Belgian's energy challenges towards 2030

A preliminary report

In November 2006, the Commission Energy 2030 submitted a preliminary report describing the energy challenges that will be facing Belgium by 2030. The goal of the commission was to make a scientific analysis of Belgium’s options with regard to energy policy, taking into account appropriate economic, social, and environmental aspects. The commission worked under the authority of the Federal Minister of Energy Marc Verwilghen.

The report gives a detailed description of nine different scenarios, modelled with PRIMES.

It warns that while modelling provides valuable indications and trends, it must be complemented with qualitative evaluation and expert opinion. The models should by no means be considered as an absolute prediction of the future.

The nine scenarios that were simulated are:

1. A baseline scenario, with no post-Kyoto CO2 regulation, the execution of the currently planned nuclear phase-out, and no large scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) before 2030
   (no reduction, no nuclear, no CCS)
2. A post Kyoto regulation of -15% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, a nuclear phase out, and no large scale CCS before 2030
   (-15%, no nuclear, no CCS)
3. A post Kyoto regulation of -15% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, no nuclear phase out, and no large scale CCS before 2030
   (-15%, nuclear, no CCS)
4. A post Kyoto regulation of -15% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, a nuclear phase out, and large scale CCS before 2030
   (-15%, no nuclear, CCS)
5. A post Kyoto regulation of -15% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, no nuclear phase out, and large scale CCS before 2030
   (-15%, nuclear, CCS)
6. A post Kyoto regulation of -30% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, a nuclear phase out, and no large scale CCS before 2030
   (-30%, no nuclear, no CCS)
7. A post Kyoto regulation of -30% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, no nuclear phase out, and no large scale CCS before 2030
   (-30%, nuclear, no CCS)
8. A post Kyoto regulation of -30% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, a nuclear phase out, and large scale CCS before 2030
   (-30%, no nuclear, CCS)
9. A post Kyoto regulation of -30% of energy related CO2 emissions in Belgium, and large scale CCS before 2030
   (-30%, nuclear, CCS)

Note that a Belgian policy for a 15 percent emission reduction of energy related CO2, is likely to fit within an EU policy imposing a general greenhouse gas emission reduction in Europe of 30 percent.

The cost of the non-nuclear option

The results of the simulation show that the cheapest option for achieving a 15% or a 30% CO2 emission reduction is to continue with nuclear energy. The report states that this is only a conclusion for Belgium, which should not be generalized. The seven Belgian nuclear power units have already been completely written down, and it is expected that they will be able to be fully functional in a safe and reliable manner for at least another twenty years. A site for a new nuclear power unit is already prepared at Doel (Antwerp), and would not require large investments in new transmission lines.

The report is rather sceptical regarding a large scale commercial breakthrough of CCS before 2030. It nevertheless recommends that Belgium collaborate strongly in international projects attempting to develop viable CCS. A realistic goal, according to the paper, is to have one experimental pilot CC plant operating in Belgium by 2030.

The option of 15% CO2 emission reduction without nuclear energy and without CCS is not entirely impossible, but results in a significantly higher cost to the economy (energy related costs of approximately 16% of the GDP) than the option with nuclear energy (energy related costs of approximately 12% of the GDP). In the option seeking a 30% reduction without nuclear energy, the energy related costs rise as high as 32% of the GDP.

Regarding these costs, it should be noted that:

• The cost reduction through the mitigation of climate change is not taken fully into account; only partly so through the price of CO2 certificates. This cost will depend on the mitigation efforts taken on a global scale, an area over which Belgian policy makers have no control.
• Full insurance for coverage of nuclear accidents and proliferation of nuclear weapons is considered impossible to accurately estimate and is consequently not taken into account.

It is up to the Belgian politicians now to put the conclusions of the report into the right perspective and to judge what extra price, if any, is reasonable for the non-nuclear option.