N

2O

= 310 t CO2-equivalent; 1 t SF

6= 23 900 t

CO2-equivalent. HFCs and PFCs have a wide range

of GWPs depending on the gas, and emissions arealready reported in t CO

2-equivalent.

(iii) Emissions from international marine and aviationbunkers are not included in national total emissionsbut are reported separately to the UNFCCC. Theyare, therefore, not included in the graph.

(iv) The energy production sector includes publicelectricity and heat production, refineries and themanufacture of solid fuels. Energy-related fugitiveemissions include releases of gases fromexploration, production, processing, transmission,storage and use of fuels. The vast majority ofenergy-related fugitive emissions are connectedwith activities of the energy production sector.Only a very small percentage of fugitive emissionsare connected with activities of the transportsector. All energy-related fugitive emissions have,therefore, been attributed to the energy productionsector.

(v) 'Services sector' also includes military andenergy-related emissions from agriculture.

Source: EEA, 2007a, as reported by countries to UNFCCC andunder the EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism Decision.

Total emissions = 5 177 Mt CO2-equivalent

Waste3 %

Services sector6 %

Industry13 %

Agriculture9 %

Electricity andheat production

27 %

Energy production

excl. electricity andheat production

5 %

Transport19 %

Households10 %

Industry(processes)

8 %

emitting sector being the production of electricityand heat, followed by transport (see also EEA,2007a for more detailed information on EU-27 GHGemissions).

Sectors showing the largest decreases in greenhousegas emissions are industry and non-energy related(e.g. industrial processes) (see Figure 1.2). However,over the same period emissions from transport in theEU-27 increased significantly due to a continuousincrease in road transport demand, thus offsettingmuch of the decrease in other sectors (see EEA,2008a for further information on transport and theenvironment in the EU).

Between 1990 and 2005, energy-related emissions fell

by 4.4 %. A decline in the use of coal and lignite andan increase in the use of the less carbon-intensivenatural gas also led to a significant reduction of CO

2

emissions per unit of electricity and heat generationin the public power production (see Figure 1.4). Asa result, during the period between 1990 and 2005,the specific greenhouse gas emissions per unit ofenergy consumption decreased in most Member

Figure 1.2 Trends in greenhouse gasemissions by sector between

19902005, EU27

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Mt CO2-equivalent

Non-energy related Services sector

Households Transport

Industry Energy production(incl. fugitive emissions)

Note: See Figure 1.1.

Source: EEA, 2007a, as reported by countries to UNFCCC andunder the EU GHG Monitoring Mechanism Decision.


18/100



States. However, rapidly rising overall demand forelectricity offset some of these improvements. Since1999, GHG emissions started to rise again, withsome fluctuation over the period of 20042005.

The reduction in energy-related emissions was muchsmaller than that observed for non-energy-relatedemissions in agriculture, waste and other sectors.These sectors reduced their emissions substantially by 19.6 % across the EU-27 due to improvedwaste management, emission reductions inindustrial processes (as well as general restructuringleading away from heavy industry, particularly inthe EU-12) and agriculture. While greenhouse gasemissions from the energy production, servicesand industry sectors all decreased between the

years 1990 and 2005, emissions from transport inthe EU-27 rose by 26.0 % over the same period,offsetting some of the reductions from other sectors.

Energy-related emissions continue to dominateemissions per capita across all Member States(see Figure 1.3). Total emissions per capita inLuxembourg are almost double of what they are inEstonia and higher by a factor of six than in Latviaat the other end of the spectrum. The high levelof emissions per capita in Luxembourg is linkedto a high level of GDP in a country with the smallpopulation. However, it is caused, primarily, by the

high cross-border sales of transport fuels (due to the

Figure 1.3 CO2

emissions per capita by country (split by energy and nonenergy relatedemissions), 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Luxembourg

Estonia

C

zech

Republic

Belgium

Ireland

Finland

Netherlands

Germ

any

Cyprus

Greece

Austria

Denm

ark

UnitedKingdom

Poland

SpainItaly

Slovenia

Malta

Slovakia

Bulgaria

France

Portugal

Hungary

Sweden

Romania

Lithuania

Latvia

EU-27

EU-15

EU-12

t CO2

per capita

Non-energy-related emissions Energy-related emissions

Source: EEA; Eurostat.

tax differential with neighbouring countries), withemissions allocated to the point of sale (IEA, 2000).

Average emissions in the EU-15 are around 17.5 %

higher than in the EU-12. A number of opposingtrends drive the evolution of per capita emissions:higher levels of wealth (which tend to increase theoverall levels of energy demand), higher levelsof energy efficiency, climatic differences anddifferences in the structure of the energy supplysystem.

The intensity of carbon dioxide emissions frompublic conventional thermal power plants in theEU-27 decreased by about 27 % during the periodfrom 1990 to 2005, due to improvements introduced

in all Member States. However, increased gasprices towards the end of the period led to a higherutilisation of existing coal plants in some EUMember States and, as a result, the CO

2emissions

intensity has changed relatively little since 2001.Romania, Latvia and Sweden achieved the largestreduction in the intensity of carbon dioxideemissions in the percentage terms in the EU-27,with an average annual decrease of 6.4 %, 5.5 % and5.2 %, respectively. These reductions were largelydue to a significant reduction in the use of heavyoil in Romania (which was partially replaced by gasand partially by coal), while in Latvia, a high level

of CO2 emissions reductions were achieved due to


19/100



Figure 1.4 Emission intensity of carbon dioxide from public conventional thermal power

production

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

t CO2/toe

1990 2005

Lower than average % reduction Greater than average % reduction

Estonia

CzechRe

public

Belgium

Ireland

Finland

Netherlands

Germ

any

Cyprus

Greece

Austria

Denm

ark

UnitedKingdom

Poland

SpainItaly

Slovenia

Malta

Slovakia

Bulgaria

France

Portugal

Hungary

Sweden

Romania

Lithuania

Latvia

EU-27av

erag

e

Note: Emissions intensity is calculated as the amount of pollutant produced (in tonnes) from the public electricity and heatproduction divided by the output of electricity and heat (in toe) from these plants.


the increased use of gas for electricity productionat the expense of coal, lignite and oil. Sweden hadthe lowest CO

2emissions intensity in 2005, mainly

because of a negligible share of coal and lignite inpublic conventional thermal power production.

1.2 Air pollution

Energy production and consumption (6) contributesto approximately 55 % of the EU-27 emissionsof acidifying substances, 76 % of emissions oftropospheric ozone precursors and about 67 %of (primary) particles emissions (see Figure 1.5).Energy-related emissions in transport and energyproduction account for half of all emissions, with thetransport sector particularly dominant in relationto ozone precursors (due to NO

Xemissions). These

have been decreasing steadily since 1990, due to theintroduction of catalytic converters. Agriculture also

contributed with around 25 % of emissions fromacidifying substances due, in part, to the emissionsof ammonia.

Between 1990 and 2005, the energy-related emissionsof acidifying substances, tropospheric ozoneprecursors and particles decreased by 59 %, 45 %and 53 %, respectively (see Figure 1.6).

These emission reductions have been the resultof the increased application and effectiveness ofabatement technologies, improvements in efficiencyand fuel switching. For example, the introductionof flue gas desulphurisation technologies andthe use of low NO

X-burners in power generation

was encouraged by the Large CombustionPlant Directive (EC, 2001c) and the use of bestavailable technologies required by the IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control Directive(EC, 1996). In addition to the use of abatement

(6) The contribution of energy production and consumption includes the following sectors: transport, energy supply, industry (energy)

and other (energy-related).


20/100



Figure 1.5 Emissions of air pollutants by

sector in 2005, EU27

Note: The graph above shows the emissions of ozoneprecursors (methane CH

4; carbon monoxide CO;

non-methane volatile organic compounds NMVOCs; andnitrogen oxides NO

X) each weighted by a factor prior to

aggregation to represent their respective troposphericozone formation potential (TOFP). The TOFP factors areas follows: NO

X1.22, NMVOC 1, CO 0.11 and CH

40.014

(de Leeuw, 2002). Results are expressed in NMVOCequivalents (kilotonnes kt). Data not available:for Iceland (emissions of CO, NMVOC, NO

Xwere not

reported) and Malta (CO). The figure also shows theemissions of acidifying pollutants (sulphur dioxide SO

2,

nitrogen oxides NOX

and ammonia NH3), each weighted

by an acid equivalency factor prior to aggregation torepresent their respective acidification potentials. Theacid equivalency factors are given by: w (SO

2) = 2/64

acid eq/g = 31.25 acid eq/kg, w (NOX) = 1/46 acid

eq/g = 21.74 acid eq/kg and w (NH3) = 1/17 acid eq/g

= 58.82 acid eq/kg. The graph shows the emissions

of primary PM10 particles (particulate matter with adiameter of 10 m or less, emitted directly into theatmosphere).

Source: EEA.

Ozone precursors (2005 total = 27 463 kt)

Other (energy-related)10.3 %

Industry (energy)9.2 %

Transport 41.7 %Energy supply

14.5 %

Waste1.8 %

Agriculture3.1 %

Other (non-energy)14.1 %

Industry (processes)5.2 %

Acidifying substances (2005 total = 893 kt)

Transport17 %

Energy supply25 % Waste

1 %

Agriculture25%

Primary particulate matter (PM10) (2005 total = 2 491 kt)

Waste3 %

Transport21 %

Industry (energy)10 %

Energy supply13 %

Other (energy-related)23 %

Industry (processes)16 %

Other (non-energy)3 %

Agriculture11 %

Other (non-energy)0 %

Industry (processes19 %

Other (energy-related)4 %

Industry (energy)9 %

Figure 1.6 Overall changes in

energyrelated emissions bymain group of air pollutants inthe EU27, 19902005

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ozone precursors Acidifying substances Particles

%

Note: As per Figure 1.5. However, the change in particulatematter includes emissions of both primary andsecondary particulate-forming pollutants (the fractionof sulphur dioxide SO

2, nitrogen oxides NO

Xand

ammonia NH3

which, as a result of photo-chemicalreactions in the atmosphere, transform into particulatematter with a diameter of 10 m or less). Emissionsof the secondary particulate precursor species areweighted by a particle formation factor prior toaggregation: primary PM

10= 1, SO

2= 0.54,

NOX

= 0.88, and (NH3) = 0.64 (de Leeuw, 2002).

Source: EEA.

technologies,substantial emissions reductions havebeen made in the power production sector due toa combination of factors. These are: fuel switching(from coal and oil to natural gas) closure of oldinefficient coal plants and the overall improvementin generation technology, particularly via theuse of combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) (seeEEA, 2008b for further information).

However, rapid reductions in the emissions

intensity from power generation seen in the 1990sslowed in recent years for some air pollutants (suchas SO

2and NO

Xemissions), due to the continuing

rise in the overall electricity consumption and arise in the use of coal for electricity generation from1999 onwards.

In the transport sector, the introduction of catalyticconverters contributed significantly to reduceemissions. This was complemented by the EUlegislative measures aimed at improving petrol anddiesel quality, such as reducing the sulphur contentof these fuels.

Despite reduced emissions of air pollutants, urbanair quality still often exceeds the limit values set


21/100



for protection of public health, especially in thestreets and other urban hotspots (EEA, 2006). Eventhough the situation has improved, acidification,eutrophication and high ozone levels continue

to have adverse effects on many ecosystems. The'Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution' calls for furtherreductions in air pollutant emissions by 2020 toachieve long-term air quality targets (EC, 2005a).

It is expected that future emissions of most airpollutants in the EU-27 are likely to continueto fall (IIASA, 2007a), especially those from thetraditionally dominant source sectors (e.g. roadtransport and energy production). Thus, othersectors for which there is currently a less stringentlegislation are likely to become a significant

source of emissions in the future (e.g. emissionsof SO2

and NOX

from maritime activities). Tighteremission standards and policy measures are beingconsidered by the Commission to complementthose set by the International MaritimeOrganisation (IIASA, 2007b). Ceilings for total(i.e. energy- and non-energy related) emissions ofsulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia andnon-methane volatile organic compounds wereset for 2010 in the National Emissions CeilingsDirective (NECD; EC, 2001a). In addition, inApril of 2008, another directive was adopted onambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.

This new document merges four other directivesand one Council decision into a single directive,

Figure 1.7 Change in the emissions

intensity (per toe) ofenergyrelated air pollutants inthe EU27, 19902005


58.9 %

41.5 %

60.4 %

49.3 %

72.8 %

134.5 %

52.5 %

46.8 %

100 50 0 50 100 150

CO

NOX

NMVOC

CH4

SO2

NH3

Primary PM

Secondary PM

%

which introduces standards for air quality in theEuropean Union in terms of fine particle PM

2.5

pollution.

The intensity of most energy-related air pollutantemissions (i.e. in kg of emissions per tonne ofoil-equivalent of energy consumed) declinedsignificantly over the period of 19902005. Inparticular, there was a significant drop in theintensity of carbon monoxide (CO), non-methanevolatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and SO

2

emissions. A key factor contributing to the decreasein CO and NMVOC intensity was the introductionof catalytic converters in cars and the increasedpenetration of diesel cars into vehicle fleets. Thedecline in SO

2intensity occurred primarily in

the sphere of electricity generation due to theintroduction of abatement technologies and aswitch from high sulphur-containing fuels (suchas coal and heavy fuel oil) to natural gas, coupledwith the use of coal with a lower sulphur content.The increase in intensity of NH

3emissions is due,

partly, to the increasing use of SCR (selectivecatalytic reduction) in power generation used toreduce NO

Xemissions. SCR can utilise various

forms of ammonia as a reducing agent, but if thecatalyst temperatures are not in the optimal rangefor the reaction, or if too much ammonia is injectedinto the process, unreacted NH

3can be released

(known as ammonia slip).

The direct emissions (7) of CO2, SO

2and NO

Xfrom

electricity and heat generation depend on boththe amount of electricity and heat generated andthe emissions per unit produced. The fuel mix inpower generation influences the latter, as well asthe overall generation efficiency, and, in the caseof NO

Xand SO

2, the extent to which abatement

techniques need to be applied.

If the structure of electricity and heat production

had remained unchanged since 1990, i.e. if theshares of input fuels and efficiency had remainedconstant, emissions would have increased in linewith the increase in electricity and heat production.This hypothetical development is indicated in thetop line of the charts.

The estimated effects of the various factors onemission reductions are shown in each of the bars.

The main factors in reducing CO2

emissions fromelectricity and heat generation are the improvementin efficiency and fuel switching (from coal togas), and to a much lesser extent the change inthe contribution of renewables in certain years.However, in 2002 and 2003, the share of renewables(7) Figure 1.8. does not consider life-cycle emissions.


22/100



Figure 1.8 Estimated impact of different factors on the reduction of CO2, SO

2and NO

X

emissions from public heat and electricity generation in the EU27, 19902005


1 000

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

Emissions of nitrogen dioxide (Ktonnes)

Change due to efficiency improvement

Change due to fossil fuel switching

Change due to share of nuclear

Change due to share of renewables (excluding biomass)

Change due to abatement

Actual NOX

emissions

Hypothetical emissions if no changes had occurred

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

2005






Actual SO2emissions

Hypothetical emissions if no changes had occurred19

90

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

2005

2 000

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

Emissions of sulphur dioxide (Ktonnes)

250

0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

Emissions of carbon dioxide (Mtonnes)






Actual CO2 emissionsHypothetical emissions if no changes had occurred

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

2005


23/100



was relatively low, due to limited hydroelectricityproduction as a result of low levels of rainfall.The share of nuclear in electricity production in2005 was also below its 1990-levels, which led to

increased emissions (as indicated via the very smallnegative portion of the bar for this year).

For SO2

and NOX

emission reductions, thedominant factor appears to be the use of abatementtechnology, as it accounts for the most significantdifference between the hypothetical line and theactual level of emissions. Efficiency improvementsand fuel switching also played an important role inemissions reductions of these pollutants, although

Figure 1.9 Emissions of acidifying substances, ozone precursors and particulate matter(primary and secondary) per capita, 2005

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

EU-27

EU-15

EU-12

Latvia

Sweden

Germany

Netherlands

Italy

AustriaSlovakia

United Kingdom,

Hungary

France

Lithuania

Belgium

Finland

Luxembourg

Portugal

Czech Republic

Slovenia

Denmark

Romania

Poland

Malta

Spain

Greece

Cyprus

Ireland

Estonia

Bulgaria

Kg/capita of acidifying substances

Energy-related emissions Total emissions

the latter was more significant in the case of SO2

due to an additional switch towards low-sulphurcoal. From around 1999 onwards, the decrease inSO

2emissions slowed significantly, whilst NO

X

emissions have broadly, stabilised.

Due to a range of factors, per capita emissions ofair pollutants vary significantly across the MemberStates. These include: the level of demand forenergy, the energy supply mix, level of efficiencyand abatement technologies employed, as wellas the mix of economic sectors. For example, thegreater prevalence of agriculture in some MemberStates leads to higher non-energy related emissions.



24/100



Figure 1.9 Emissions of acidifying substances, ozone precursors and particulate matter(primary and secondary) per capita, 2005 (cont.)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

EU-27

EU-15

EU-12

Netherlands

Germany

Slovakia

Romania

Hungary

Cyprus

Malta

Lithuania

United Kingdom

Italy

France

Czech Republic

IrelandSweden

Poland

Austria

Slovenia

Belgium

Latvia

Bulgaria

Portugal

Estonia

Greece

Luxembourg

Spain

Denmark

Finland

Kg/capita of ozone precursors



25/100



Figure 1.9 Emissions of acidifying substances, ozone precursors and particulate matter(primary and secondary) per capita, 2005 (cont.)


0 20 40 60 80 100 120

EU-27

EU-15

EU-12

Germany

Latvia

Netherlands

Italy

Sweden

Lithuania

Slovakia

Hungary

United Kingdom

Austria

France

Belgium

SloveniaCzech Republic

Romania

Luxembourg

Poland

Portugal

Denmark

Finland

Ireland

Malta

Cyprus

Spain

Greece

Estonia

Bulgaria

Kg/capita of particulate matter (primary and secondary)



26/100



1.3 Other energyrelated environmentalpressures

Whilst the primary focus of this report relates to the

use and supply of energy as well as emissions ofair pollutants and greenhouse gas, a range of otherenergy-related environmental pressures may alsooccur.

Nuclear waste

The European Commission and the EuropeanCouncil, in its conclusions of 8/9 March 2007(EC, 2007e), noted that nuclear energy could alsomake a contribution towards addressing growingconcerns about the security of energy supply

and reduction of CO2 emissions. Following theCouncil's decision, the European Forum for NuclearEnergy (8) was established to provide a platform fora broad discussion among all stakeholders on theopportunities and risks of nuclear energy. Nuclearpower has also been included in the EuropeanStrategic Energy Plan (EC, 2006b) as one of the keylow-carbon technologies. However, the use of nuclearenergy also generates nuclear waste, which must becarefully stored and disposed of. While final disposalmethods exist for low- and medium-nuclear waste,solutions for a permanent disposal of high-levelnuclear waste are yet to be found. To date, Finland

remains the only European country with a clearstrategy and a time frame for implementing measuresfor permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

The annual quantity of spent fuel is determinedby the quantity of electricity produced by nuclearpower plants but also by other factors, such asthe plant type and efficiency. However, even withstable or decreasing annual quantities of spent fuel,the highly radioactive nuclear waste continues toaccumulate. Work is underway to establish finaldisposal methods that can alleviate technical and

public concerns over the potential threat that thiswaste poses to the environment and human health.In the meantime, the waste accumulates in dry andwet storage facilities.

A limited decline in the annual quantity of spentfuel (approximately 5 %) was registered over theperiod from 1990 to 2006, while the electricityproduced by nuclear installations, over the sameperiod, increased by approximately 20 %. Very fewnew nuclear power plants have come online since1990, while several plants in the United Kingdom,

Figure 1.10 Annual quantities of spentnuclear fuel arising from nuclearpower plants in the EU (tonnes of

heavy metal)

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Netherlands

Lithuania

Italy

Hungary

Germany

France

Finland

Czech Republic

Belgium

198

2

198

6

199

0

199

4

200

0

200

4

198

4

198

8

199

2

199

6

200

2

200

6

Tonnes of heavy metal

Note: No information has been included for Bulgaria due to alack of data.

Source: OECD, 2007; IAEA, 2003b; NEA, 2007.

(8) Further information on the Forum's activities is available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/index_en.htm.

Lithuania, Germany, Sweden and Bulgaria havebeen shut down. The reduction in spent fuel arisingper unit of power is driven by a combination ofdifferent factors, including an increase in plantavailability in the past decades (reduced the number

of start-ups), an improvement in net plant electricefficiency and improvements in fuel enrichmentand burnup (WNA, 2003). The large variations inthe United Kingdom are primarily linked to thedecommissioning of a number of older nuclearpower plants. During a normal operation, only afraction of the reactor core is refuelled each year andthe corresponding spent fuel removed hence thelimited correlation between the amount of spent fuelsent to storage and the electric output of the plant.However, during decommissioning the reactor iscompletely de-fuelled.


27/100



Figure 1.11 Total stored amount of high levelwaste

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

In storage,2005

Arising,2005

In storage,2006

Arising,2006

Tonnes of heavy metal

Bulgaria

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Romania

Netherlands

Lithuania

Italy

Hungary

Germany

France

Finland

Czech Republic

Belgium

Note: No information has been included for Bulgaria due to alack of data.

Source: OECD, 2007; IAEA, 2003b; NEA, 2007.

Spent fuel is first stored for several years (usually< 10, but sometimes > 20) in spent fuel ponds 'atreactor' until the heat generation and radiationof the spent fuel is sufficiently low to allow forhandling. After this period, fuel is either reprocessedor temporarily stored. Temporary storage, for a

period of 50100 years is required, to decreasefurther radioactivity and the heat generation of thespent fuel before final storage. Spent fuel in the EUis temporarily stored in both wet and dry storagesystems. Facilities are designed to limit radiation tosurroundings and to remove the heat from the spentfuel. Storage capacity in western and eastern Europe'away from reactor' is approximately 66 ktonnes ofheavy metals, of which approximately 53 ktonnes iswet storage (IAEA, 2003b). Interim storage facilitiesrange from bunkers, able to withstand airplanecrashes (such as Habog in the Netherlands), toopen air storage in canisters. There is, at present, nocommercial storage facility for permanent storage ofHLW (HLW = high-level waste). Facilities are beingdesigned and planned to become operational in

20202025 in Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, theNetherlands, Spain, Sweden and France.

Pollution from oil spills

Oil pollution from coastal refineries, offshoreinstallations and maritime transport putsignificant pressures on the marine environment.The consistency of spilled oil can cause surfacecontamination and smother marine biota. Inaddition, its chemical components can cause acutetoxic effects and long-term impacts. Since 1990, oildischarges from offshore installations and coastalrefineries have diminished, despite increases in oilproduction and the ageing of many major oil fields(see Figure 1.12). This improvement is mainly the

result of the increased application of cleaning andseparation technologies.

Discharges of oil from offshore installations canoccur from the production water, drill cuttings, spillsand flaring operations. Despite the one-off increaseof oil discharges from offshore installations in 1997,which was mainly due to an exceptional accidentalspillage, it is expected that further reductions ofoil discharges will continue in the future, partlyas a result of the new regulation on drill cuttings(OSPAR, 2000), which entered into force in 2000.

Figure 1.12 Oil production and discharges

from offshore oil installations inthe northeast Atlantic

0

2 500

5 000

7 500

10 000

12 500

15 000

17 500

20 000

Discharges (tonnes)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Production (million tonnes)

Discharges Production

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2002

2004

2003

Note: Data available only from Denmark, Germany, Ireland,the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Norway; hence,coverage is restricted to the north-east Atlantic;no data for 1991 and 1993.

Source: OSPAR, 2006; Eurostat.


28/100



On the other hand, tanker oil spills continue tooccur, although both their frequency and thevolumes involved seem to have declined over thepast decade (see Figure 1.13). However, this trend

is largely dependent on the occurrence of largetanker accidents, as a few very large accidents areresponsible for a high percentage of the oil spiltfrom maritime transport. Such major accidentsstill occur at irregular intervals. Nevertheless,it is encouraging that the improvement tookplace despite a continued rise in the maritimetransport of oil. Increased safety measures, suchas the introduction of double-hulled tankers (asmandated by the IMO), have contributed to thispositive trend. Further increases in maritime safetyare also supported by the EU in the proposed

third maritime safety package (EC, 2005c) and theproposed accelerated introduction of double-hulltankers (EC, 2006c).

Accidental oil tanker spills into the European seasdecreased significantly over the past 17 years.From the total amount of oil spilt in large accidents(i.e. more than 7 tonnes) during the 19902005

Figure 1.13 Large (> 7 tonnes) tanker spills in European waters 19902007

Source: ITOPF, 2008.

period (553 000 tonnes), two thirds were spilt overthe period of 19901994. During the two five-yearperiods (19951999 and 20002004), around19 % and 14 % were spilt, respectively. In 2005,

2 100 tonnes were released into the environment.However, this trend is largely dependent on theoccurrence of large accidents, as a few very largeaccidents are responsible for a high percentage ofthe oil spilt from maritime transport. For example,during the period 19902005, of 106 accidental spillsover 7 tonnes, just 7 accidents (causing spills ofaround 20 000 tonnes or more) account for 89 % ofthe spilt oil volume (causing spills of around 20 000tonnes or more). The map does not include spillsand discharges below 7 tonnes.

Other environmental pressures.

Further environmental pressures also arise fromthe energy-related use of land for power plants,refineries, transmission lines, mining operations,etc. This can lead to degradation and fragmentationof ecosystems. In addition, combustion plants(particularly coal and lignite) release small

605040

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0

-10

-10-20-30-40

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

300 500 1000 1500 Km

Tanker spills above

7 tonnes in Europeanseas 19902007

20052007

20002004

19951999

19901994

770

0

700

20000

>2000

0 tonnes


29/100



quantities of heavy

eea-energy and environment report 2008

Documents