To what extent can we cover our energy needs in this country using renewable sources?  Unfortunately there is no straight answer to this question and today depends mainly on which study or report one holds up as evidence.  In 2006, the country covered about 2.7% of its energy needs with renewables.  Our EU target for 2020 is 13%.  The futures-e study, oft quoted by the employers associations, calculates our potential at 9.3%.   The Federal Planning Bureau’s latest study on the economic impact of the climate plan comes up with a figure of 12.3%.  Most optimistically, EDORA, the association for the renewable energy sector, claims that 14.11% is possible.  

 

Why the differences?  Obviously there are methodological differences in each study and different assumptions are used.  Regarding the use of biofuels in transport there is little dispute.  Our EU objective is to cover 10% of our transport fuels by biofuels and since this basically comes down to importing the balance on what we produce domestically, there is little room for disagreement.   There is disagreement, however, in the areas of electricity and heat.  In electricity, the Federal Planning Bureau’s models deliver the most optimistic result—over 19% of our electricity needs covered by renewables.  EDORA isn’t far off at 18.2% but Futures-e comes up with 14.2%.  The energy mix differs too.  While the bulk of renewable electricity in Belgium will come from wind and biomass, EDORA is more optimistic about wind and even allows for substantial growth in solar power.  The Federal Planning Bureau’s economic modelling approach, however, forecasts more use of biomass (much will need to be imported) since it is more efficient, certainly compared to solar.

 

The three studies also differ markedly in the use of renewables in heat generation (from 7% Futures-e to nearly 15% EDORA).  Basically, this comes down to differences in the use of solid biomass (such as wood, much of which will need to be imported) and various forms of organic waste and byproducts.   All remain reasonably optimistic, however, that the renewables share in heat will increase significantly.  Should this not happen, as an Ernst & Young study seems to assume (based on data it reviewed from the EU Commission), then we obviously will need to make up the difference in electricity.  The consulting firm concludes that Belgium if wants to achieve the overall 13% target, then it will need to cover nearly a third of its electricity needs by 2020.  Whether that is feasible is another question.  

 

Each of these areas of renewable energy will be looked at more closely in following sections.  In a general sense, however, we can conclude that while there may still be some debate on the potential for renewable energy, most stakeholders are now reasonably committed to achieving a target of 12-13% by 2020.  The fact is that we do not have much choice in the matter: whatever we don’t manage to produce domestically we’ll have to import, which could turn out to be even more expensive.  We also need to look beyond 2020.  For example, there are calls from the European parliament to set a 60% target for renewables by 2050.  Best we get cracking.  

 

Obviously there is debate about the optimal strategy towards those goals, for example, regarding the role of decentral energy production, the best energy mix (biomass versus wind versus solar) and the extent to which the economic crisis will impact on investment (already delaying the offshore wind projects).   

 

One key issue that the energy producers appear to differ somewhat in opinion over is the role of decentralised energy production. Today’s energy system was built on a centralised model.  Large power stations such as nuclear or coal installations generate high voltage electricity which is distributed through the network downward through various levels of declining voltage until it reaches end users.  That the energy system will gradually decentralise is not disputed.  An increasing number of users (households and industrial sites) are beginning to function both as consumer and producer.   Industrial plants have installed powerful cogeneration installations onsite to cover their heat, steam and electricity needs; companies are investing in solar installations on their large roofing areas, some in wind turbines; large-scale greenhouse farms run on cogeneration installations; and households are installing solar panels on their home roofs.  Depending on these users’ demand fluctuations and the weather, they alternate between being a net electricity consumer or net producer.  All energy producers appear to accept this evolution.  In fact, most make it a central tenet of their strategy—witness Electrabel’s new ‘together for less CO2’ strategy where they emphasise the importance of building energy installations onsite at their industrial customers.   

 

The energy producers differ somewhat, however, in their view on how decentralised the system will become, although this is largely a logical consequence of their differing business models.  The business model of the larger energy producers such as Electrabel, Nuon and SPE is based on larger energy installations.  They also operate at a European level.  Hence, these companies argue for more flexible European-level support mechanisms for renewable energy, that would enable them to invest in large-scale renewable energy projects in areas where it makes most sense to do so (e.g. solar in Spain).  Organisations like Ecover and Lampiris, however, envisage a system of numerous small-scale energy production installations that are placed close to the users.  This is especially important for the production of heat.  Thus, a small cogeneration installation run on biomass can generate electricity and heat for local residents, companies, agriculture, and do so with exceptionally high energy efficiency.   Electrawinds is doing similar things on a larger scale with its new biomass installation in Ostend, designed to produce electricity and to supply heat to local greenhouse agriculture.  This is in contrast to Electrabel’s converted coal power plants that run on wood pellets (or a mix of coal and biomass) where the heat generated is lost.  The green lobby decries such practices due to their inefficiency but in defense of Electrabel one could argue that is still a better way to use the existing ‘legacy’ infrastructure than not at all.  Recall, we have a capacity problem in this country.

 

If we are to have any hope of achieving the ambitious targets proposed for 2050 and beyond, then clearly we will need a paradigm shift in our thinking about energy.  The differences in thinking outlined above probably do not translate into an ‘or-or’ scenario but will need to come down to a mix of both.  That is, in the longer term this country will probably be importing green energy from a far more integrated European ‘supergrid’, envisaged by the likes of Greenpeace (see their article on the North Sea Wind Farms), Desertec (see diagram below) and Dutch foundation Natuur en Milieu (Masterplan Zeekracht).  Simultaneously, a large proportion of residential and industrial energy needs—especially heat—will need to be covered by cogeneration installations, both large and small, that run on locally supplied organic waste streams.  

Wind Energy