EUROPEAN DIRECTIONS in Europe, the use of CHP or cogeneration is well-established energy supply option. in the current energy market, cogeneration supplies around 10% of European electricity production, 10% of the European heat market and a small amount of cooling demand. Cogeneration plants are found in all European countries and range in size from as small as 1 kWh to greater 500 MWe. Cogeneration is used in all sectors of European economies from individual buildings to heavy industry and large district heating schemes. Finally, cogeneration utilizes all types of fuels from coal, gas and oil to biofuels and even solar energy. Today, cogeneration saves Europe around 200 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and reduces the dependence on energy resources by 1200 PJ per year, equivalent to the energy consumption of Austria. Cogeneration is thus an excellent energy supply option and has been identified as a key technical solution to improving the European environment by reducing the impact on global climate change and reducing local emissions such as particulates, sul phur and nitrogen oxides. in 1997, the European Commission brought forward a strategy paper to double the amount of cogeneration in the European marketplace. The implications of this strategy are that cogeneration should grow to provide 18% of European electricity by the year 201 O. This turn would save a further 1 80 million tons of carbon dioxide and 100 PJ per year. However, the target will not be met. So little has been done in development terms for the cogeneration market that instead of the market growing, cogeneration has faced a shrinking share of electricity production. There are, nevertheless, some signs of hope. Some markets in Europe are starting to show signs of recovery, and it looks hopeful that the European Directive on cogeneration will reach a final agreement !his year. THE COGENERATION DIRECTIVE in my article last year on the European market (see COSPP, July-August 2002), 1 presented the likely text for the Cogeneration Directive. it was finally published by the European Commission at the end of July 2002. The Directive contained most of the provisions !hat my article expected. 1 will not repeat myself here. However, what I will do is briefly describe what has gone on since !hen, look at the current situation, and try to antici pate the outcome. it has been quite a journey. There are other stories to tel1, such as the impact of emissions trading, but that can be for another time. The start of journey was the publication of the Commission's proposal on 22 July 2002. To our dismay, the proposal came with a requirement to limit the Directive to plants below 50 MWe, or the first 50 MWe of larger plants. Why? Because it was felt that support was needed for smaller cogeneration schemes. This was clearly wrong and just about everybody has spoken out against this provision. in addition to this, the proposal contained no hard measures, such as targets for Member States, or any real commitment to increase cogeneration's share of the electricity sector, despite the fact that cogeneration was identified ARTICLE / MAKALE as a key option in Europe's response to the Kyoto Protocol. The reality is that Member States are reluctant, to say the least, to accept targets from Brussels, and cogeneration is not going to be a special case. The proposed Directive has followed both the high road and the low road and it is not yet certain which route is less hazardous. The high road On the high toad, the European Parliament has discussed the Directive at length, following the appointment of a Rapporteur in the ITRE Committee (lndustry, External Trade, Research and Energy). The Rapporteur, Mr. Norbert Glante, took an unusual step by suggesting in his draft report a host of amendments - 57 to be precise. Most of these were concerned with a new methodology for calculating what the electricity output form cogeneration is and what it is not. One amendment ran to 25 pages of thermodynamic calculations! Although !his may sound both bizarre and highly technical, the methodology for determining what is cogeneration is important, especially for the larger and complex plants, where the operation can be both as cogeneration and sometimes only for electricity. But to have to debate this is Parliament? Not surprisingly, the other members of ITRE were alarmed and cross. in the following months, considerable discussion took place over these methodologies. At one time, at least six other methodologies were on the table. Unfortunately, !his debate on methodologies maskeci all other discussion and attention never really focused on how to strengthen the Directive. in early May 2003, the European Parliament adopted 85 amendments to the Directive in its first reading. The amendments to the methodologies are stili confusing and conflicting. One very positive proposal from the Parliament has been an amendment for growth targets for cogeneration. in addition, the Parliament rejects the 50 MWe threshold. The low road On the low road, the Council of Ministers has been progressing quietly through the Energy Working Group, which is comprised of a specialist from each country plus the person responsible for energy issues in the Permanent Representation of each country in Brussels. Unlike the Parliament, whose deliberations are conducted in public, the Energy Working Group is a closed affair. Their considerations were started last year under the Danish Presidency, but most of the detailed discussion has taken place during the Greek Presidency of the European Union. The Energy Working Group has met 1O times on this Directive and just about every word has been debated. Gratifyingly, less time has been spent on the methodologies and more time on the other parts of the Directive. Unfortunately, some Member States have been trying to weaken the Directive further, especially with regard to the Article that deals with grid access. in addition, some Member States have wanted to use their own methodologies for assessing cogeneration and now, from the Council, the Directive has more flexibility for Member States. On the negative side, the Council is firmly against targets for the growth of cogeneration, but on the positive side, they also reject the 50 MWe threshold. ENERJİ & KOJENERASYON DÜNYASI 47
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcyMTY=