Helsinki energy decision 2015

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Scope

Question

What options does Helsinki have for main energy solutions, and which options are good or bad in terms of

  • climate mitigation,
  • stability (fuel availability etc),
  • cost to the city and citizens,
  • environment,
  • biofuel use,
  • national energy balance,
  • domestic source,
  • health?[1]

Intended use and users

Helsinki City Council will make a major decision in autumn 2015 about renovating old power plants, building a new one, or some other option replacing the need of the old power plants. Therefore, the City Council is the major user of the assessment. There are also secondary uses, such as informing national energy discussion and demonstrating the usefulness of an open combined energy balance and building model.

Participants

The work is coordinated by Jouni Tuomisto from THL / Impact Assessment Unit. Their motivation is to assess the environmental health aspects of the decision. Participants that we hope get involved when they are informed about the assessment include (not in any particular order)

  • THL: Jouni, Pauli, Teemu, Matleena, Julia, Olli
  • the City of Helsinki,
  • Helen energy company,
  • Jorma Jokiniemi (expert in emission factors from UEF),
  • Osmo Soininvaara (politician, economist from Helsinki),
  • Peter Lund (energy expert from Aalto University),
  • Niko Karvosenoja (air emission expert from SYKE),
  • Sanna Syri (energy expert from SYKE),
  • Sanni Väisänen (expert in greenhouse gas emission factors).
  • Matti Jantunen (expert in environmental health, exposure, and energy)
  • Satu Taavitsainen, parliamentarist, chairman of Mikkeli city council [2]
  • Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen (energy costs and pricing, SYKE [3])

Boundaries

  • Time: 2015 - 2060
  • Energy need estimated for Helsinki.
  • Main focus is on local heat and power need. Energy balance estimated for Helsinki (electricity nationally).
  • Health impacts estimated for the regional area (ca. 300 km radius)
  • Impacts are assessed separately for the citizen, the city, Helen energy company, and Finland.
  • Transport is not looked at although it is an important energy consumer. This is because there is no interaction with heating except via city structure, and there are no resources to look at that in this assessment. Electric cars would have an interaction with electricity production, but that applies to the total electricity market area (Finland, partly Scandinavia) and is too complex to look at.

Decisions and scenarios

Main article: Helsinki energy decision options 2015

The two options in the official decision preparation are Hanasaari shutdown and Vuosaari, and Hanasaari 40 bio and Salmisaari 40 bio. However, also other options have been suggested, and also they are evaluated at least superficially.

  1. BAU: Only small, essential renovations are made to current power plants to stay within new emission limits.
  2. Vuosaari: A new power plant is built in Vuosaari with the capacity to burn 100 % wood-based fuel or any combination of wood-based fuels and coal.
  3. Hanasaari shutdown: The Hanasaari powerplant is shut down, demolished and apartment buildings are built in its place.
  4. Hanasaari 40 bio: The Hanasaari power plant is renovated to burn 40% wood-based fuels and 60% coal.
  5. Salmisaari 40 bio: The Salmisaari power plants are renovated to burn 40% wood-based fuels and 60% coal.
  6. Loviisa nuclear CHP: A third nuclear power plant is built in Loviisa and the heat is used for district heating in Helsinki.
  7. Neste excess heat: The excess heat from the Neste's oil refinery in Porvoo is used for district heating in Helsinki.
  8. Decentralised energy production: The amount of decentralised energy production is increased as much as possible. Practically this means building a lot more solar panels, geothermal power, small-scale wood burning and wind mills around Helsinki.
  9. Large heat pumps: Big heat pumps are installed to draw heat from the Baltic sea or deep from the ground to produce district heating.
  10. Energy saving: With huge energy saving campaigns and by renovating buildings to be more energy efficient the amount of required energy is decreased significantly.

Timing

The assessment started in May 2015. First draft results are expected before midsummer 2015. Final results should be available well before the City Council makes the decision in autumn, which means that results should exist by September 15th, 2015.

Answer

Results

Conclusions

Rationale

Causal diagram for the assessment.

Politics is not about getting your mind. It is about learning about good and bad actions based on values. Negotiations are useful only when you know which actions promote your values.

Costs of fuel. Costs on energy type in general. Predict fuel prices into the future and adjust. How do you minimize a matrix? Run lots of iterations and select from oosterior distribution?

Stakeholders

The impacts are assessed and valued from the point of view of the following stakeholders:

  • The city of Helsinki
  • Helen Oy energy company
  • A citizen of Helsinki
  • Finland
  • Global view

Dependencies

Data needed about each energy production process. Note: the energy in the denominator is always the total thermal energy of all fuels going into the process. Thermal energy means the amount of energy that is released when the fuel is burned in optimal conditions.

  • Inputs:
    • Fuels used per total thermal energy (each fuel separately) (kg/MJ)
    • Fixed costs (construction and maintenance) (€/a)
    • Operational costs (costs to run) (€/MJ)
    • Other inputs (chemicals etc.)
  • Outputs:
    • Heat produced (MJ/MJ)
    • Power (electricity) produced (MJ/MJ)
    • Other energy produced (e.g. steam or other products going to somethin useful) (MJ/MJ)
    • Energy loss (MJ/MJ)
    • PM2.5 emissions (kg/MJ)
    • CO2 emissions (kg/MJ)
    • Other emissions (e.g. ash, P etc.) (kg/MJ)
  • Other info
    • Maximum capacity of the energy plant (MW)
    • Description on how the plant is run (at what demand level it is started, is the plant run up and down based on need)
    • Other info

Other data that we need to check where it goes.


Analyses

  • Cost-benefit analysis of different options. Costs considered: capital and operational costs of energy production, climate costs (CO2e emissions converted to euros), health (DALYs converted to euros).
  • Total capacity availability and feasibility (applies especially to decentralised option).
  • Temporal heat and power demand and supply (hourly resolution).

Indices

  • Temporal: Month (non-marginal), Hour (non-marginal), Year (2015, 2025, 2040, 2060)
  • Temperature (Very cold (< -20 C), Cold (-20- -5 C), Cool (-5 - 5 C), Mild (5 - 14 C), Warm (15 - 23 C; neither heating nor cooling need in residences), Hot (> 24 C; cooling need)
  • Decisions (options 1-7)
  • Stakeholder (Citizen, City, Helen, Finland)
  • Spatial: City area (summed up after energy need)
  • Health: Disease (any disease that is linked to Exposure agents emitted)
  • Emission, exposure: Exposure agent (any agent that is emitted by energy production)
  • Energy production: Burner, Fuel, Heating.
  • Buildings: Building [use type], Heating, Constructed, City area, Renovation, Efficiency.

Calculations

See also

Helsinki energy decision 2015
In English
Assessment Main page | Helsinki energy decision options 2015
Helsinki data Building stock in Helsinki | Helsinki energy production | Helsinki energy consumption | Energy use of buildings | Emission factors for burning processes | Prices of fuels in heat production | External cost
Models Building model | Energy balance | Health impact assessment | Economic impacts
Related assessments Climate change policies in Helsinki | Climate change policies and health in Kuopio | Climate change policies in Basel
In Finnish
Yhteenveto Helsingin energiapäätös 2015 | Helsingin energiapäätöksen vaihtoehdot 2015 | Helsingin energiapäätökseen liittyviä arvoja | Helsingin energiapäätös 2015.pptx


  • Net environmental impacts of low-share wood pellet co-combustion in an existing coal-fired CHP (combined heat and power) production in Helsinki, Finland[2] ----#: . Information from abstract added to Helsinki energy decision options 2015 --> Hanasaari 40 bio --Julle (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Things to memorize

Units needed:

  • Work, energy, työ: joule J = Nm. 1 J = work needed to move an object by 1 m using a force of 1 N.
    • 1 kWh kilowatt-hour = 1000 W * 1 hour = 1000 W * 3600 s = 3.6 MJ
  • Force, voima: Newton N. E.g. the gravity force of 1 kg object is 9.8 N
  • Power, teho: J/s = W (watt) Note that power also means electricity.

Useful pieces of data.

  • To heat 1 kg of water from 0 to 100 C takes 420 kJ = 0.42 MJ = 0.12 kWh.
  • To boil 1 kg of water to vapor takes 2300 kJ = 2.3 MJ
  • Coal contains ca. 40 MJ/kg
  • Wood contains ca. 17 MJ/kg
  • Wood chips contain ca 7 MJ/kg (because of moisture)
  • Fine particles kill 1800 people/a in Finland.
  • When you burn 1 kg of coal, you get 3.7 kg of CO2.
  • A typical industial-size wind mill produces max 3 MW of electricity
  • A large power-plant produces 200-1500 MW of electricity.


Prefixes:

  • µ micro 10-6 0.000001
  • m milli 10-3 0.001
  • 1
  • k kilo 103 1000
  • M mega 106 1000000
  • G giga 109 1000000000
  • T tera 1012 1000000000000
  • P peta 1015 1000000000000000

Keywords

Energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil energy, wood pellets, power plants, district heating, decentralised energy production, centralised energy production, cost-effectiveness

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Halme, Minna; Hukkinen, Janne; Korppi-Tommola, Jouko; Linnanen, Lassi; Liski, Matti; Lovio, Raimo; Lund, Peter; Luukkanen, Jyrki; Nokso-Koivisto, Oskari; Partanen, Jarmo; Wilenius, Markku. Kasvua ja työllisyyttä uudella energiapolitiikalla. Jyväskylän yliopiston julkaisuja 2014. [1]
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Jáchym Judl, Sirkka Koskela, Timo Korpela, Niko Karvosenoja, Anna Häyrinen, Jari Rantsi. Net environmental impacts of low-share wood pellet co-combustion in an existing coal-fired CHP (combined heat and power) production in Helsinki, Finland. Energy 77 (2014) 844-851. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.068
  3. ↑ Sanni Väisänen: Greenhouse gas emissions from peat and biomass-derived fuels, electricity and heat — Estimation of various production chains by using LCA methodology

Related files

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Helsinki_energy_decision_2015&oldid=37495"