What Paths Can Lead the Czech Republic to Emission-Free Electricity

One of the key steps to achieving carbon neutrality is decarbonisation It will not be easy or quick - even for wealthy Europeans, it represents a significant and economic challenge for the next 20 to 30 years.

Therefore, we need to understand the pitfalls that await us on this one, and have a clearer idea of ​​where we actually want to go How should the European electricity industry change? The following text offers a basic survey of this complex terrain.

This text is part of a series of texts on the cornerstones of zero emissions In the first part, we will mainly focus on the following questions: At the beginning, it is necessary to mention the basic context for all considerations about the decarbonization of the electricity industry: .

We need to fundamentally limit greenhouses in sectors where we burn fossil fuels: in , in , in heating, in In many cases, electrification is the most advantageous, or even the only realistic possibility of replacing this burning of fossil fuels.

For the remaining areas where it is not suitable (e g.

in va or in industrial processes with high temperatures), a large amount of use or synthetic fuels produced from excess is also expected In other words, this means that we will need it even where we have not needed it so far (thanks to the use of fossil fuels).

So the problem we are solving is much more difficult than just how to replace existing sources with low-emission ones , so , is a unit.

At present, one is produced annually by a smaller one, and one is consumed by about 700,000 households For simplicity, in this series of texts we will assume successive up to , as shown in the following graph.

This roughly corresponds to estimates The pace in the coming decades and the resulting in depends very much on the course of electrification in the heating industry, and .

Compared to our curve, some of the studies predict a slower pace until 2035 and, conversely, a faster pace between 2035-2050 Another parameter that complicates the whole thing is the speed with which we need to perform the transformation.

all sectors that produce greenhouses The amount of emissions that we as humanity can still release into the atmosphere, if we want to keep the average warming to 1.

5 °C in accordance with the Paris Agreement, is denoted by the so-called With current emissions, we would exhaust our remaining carbon for warming up to 1.

5 °C in about 10 Therefore, it is crucial to reduce the global already this decade.

But it is also important to add that if by the end of this decade and with the help available today we manage to reduce the electricity industry to perhaps 50% of current values, we will gain more time to eliminate other emissions and more time for development, which are not yet commercially available However, we must not let up even after that.

When we manage to reduce the electricity sector to approx 10% of the current values, we will draw the remaining carbon 10x slower, and we can thus allow ourselves to be more prudent for the remaining decarbonization.

More information on individual sources is offered in the next part of this series The modeling of the future electric power industry must take into account the above-mentioned starting points.

In this text, we will work with the following categories of sources for emission-free production in the Czech Republic: Currently, these three categories of sources only partially cover the rest, the rest is still based on high-emission sources - the use of fossil fuels: For example, we need some degree of use of low-emission flexible sources in every scenario, more but we will need them when using the sun a lot and Another strategic decision is how much we want to that is, which part we definitely want to cover from Czech sources.

We could do the rest - if the production capacities of the surrounding areas and the possibility of a cross-border transmission system allow it A number of features are important for the future mix of the Czech electricity industry.

In addition to this, we want to highlight 5 other properties: For the electrical network to function, it is necessary that it always corresponds to If we do not have sufficient technical tools to ensure the stability of the network, we are in danger of having devastating effects on society and the economy.

Another important condition for the stability of the network is , i e.

the consistency of production and in different seasons For simplicity, we will only divide it into two seasons: (April–September) and (October–March).

The season significantly affects production: in the summer half, for example, 3x more is produced from the sun than in the winter half The season also affects: it is about 20% higher in the winter half than in the summer.

And if there is significant heating in the coming decades, it can even be 40-50% higher in winter than in summer When deciding on the mix, the total future costs of - i.

e the sum of investment and operating costs - also play an important role.

Producers, transmission and distribution system operators and These costs are likely to be slightly higher than today (however, this comparison can be somewhat misleading in the sense that we usually do not include all the negatives in the costs, such as air pollution or impacts on ) Nevertheless, we absolutely need it to be affordable in the future and to ensure a sufficient standard for all layers of society.

In general, it can be said that the lower the costs of emission-free production will be, the easier the entire transformation will be - both politically, so economically In the Czech Republic, we have extensive central supply systems.

And since they also produce , the solution for the decarbonization of the electric power industry is necessarily linked to the solution for the decarbonization of heating plants Part of these systems can be electrified (with large pumps that, for example, use waste from sewage treatment plants), but such a solution is not applicable everywhere.

Others (using biomass, biogas or green) can fulfill the role of backup sources to balance fluctuations in the sun and Small modular reactors could also be used in the heating industry in the future.

Currently, more than half of the final v comes from imported a So the key question is: how do we reduce our dependence on each individual , from which these come? And how and how much can we reduce our addiction in general? Other risks are also related to security and transformation: huge risks, the risk of a "dead end" (when, for example, we bet too much on a specific future), the risk of social instability if the transformation does not go well.

So it is far from "just" the risk of the impacts of climate change even private ones face a lot of big decisions, the consequences of which cannot always be predicted clearly enough.

All actors (and above all) must reckon with all these risks and reduce their probability and possible impacts with an appropriate strategy With the help of the following three scenarios, we want to show the basic possibilities of how the growing cover could be covered in the next decades.

At the same time, each of these scenarios is a certain extreme - in practice, we will undoubtedly end up choosing a compromise between these extremes All three scenarios rely on a large amount of sun and - without their use, it simply won't work in the next few decades.

This scenario requires the most significant development of renewable sources ( ), i e.

mainly local, but also assumes a considerable part of production from flexible sources As part of flexible resources, it is mainly about the deployment of domestic for long-term storage.

However, this is still not cheap enough (compared to incineration) to gain market acceptance in the Czech Republic , reduces demands for production from flexible sources and, to a lesser extent, for domestic production from the sun and .

However, this scenario depends on how much will be produced in other countries It also requires the construction of additional interconnectors (mainly power lines), which are expensive and have a difficult approval process.

it makes sense only in combination with development and wind Because we are not able to build so many new blocks to cover the whole .

Although development reduces the pressure on other categories of resources, it can also during the 20th century and 30 limit development and (will reduce their return, possibly even the willingness to subsidize them).

This would increase overall production from fossil sources and thus CO2 For comparison, let's also look at possible unsuccessful scenarios, i.

e what would mean, for example, a small development of production from the sun and a delay in possible constructions*: If we bet on the sun and and at the same time, it will be difficult to cover the growing and replace the aging sources.

In the worst case, this can also lead to an increase in production from fossil sources It can happen (which has already happened in the world in the past).

Nor does it have to lead to catastrophic accumulated CO2 emissions if we , there probably won't be enough will between or in the business to develop significantly sun and .

In this case, there is a risk of accumulated CO2 In practice, in all these failed scenarios, generation spillovers from the sun and from abroad would help.

However, without the strategic development of transmission systems, import options are limited Equally important is strategic preparation for the development of others, whether those for seasonal accumulation or for reducing the impacts of fossil production.

This will allow us to react more quickly to possible problems and failures in the selected scenario * For easier comparison, we keep the same development even in these unsuccessful scenarios.

In fact, failures in decarbonisation would probably also lead to slower electrification and therefore slower growth We elaborate on the illustrative scenarios above in the following text to make it more obvious how to choose between them.

In the electrical network, it must always be (roughly) the same as its If this is not the case, there may be, or in an extreme case even the so-called, i.

E A Widespread Interruption Of Supply

This is especially challenging if when a substantial part in the network comes from and sources whose production is highly variable The basic tool is the so-called , i.

e sufficient output of controllable sources, which can cover , even if it is not shining or blowing.

In terms of a zero-emissions future, we are interested in two different time horizons: Short-term balancing is a bit easier because we have resources available that we cannot operate at such a sustained rate Whether it is resources with a limited volume of annual production (e.

g or biogas and biomass) or investment-intensive storage facilities with limited capacity ( , storage facilities, etc.

) Or Resources With High Operating Costs (e G

gas resources using CCS) However, even this short-term balancing act is not always easy.

If there are no conditions on a given day (no light or wind), it will produce nothing or almost nothing And even if we include stable production from , anyway we need to cover another 200-250 in the course of such a day.

At the same time, the capacity of Dlouhý, the largest in , is roughly 3 Each of our three illustrative scenarios will require substantial short-term settlement tools, so we will cover this topic in a separate explainer.

, which is higher than summer, and resources won't help us much in the winter.

Even if we succeeded in the ambitious development of wind power and added to it production from the existing and enough production from the sun so that we would have enough in the summer and at the same time not have major surpluses (for which we would then have to decide where to go with them), in the winter we would still have a substantial amount was missing.

As the following illustration shows, in this period we would , for which we would have to use additional resources Our illustrative scenarios include three methods.

We can: However, it is not necessary to cover the entire difference between winter production and Others can also be used: From all this it follows that, possibly a large amount of biomass or fossil resources with the use of CCS.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the above-mentioned takes into account the ambitious development of wind power If we fail to develop sufficiently, the gap in winter coverage will continue to deepen significantly, which will make the whole problem even more difficult.

For simplicity, we will focus here on So what will be the total investment and operating costs of all the actors that together make up the electricity system? This number can only be estimated, based on published costs for comparables around the world.

In this text, we will use today's individual prices and do not count on their expected discount in the future In other words – we offer a conservative estimate: at .

We find only small differences in the estimated costs between the individual scenarios mentioned To make future cost estimates meaningful, we need to compare them to current costs.

According to the rough estimates of the Climate Fact, Of this fuel was about 30 billion, about 20 billion , investment costs of about 55-115 billion , operating costs of about 35 billion and the remaining 60 billion went to the operation of the entire network, paid for through the regulated component Overall, however, system costs in / rise to 350 billion per year (5.

60 ) Most of this increase goes to the debit many times higher.

It should be added that because of the rules on the market even more significantly, which affects end customers Rough estimate of current system costs for v (2018–2021), excl.

In 2011, the Center for Environmental Issues estimated this at less than 40 billion per year, which would add about another 60 pennies per We used a similar procedure to estimate system costs for our three illustrative scenarios.

It should be emphasized that it is not enough to simply multiply by the production mix in the scenario to make such an estimate (calculated in today's prices, i.

E Not Included)

Although these costs are potentially slightly higher than in 2018, this does not mean any significant increase that would endanger households and In the same way, these resulting costs can be lower if the necessary ones can be made cheaper in the next decades.

Slight differences in costs understandably also arise between individual scenarios, with the green scenario emerging as the most expensive This is not surprising, as it requires the largest total (when including surpluses for seasonal storage).

However, each of these estimates is subject to some uncertainty, and so these differences need to be interpreted with caution: in terms of system costs, all our illustrative scenarios are comparable It should be added that .

Investment costs account for roughly half of the total system costs in all three scenarios, so the European ones can significantly ease consumers' future bills as a result Production and distribution represent absolutely key infrastructure.

Her At the same time, however, a wide range of risks associated with the preservation of the current state, or a too slow and cautious transformation, also comes.

We present the basics of both groups of risks below, we go into greater detail for transformational risks of various risks associated with the transformation and non-transformation of the electric power industry (and specific examples) In simple terms, it can be said that: To reduce the risks associated with the transformation, we can use several basic tools: So significantly and for long-term accumulation, for importing renewables from abroad and also as a partial replacement for aging ones.

However, such a breadth of scope only makes sense if we can make real progress on all these fronts For the transition of the Czech Republic to emission-free electricity, several basic conclusions follow from this: We need to maximize the installation and, in particular, a significantly higher share of resources fits well into many subsequent transformation scenarios.

In addition, there is no other that can contribute to reducing emissions so quickly The potential is limited in the Czech Republic, but still: its use depends to a large extent on clear strategic support from .

We need to strengthen cooperation across the board and speed up further interconnection and strengthening of transmission systems This means aligning national concepts more so that together they form a functional European mix.

Then it will be possible to continue the strategic interconnection of transmission systems Specifically, to the sea, to the southern sun in winter, or to the green.

Equally Closer European cooperation in this area will be a key tool to reduce the costs and risks of the transformation of the electric power industry in the Czech Republic.

We need to support the development of a wide range of solutions for balancing the highly variable production from the sun and This will allow us to further reduce from fossil sources, and even gradually reduce the installed power that uses them Many of the flexible resources require long-term planning, support and preparation: infrastructure development is needed for production or import, they require the preparation and construction of carbon storage facilities, and it is necessary to change the way of handling and managing the landscape.

Sufficient development of these tools thus depends on long-term strategic support We need a realistic strategy about the future In other words: we need a political decision on how significant a role it should play in our electricity industry in 30 .

Development can make the move away from fossil fuels a little easier in the Czech Republic However, the possibilities of this development are limited: it will not help us in rapid decarbonization and it cannot cover our entire .

Moreover, they have been standing for some time and are getting old, so even maintaining the current production of z will be a big challenge for the Czech Republic Of course, we can also decide to abandon development and rely on other sources and imports, or wait for the further development of the situation with small modular reactors.

conventional represents a huge investment risk that they are unable to bear alone So if we want to build them, it will require support or a guaranteed purchase price.

Comparing the costs and risks of individual scenarios is fraught with uncertainty, therefore, it is reasonable to develop zero-emissions in several directions As we show in our illustrative scenarios: more leads to zero-emissions.

Since each of them is associated with considerable risks, it is reasonable (at least in the next decade) to strive for the ambitious development of several types of emission-free sources and thereby reduce the overall risk If future development shows that one of the offered ones is significantly safer and more advantageous, further development can go more in that direction.

And as a reminder: above all these strategic points there is a point that is not discussed in this text: We need to continue saving and better use domestic secondary resources (such as waste) At the same time, it is not just a matter of saving costs - the limited development potential in the Czech Republic has more emission-free resources, so the lower its total will be, the easier it will be to cover it.

The scenarios in this text are compiled to illustrate basic development options So it is not about optimizing system costs, nor about optimizing greenhouse emissions.

The realism of these scenarios is verified at an hourly resolution using Additional inputs and calculations are in the accompanying .

Technically speaking, this is net and transmission and distribution losses Therefore, we omit components dependent on the mix from the gross: own and pumping.

In the case of a large use of the sun, overproduction occurs easily at certain moments Therefore, in the graphs we do not show how much the resource produces in total, but how much of it is directly usable, i.

e to what extent the resource will contribute to covering the current demand.

However, it is possible to save part of the excess and use it later, this will then appear in the category of flexible resources For simplicity, we divide into two parts – we mean period , then period .

This means that we will be able to produce 30 per Although this is about 50 times more than today, it is still significantly less than the technical potential of wind in the Czech Republic (and close to how the southern part already uses its potential today).

For comparison: in se, biomass and biogas produced 4 7 and 6.

4 net respectively About 20 biomass was needed for this.

Furthermore, about 30% of solid biomass is burned directly in households, and another 8% produces 3 2% of biodiesel (during production, which is a big loss).

Overall, today in the Czech Republic, the primary production of biomass for purposes is around 60 per year We would need at least 100 biomass to produce all the missing (ie 30 ) and another large amount (say again 30 ), while the additional biomass will certainly be consumed in households and .

In total, we would therefore consume at least 2x more biomass than today We work mostly with estimates from a consulting agency.

Based on these sources, we compile the coefficients for our system costs For 2018, we expect an average of 25 per ton of carbon dioxide.

However, we already take an average of 80 per ton Unlike other system costs, they provide , which can be reinvested in decarbonization (either through the Union or ).

On the other hand, these are costs that customers pay for and that will disappear in the future with a low-emission mix The number 90 best expresses, i.

e not the actual amount of the individual repayments.

We make an exception in the calculation for ua , for which we take an estimate of investment costs around 2010 (when most of them were built), and for ua , for which we only estimate the investment costs associated with extending its operation until the mid-40s If we only considered one-third investment costs for a, total investment costs will drop by about 40 billion.

It includes costs for distribution and transmission systems (operation, , losses in the network; on the order of 50 billion per year) and costs for maintaining stability in the network (up to 10 billion per year) For this calculation, we take the production mix and assume an average price at the level of 150.

System costs primarily for production from , where operating costs have risen significantly due to the price of fuel Operating costs for other sources did not change significantly.

However, today (as the so-called) determines the sold price, which pushes up the price for end customers as well For producers from currently cheaper sources (such as renewable sources, or ), it creates significant (so-called ) on the market.

Surplus production from the sun and does not incur any additional costs (since the built resources produce practically for free) However, the system costs include the costs of building these.

Typically, these investment costs are calculated on the produced by them Thus, we must count not only the part of production that is used directly, but also the part of production that is redundant at the given moment in the system costs.

This excess production is ideally largely utilized, due to flexibility, or put into short-term or long-term storage For an approximate idea: 5 steam-gas plants with CCS would require around 300 billion.

At an interest rate of 8% and 30 years of operation, this creates costs of about 25 billion per year associated with the normal renewal and development of the transmission and distribution system, today they are around 20 billion per year (see , ch.

7) These costs are paid from the regulated component.

However, with the growing needs for new ones, it is expected to reach 30 billion per year Moreover, these estimates are based on relatively cautious plans to develop solar generation and , so in reality they probably won't be enough, especially for .

For comparison: the costs of approx 500 km of underground 2 HVDC cable being built in se converted to 110 billion.

The price of one kilometer of such a connection roughly corresponds to Similarly, but it can become significantly more expensive.

A similar distance separates the Czech Republic from the Baltic Sea However, if we need to import a lot, we will need several times this transfer capacity.

Additional costs in the amount of several tens per year are therefore definitely not an exaggerated estimate Two new large units would supply approx.

15 per year If the investment costs of this production rise from 80 to 160, this means additional costs 2 for one of these sources, i.

E A Total Of About 30 Billion Per Year

We are a team of independent analysts and experts who strive to make the discussion in our country about climate change factual, cultivated and based on scientific knowledge and verified data Climate change is a complex complex of interrelated phenomena.

The data we collect, sort and process therefore touch various fields of human activity – from economics to politics to energy We do research and analytical work.

We look for what is relevant in the data for a deeper understanding of climate change, its impacts and possible solutions We focus on what is essential for the Czech context and Czech society.

More information at: its impacts and possible solutions We focus on what is essential for the Czech context and Czech society.

More information at: its impacts and possible solutions We focus on what is essential for the Czech context and Czech society.

More information at:.