Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy
savings target
Robert Harmsen a,n, Bart Wesselink b, Wolfgang Eichhammer c, Ernst Worrell a
a
Department of Innovation and Environmental Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
Ecofys Netherlands, PO Box 8408, NL-3503 Utrecht, The Netherlands
c
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Breslauer Str. 48, DE-76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 July 2010
Accepted 15 March 2011
We show that renewable energy contributes to Europe’s 2020 primary energy savings target. This
contribution, which is to a large extent still unknown and not recognized by policy makers, results from
the way renewable energy is dealt with in Europe’s energy statistics. We discuss the policy
consequences and argue that the ‘energy savings’ occurring from the accounting of renewable energy
should not distract attention from demand-side energy savings in sectors such as transport, industry
and the built environment. The consequence of such a distraction could be that many of the benefits
from demand-side energy savings, for example lower energy bills, increase of the renewable energy
share in energy consumption without investing in new renewable capacity, and long-term climate
targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80%, will be missed. Such distraction is not
hypothetical since Europe’s 2020 renewable energy target is binding whereas the 2020 primary energy
savings target is only indicative.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Renewable energy statistics
Energy savings
Policy interaction
1. Introduction
It is commonly recognized that with increased energy savings
it is easier to increase the share of renewable energy in energy
supply. In Europe’s Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC the
European Commission states e.g. that ‘energy efficiency and
energy saving policies are some of the most effective methods
by which Member States can increase the percentage share of
energy from renewable sources, and Member States will thus
more easily achieve the overall national and transport targets for
energy from renewable sources laid down by this Directive’
(European Commission, 2009, recital 17)
Less known is the fact that renewable energy contributes to
Europe’s target to save 20% primary energy by 2020. The aim of
this article is to unravel and clarify this interaction of renewable
energy with primary energy savings and to discuss its relevance
for Europe’s energy savings policy. In doing so, we first provide
some background on Europe’s energy savings target. Then, we
show how increasing the share of renewable energy sources leads
to primary energy savings. Subsequently, we analyze the interaction of Europe’s energy savings target with the binding renewable energy target and quantify the primary energy savings
impact of renewable energy in a scenario approach. Finally, we
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 302534419; fax: þ31 302532746.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Harmsen).
discuss the results of our analysis and their relevance for Europe’s
energy savings policy.
2. Europe’s energy savings target: 20% energy savings in 2020
Europe aims to achieve 20% primary energy savings in the
period 2005–2020. This target is non-binding (indicative) and
originates from the 2005 Green Paper on Energy Efficiency
(European Commission, 2005). It was restated in the Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency in 2006 (European Commission, 2006),
politically endorsed at the Spring Council of 2007 (European
Commission, 2007), reconfirmed as part of the EU’s Climate and
Energy package in 2008 (European Commission, 2008a) and
finally adopted 17 June 2010 by the European Heads of State of
government (the European Council) as part of the ‘Europe 2020’
strategy (European Commission, 2010a, 2010b). Also in the
Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 (European Commission, 2011a) and
Europe’s 2050 roadmap (European Commission, 2011b), the 20%
target has been restated.
In none of the above mentioned documents from the European
Commission it is documented how the 20% target should be
interpreted, i.e. whether it is defined as a fixed energy savings
volume or whether it is a target relative to a moving baseline
scenario or a fixed baseline scenario.
In case the target should be interpreted as a fixed volume of
energy savings, the amount of savings to be achieved is fully
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
2
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Gross inland consumption of primary energy [EJ]
100
PRIMES-2007 projection = 82 EJ primary energy use
90
80
-20% = 16 EJ energy savings
70
60
50
Target = 66 EJ primary energy use
40
30
20
10
20
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
20
00
0
Fig. 1. The EU 20% primary energy savings target (2000–2008 data are based on Eurostat; 2020 data are based on PRIMES-2007 with base year 2005).
transparent (i.e. a fixed number). However, the level of primary
energy use in the target year is uncertain as it depends on
economic growth rates.
The second option is to interpret the target as being relative to
a moving baseline scenario. This would mean that the baseline
projection is corrected for new insights in economic growth,
energy price development, etc. In this case, both the level of
primary energy use in the target year and the amount of savings
to be achieved is uncertain.
In case the target is relative to a fixed baseline scenario, this
would mean full transparency regarding the level of primary
energy use to be achieved in the target year. Such target would
however also mean that the amount (volume) of energy savings
to be achieved is uncertain as the actual growth of activity in the
economy might differ (lower or higher growth) from what is
projected in the fixed baseline.
Although the European Commission has not been explicit in
the interpretation of its target definition, it can be derived from
the 2008 communication from the European Commission ‘Energy
efficiency: delivering the 20% target’ (European Commission,
2008b) that the 20% target should be interpreted as being relative
to a fixed baseline projection, more specifically, the PRIMES-2007
baseline scenario ‘European Energy and Transport, Trends to
2030—Update 2007’ (Capros et al., 2008). In the communication,
the European Commission indicates that the 20% target should
lead to a total primary energy use in the European Union (EU) of
66 EJ (1574 Mtoe1 ) in 2020 (European Commission, 2008b,
Annex 1).
From Fig. 1 it can be derived that compared to the PRIMES2007 2020 projection a volume of 16 EJ (394 Mtoe2) energy
savings needs to be achieved to realize the 20% target. According
1
The European Commission uses Mtoe (mega ton oil equivalent) as its default
unit of energy (following Eurostat statistics). In this article, Mtoe has been
converted into EJ (Exa Joule). Where deemed useful, the original Mtoe value is
given between brackets.
2
This figure can be found in Annex 1 of the communication ‘Energy efficiency:
delivering the 20% target (European Commission, 2008b). In the Energy Efficiency
Action Plan 2011 (European Commission, 2011a), this figure is scaled down from
394 to 368 Mtoe. From the Impact Assessment accompanying the Energy
Efficiency Plan 2011 (European Commission, 2011c), it becomes clear that the
updated figure excludes the non-energy use projected for 2020 (126 Mtoe).
to the 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan (European Commission,
2006) these savings should be achieved by end-use energy
efficiency improvements and more efficient energy conversion
in the supply sector. The following priority actions have been
listed in the Action Plan (European Commission, 2006):
Appliance and equipment labeling and minimum energy
performance standards.
Building performance requirements and very low energy
buildings (‘passive houses’).
Making power generation and distribution more efficient.
Achieving fuel efficiency of cars.
Facilitating appropriate financing of energy efficiency invest
ments for small and medium enterprises and Energy Service
Companies.
Spurring energy efficiency in the new Member States.
A coherent use of taxation.
Raising energy efficiency awareness.
Energy efficiency in built-up areas.
Foster energy efficiency worldwide.
In the 2011 Energy Efficiency Plan (European Commission,
2011a), the emphasis is put on (1) the exemplary and leading role
of the public sector, (2) paving the way towards low energy
consuming buildings, (3) the competitiveness of the European
industry, (4) appropriate national and European financial support,
(5) energy savings by consumers and (6) improving the efficiency
of the transport sector.
In the 2006 Action Plan (European Commission, 2006) the
word ‘renewable’ or ‘renewable energy’ does not appear at all. In
the 2008 Commission communication ‘Energy efficiency: delivering the 20% target’ (European Commission, 2008b) renewable
energy is mentioned but in the ‘classic’ way: with energy
efficiency improvement it becomes easier to increase the share
of renewable energy in total energy use. The contribution of
renewable energy to the energy savings target is not recognized
(footnote continued)
The 368 Mtoe is calculated as follows: (1968 Mtoe (2020 projection total primary
energy use) 126 Mtoe) 20%.
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
in either of the two documents (neither the 2011 Energy Efficiency Action Plan does). Below we will argue that renewable
energy indeed contributes to achieving Europe’s primary energy
savings target. However, before we make this argument, we first
need to discuss how renewable energy is dealt with in Eurostat
energy statistics, which provide inputs for the PRIMES baseline
scenarios.
3. Primary Energy Method
Eurostat and IEA use the ‘Physical Energy Content Method’ for
reporting renewable energy statistics (IEA and Eurostat, 2005).
This method is also referred to as ‘Primary Energy Method’
(Segers, 2008) or ‘Input Method’ (Buck et al., 2010). In this article
we will further refer to the method as ‘Primary Energy Method’.
In the Primary Energy Method, primary energy is defined as
the first commodity or raw material which can be converted to
secondary energy (heat, electricity, etc.). For hydro power, wind
energy and solar power energy the first usable commodity is the
electricity produced. For electricity from a fossil fuel the first
usable commodity is coal or natural gas. When electricity is
produced from fossil fuels, typically 2.5 units of primary energy
are needed to produce one unit of electricity (based on an average
conversion efficiency of 40%). For hydro, wind and solar power,
according to the Primary Energy Method, one unit of primary
energy converts to one unit of electricity, that is, a conversion
efficiency of 100% is assumed. This means that the growth of
wind, hydro or solar power leads to ‘energy savings’ compared to
the average conversion efficiency, for example: replacing 1 unit of
fossil electricity ( ¼2.5 units of primary energy) by 1 unit of wind,
hydro and solar electricity ( ¼1 unit primary energy) leads to
1.5 units of primary energy savings, see also Fig. 2.
Obviously, the use of a conversion efficiency of 100% for wind,
hydro and solar electricity should be considered in the context of
a (practical) convention applied in Eurostat and IEA statistics. It
does not reflect (physical) reality. For wind energy for example,
50% is taken as the practical maximum rotor efficiency for
converting the kinetic energy content of moving air (wind) into
electricity, while slow-speed turbines may have efficiencies close
to 20% (Patel, 2006). Hydro power efficiencies for converting the
potential energy of falling water into electricity range between
50% and 90%, mainly depending on age and size of the turbines.
Typical solar systems (based on polycrystalline silicon cells) have
efficiencies ranging between 7% and 13% for converting sunlight
into electricity (Andrews and Jelley, 2007), while the most
advanced multi-layer solar cells reach cell efficiency in excess
of 40%.
Conversion of Primary Energy to Electricity
Primary
Energy
Usable
Electricity
Primary
Energy
Usable
Electricity
Fig. 2. ‘Energy savings’ effect by replacing fossil electricity by wind, hydro or solar
power (Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a).
3
It should be noted that not in all statistics electricity from
wind, hydro and solar results in ‘energy savings’. The Dutch
renewable energy statistics are for example based on the socalled ‘Substitution Method’ (CBS, 2009). In the Substitution
Method renewable energy sources are compared with typical
fossil energy sources and statistically expressed in terms of the
fossil fuel input avoided. In doing so, no savings effect is
attributed to renewable electricity from wind, hydro and solar.
In terms of Fig. 2, the renewable primary energy bar (bottom)
would have the same length as the fossil primary energy bar
(top). Eurostat and the IEA do not use the Substitution Method
anymore as it has the disadvantage of requiring the use of a
hypothetical reference case, for example, a hypothetical conventional thermal power station. Either the conversion efficiency of
the reference case must be kept the same over time which would
introduce an increasing deviation from reality, or it must be made
adjustable, which would introduce uncertainty as the contribution of the same quantity of renewable energy would fluctuate
(European Commission, 2008c). In addition, with increasing
shares of renewable energy in the power mix, the method would
lose its foundations as renewable energy would increasingly be
substituted by other renewable energy.
However, as Eurostat statistics provide inputs for the PRIMES
baseline scenarios and the European Commission uses the
PRIMES-2007 projection as the fixed baseline scenario for its
20% energy savings target, we need to deal with the Primary
Energy Method, which means that we need to take into account
the ‘energy savings’ from wind, hydro and solar electricity in the
analysis of Europe’s primary energy savings target.
As opposed to wind, hydro and solar electricity, the conversion
of biomass (and waste) to electricity does not lead to primary
energy savings using the Primary Energy Method. For biomass the
Primary Energy method does not use a conversion efficiency of
100% but efficiencies that reflect actual efficiencies. As biomassto-electricity conversion has on average lower efficiencies than
conversion of fossil fuels – at least natural gas – to electricity
(Yoshida et al., 2003), an increase of biomass use for power
production, displacing fossil fuels, will lead to (some) additional
energy use when the Primary Energy Method is applied.
Knowing that electricity from wind, hydro and solar leads to
accounting ‘energy savings’ and bio-electricity does not, the
question comes up to what extent use of renewable heat and
cooling (solar thermal, biomass, heat pumps, geothermal energy)
and bio-fuels for transport leads to energy (un)savings.
For heat from biomass, there is no unambiguous answer. The
conversion efficiency of biogas and bio-oil to heat is similar to the
efficiency of heat production from conventional energy sources
(Yoshida et al., 2003). Biomass sources with high moisture
content, however, lead to increased primary energy use as
conversion efficiencies for heat production are reduced
(Lundgren et al., 2004). In Eurostat statistics this increase in
primary energy use as a result of lower conversion efficiencies is
not directly visible as only the fuel supply to end-users is reported
and not the heat produced (Buck et al., 2010). In this case, an
increase of the supply of biomass to end-users could either be
explained by a growth of the heat demand or a decrease of
conversion efficiency.
For geothermal energy a default thermal efficiency of 10%
(reflecting the generally lower-quality steam available from
geothermal sources) is applied in the Eurostat and IEA energy
statistics (IEA and Eurostat, 2005), which means that an increase
of geothermal energy will result in increased primary energy use
according to the Primary Energy Method (see also Segers, 2008,
Table 2).
The monitoring of bio-fuels for transport is linked to the sales
of bio-fuels to end-users (European Commission, 2003, 2009).
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
The fossil energy needed for the production of bio-fuels cannot be
derived directly from statistics as it is ‘hidden’ under the energy
statistics of the industry or other sectors (if at all produced in
Europe). Still, fossil energy is needed for the production of biofuels. For today’s (first generation) bio-fuels it is estimated that
for the full life cycle 70–80% fossil primary energy is avoided for
each unit of bio-fuel produced (Edwards et al., 2007; Patel, 2008;
Buck et al., 2010).3
Next to fossil fuels, also renewable energy is needed for the
production of bio-fuels (for example sugar crops for producing
bio-ethanol). Patel et al. (2006) and Edwards et al. (2007) show
that the amount of renewable energy in the production process is
substantial both for bio-ethanol and bio-diesel production. This
renewable energy is not considered as ‘energy’ in Eurostat
statistics but as ‘raw material for the production of bio-diesel or
bio-ethanol’.4 This means that an increase of bio-fuels also
contributes to energy savings.
4. Growth of renewable energy in the baseline scenario
(2005–2020)
Fig. 3 provides an overview of the projected development of
renewable energy in PRIMES-2007, the fixed baseline scenario
used by the European Commission for its primary energy savings
target. The additional wind, hydro and solar electricity (0.9 EJ
final electricity) leads, according to the Primary Energy Method,
to 1.4 EJ primary ‘energy savings’,5 whereas the 0.3 EJ bio-electricity leads to 0.2 EJ primary ‘unsavings’.6 The 1.2 EJ additional
bio-fuels lead to 0.4 PJ primary ‘energy savings’,7 whereas the
energy (un)savings of the additional renewable heat and cooling
are assumed to be close to zero. On a net base, renewable energy
leads therefore to an additional 1.6 EJ of ‘energy savings’ between
2005 and 2020 (1.4 EJ 0.2 EJ þ0.4 EJ). As these additional savings
are already included in the PRIMES-2007 baseline projection for
2020 (Fig. 1), they do not contribute to the 20% primary energy
savings target. For assessing the potential contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s savings target we have to look at the
additional renewable energy to be implemented on top of the
baseline projection. Before doing that, we first need to introduce
the Renewable Energy Directive.
5. Europe’s renewable energy target: 20% renewable energy in
2020
The Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission, 2009)
sets binding national targets for the overall share of energy from
renewable sources in final energy consumption and for the share
of energy from renewable sources in transport. At the EU level, a
20% renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption8
3
In case no fossil primary energy would be needed the percentage would be
100%. Note that for CO2 reduction percentages can be much lower.
4
Note the difference with oil: crude oil is considered as energy in the
statistics. Also note that, in case the waste material from the bio-fuel production
is used for producing heat or electricity, it does appear as renewable energy in the
statistics.
5
0.9 EJ electricity 2.5–0.9 EJ electricity 1 ¼1.4 EJ primary energy savings,
assuming an average efficiency of 40% for electricity generation.
6
0.3 EJ electricity 2.5–0.3 EJ electricity 3¼ 0.2 EJ primary energy
‘‘unsavings’’ (for biomass conversion to electricity an average efficiency of 33.3%
has been assumed).
7
1.2 EJ/75% 1.2 EJ¼ 0.4 EJ primary energy savings (for this calculation 75%
avoided fossil primary energy is assumed).
8
‘Gross final consumption of energy’ means the energy commodities delivered for energy purposes to end-users, including the consumption of electricity
and heat by the energy branch for electricity and heat production and including
1.5
Additional RES production
between 2005 and 2020 [EJ]
4
1
0.5
0
Electricity from Bio-electricity
wind, hydro, solar
Bio-fuels
Renewable
heat & cooling
Fig. 3. Additional renewable energy production in the EU by 2020 to be realized
between 2005 and 2020 according to the PRIMES-2007 baseline projection.
needs to be achieved in 2020. The targets for individual Member
States differ based on a country’s share of renewable energy in
final energy consumption in 2005 and a GDP/capita index, but
add up to 20% at the overall EU level. For transport a sub-target of
10% renewable energy has been set.
In PRIMES-2007 the share of renewable energy in final energy
consumption increases between 2005 and 2020 by 4% points from
8.7% to 12.7% (Capros et al., 2008) (for comparison: Eurostat &
European Commission (2011) reports a 10.3% share of renewable
energy in the EU in 2008). This increase is modeled in response to
energy policies and measures implemented up to 2006. Achieving
20% renewable energy in final energy consumption, the target
that was set in 2008/2009 as part of Europe’s Climate & Energy
Package, therefore requires substantial effort additional to the
growth projected in the PRIMES-2007 baseline scenario.
The projected 12.7% share of renewable energy in final energy
consumption in 2020 is composed as follows: 45% renewable
electricity, 16% bio-fuels for transport and 39% renewable heat
and cooling (largely dominated by biomass) in the domestic,
tertiary and industry sector.
6. Interaction of Europe’s renewable energy target with its
primary energy savings target
The PRIMES-2007 baseline scenario is the (fixed) reference
projection for Europe’s energy savings target. According to this
scenario, the 20% renewable energy target is not met in 2020. This
means that achievement of the renewable final energy target will
interact with the primary energy savings target. This interaction
works as follows: to meet the renewable energy target a new
wind turbine is built producing 100 units of electricity (final
energy). As this turbine replaces 100 units of electricity production of a conventional power plant (40% efficiency), 250 units of
fossil primary energy is replaced by 100 unit of primary wind
energy. Primary energy savings therefore amount to 150 (250
minus 100 units), see also Fig. 2.
In order to quantify the ‘primary energy savings’ impact from
renewable energy for the EU, we distinguish two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Meeting the renewable energy target without
additional end-use savings compared to the PRIMES-2007
baseline.
(footnote continued)
losses of electricity and heat in distribution and transmission (European
Commission, 2009).
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
18
maximum cost-effective end-use savings compared to the
PRIMES-2007 baseline.
16
6.1. Scenario 1: meeting the renewable energy target without
additional end-use savings
To achieve the 2020 renewable energy target without additional energy savings compared to the PRIMES-2007 baseline
scenario, we first need to know how much additional final
renewable energy needs to be realized between 2005 and 2020
in order to increase the share of renewable energy by 7.3% points
from 12.7% (the PRIMES-2007 projection for 2020) to 20%
(Europe’s 2020 renewable energy target). According to PRIMES2007, the EU’s final energy demand in 2020 will be 56 EJ (Capros
et al., 2008).9 Without additional energy savings, the amount of
final renewable energy should increase by 7.3% 56 EJ¼4.1 EJ.
The question is how to allocate this 4.1 EJ to the three renewable energy categories (RES-electricity, RES-heat and cooling and
bio-fuels). We distinguish three variants:
Scenario 1A: Achieving 4.1 EJ additional RES with a mix of
renewable electricity, heat and cooling and bio-fuels for
transport; similar shares for these three categories as projected for 2020 in the baseline scenario, i.e. 45% renewable
electricity,10 16% bio-fuels for transport and 39% renewable
heat and cooling.11
Scenario 1B: Achieving 4.1 EJ additional RES with only RESelectricity (with 2/3 share wind, hydro and solar electricity
and 1/3 biomass electricity, as in Fig. 3) and no additional
renewable heat and cooling and bio-fuels for transport.
Scenario 1C: Achieving 4.1 EJ additional RES with only wind,
hydro and solar electricity.
Fig. 4 shows the net ‘energy savings’ from renewable energy
for each of the three scenario variants as a result of the growth of
wind, hydro and solar power (‘savings’) and biomass power
(‘unsavings’). In scenario 1A the ‘unsavings’ effect of renewable
heat and cooling (e.g. geothermal) and the ‘savings’ effect of biofuels for transport are neglected as they are relatively small.12 The
figure shows that meeting the renewable energy target will lead
to 1.8 EJ (scenario 1A) to 6.3 EJ (scenario 1C) additional primary
‘energy savings’ in case no additional demand-side energy savings
are assumed. Each column sums up to 16 EJ (394 Mtoe, see
footnote 2) which is the volume of savings needed for achieving
Europe’s 20% energy savings target, see also Fig. 1.
One could consider scenario 1 as extreme as it is unlikely that
no additional energy savings compared to the PRIMES-2007
baseline projection will be realized (in fact, additional energy
savings have already been realized in the meantime). However,
9
Note that 56 EJ final energy equals 82 EJ primary energy use (as in Fig. 1).
Subdivision electricity as in scenario 1B.
11
A share of 39% renewable heat and cooling in meeting the 4.1 EJ additional
RES needed is most likely an overestimation, as the 39%-figure is largely based on
today’s biomass use for space heating in the built environment. Although some
more growth in both biomass heat and other renewable heating and cooling
technologies (solar thermal, geothermal) in addition to the 0.5 EJ 2005–2020
growth projected in PRIMES-2007 might be expected (see Fig. 3), it is unlikely that
another 1.6 EJ (39% 4.1 EJ) additional renewable heat and cooling will be realized
on top of the additional renewable heat and cooling projected in the PRIMES-2009
baseline scenario. Such growth would be way beyond the growth figures which
can be observed in the renewable heating and cooling market.
12
For bio-fuels the ‘energy savings’ effect is not zero but relatively small:
16% (4.1 EJ/75%–4.1 EJ)¼ 0.2 EJ primary energy savings. This additional amount
of bio-fuels would mean a small overachievement of the 10% renewable energy for
transport (which, according to the Renewable Energy Directive, does not necessarily have to be filled in by bio-fuels alone).
10
Primary energy savings (EJ)
Scenario 2: Meeting the renewable energy target and realising
5
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Scenario 1A
Energy savings from RES
Scenario 1B
Scenario 1C
Remaining energy savings gap to meet
the 20% energy savings target
Fig. 4. Three scenarios showing the contribution of renewable energy to the
primary energy savings target in case the renewable (final) energy target is met
without additional end-use energy savings.
the scenario 1 variants provide valuable insight in the possible
contribution of renewable energy to the primary energy savings
target, which is relevant, as policy incentives for meeting the
binding renewable energy target are stronger than those for
meeting the indicative primary energy savings target.13
Fig. 4 shows that without additional energy savings compared
to the PRIMES-2007 baseline projection, 10–40% of the 16 EJ
(394 Mtoe, see footnote 2) energy savings volume needed to
achieve the 20% primary energy savings target is already provided
by ‘energy savings’ from additional renewable energy, in case the
renewable energy target will be met. Renewable energy can,
therefore, substantially reduce the effort needed for meeting the
primary energy savings target.
6.2. Scenario 2: meeting the renewable energy target and realizing
maximum cost-effective end-use energy savings
For scenario 2 we assume implementation of cost-effective
end-use savings. In a study for the European Commission
(Fraunhofer, 2009) the cost-effective end-use energy savings
potential for the EU (and individual Member States) has been
identified. This study took a detailed bottom-up approach to
assess energy savings potentials for end-use sectors (residential
sector, services sector, transport and industry), differentiated
across EU Member States. In order to ensure compatibility with
projections from the European Commission, the Fraunhofer study
uses the economic drivers as defined by the study ‘European
Energy and Transport Trends to 2030: Update 2007’ based on
PRIMES model runs (Capros et al., 2008). This is the PRIMES-2007
baseline scenario. Drivers refer to for example the growth of the
buildings stock, transport volumes, energy prices and the development of industry’s value-added production. The PRIMES-2007
baseline scenario assumes an average economic growth of 2.2%
per year until 2020 and includes policies and measures implemented in the Member States up to the end of 2006.
The left-hand side of Fig. 5 shows energy saving options which
have negative marginal costs. Negative marginal costs occur
when over the lifetime of energy efficient technologies revenues
from energy savings (lower energy bill) more than compensate
13
In addition to this, it should be noted that the projection of renewable
energy in general and wind energy in particular has been modest in PRIMES-2007
compared to actual developments. The installed wind capacity amounted to
75 GW in 2009 and 84 GW end of 2010 (EurObserver, 2011), whereas the
PRIMES-2007 scenario projected 71 GW for 2010 (Capros et al., 2010).
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
6
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
50
40
Industry (IN)
Households (HH)
30
Transport (TR)
Tertiary (TE)
Euro/GJ
20
Residential buildings/heating
systems/sanitary water
10
0
-10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
TR Modal shift goods transport
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
350
Mtoe
TR Technical improvement trucks
TR More expensive options
(technical, behaviour, modal
shift)
TR Behaviour/goods transport
IN Space heat/processes
TR Technical improvement cars
TR Modalshift passenger transport
IN/TE Crosscutting Technologies/processes/CHP
IN processes/CHP/space heating
TR Behavior/cars
Fig. 5. Overall 2005–2020 marginal energy savings cost-curve for the EU end-use sectors (Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010b). (For the cost calculations in the
Fraunhofer study, a discount rate of 6–8% has been applied for end-users dominated by economic considerations, while 4% was used for the other end-users. In the study, a
2020 oil price of $61/barrel has been used (Fraunhofer, 2009).)
18
16
Primary energy savings (EJ)
for the additional investment and operation and maintenance
costs of energy savings options. Total cost-effective savings which
can be realized between 2005 and 2020 according to the Fraunhofer study amount to 10 EJ final energy (which is similar to the
250 Mtoe final energy in Fig. 5, being the cut off value between
total cost-effective savings – total area under the curve below the
x-axis – and the savings that are not cost-effective—total area
under the curve above the x-axis). Note, that we show the final
energy savings cost-curve and not the primary energy savings
cost-curve. The reason for this is that the final energy cost-curve
provides insight in the potential reduction of final energy
demand, which is relevant to assess the renewable energy target
(which is expressed in final energy).
If the 10 EJ cost-effective final energy savings potential is fully
realized, the 2020 share of renewable energy in final energy
consumption increases from 12.7% (PRIMES-2007, projection
2020) to 15.6% without changing the absolute amount of renewable
energy.14 To meet the 20% renewable energy target, another 4.4%
points renewable energy (20% 15.6%) needs to be realized,
which equals 2 EJ (final) renewable energy.15 As for scenario 1,
also here the question is how to allocate the 2 EJ to the three
renewable energy categories (RES-electricity, RES-heat and cooling and bio-fuels for transport). Again, we distinguish three
variants:
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Scenario 2A
Scenario 2B
Scenario 2C
Remaining energy savings gap to meet the 20% energy savings target
Cost-effective end-use energy savings (in primary energy)
Energy savings from RES
Fig. 6. Three scenarios showing the contribution of renewable energy to the
primary energy savings target in case the renewable energy target is met and
maximum cost-effective end-use energy savings are applied. For converting final
electricity savings into primary energy, a conversion factor of 2.5 has been used.
Scenario 2C: Achieving 2 EJ additional RES with only wind,
hydro and solar electricity.
Scenario 2A: Achieving 2 EJ additional RES with a mix of
renewable electricity, heat and cooling and bio-fuels for
transport. Similar shares for these three categories as projected
for 2020 in the baseline scenario, i.e. 45% renewable electricity16, 16% bio-fuels for transport and 39% renewable heat and
cooling.
Scenario 2B: Achieving 2 EJ additional RES with only RESelectricity (with 2/3 share wind, hydro and solar electricity
and 1/3 biomass electricity, as in Fig. 3) and no additional
renewable heat and cooling and bio-fuels for transport.
14
(12.7% 56 EJ)/(56 EJ 10 EJ) 100%¼ 15.6% (corrected for rounding
effects).
15
(56 EJ final energy demand 2020–10 EJ cost-effective final energy savings
potential for 2020) 4.4% ¼2 EJ.
16
Subdivision electricity as in scenario 2B.
Fig. 6 shows the net primary energy savings from renewable
energy for each of the three scenario variants as a result of the
growth of electricity from wind, hydro and solar (‘savings’) and
biomass power (‘unsavings’). In scenario 2A the ‘unsavings’ effect
of renewable heat and cooling (e.g. geothermal) and ‘energy
savings’ from bio-fuels for transport is neglected (as in scenario
1A). Fig. 6 shows that meeting the renewable (final) energy target
will lead to 0.8 to 3.1 EJ additional primary energy savings in case
the maximum implementation of cost-effective end-use savings is
assumed.
From Fig. 6 we observe that even with maximum cost-effective
end-use energy savings between 2005 and 2020 and realization of
the 20% renewable energy target, the 20% primary energy savings
target will not be met, although scenario 2C comes close to it. To
meet the primary energy savings target, additional savings in the
supply sector (fossil power plants, transport and distribution,
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
refineries, etc.), not covered by the Fraunhofer study, or nearly
cost-effective savings end-use savings are needed.17
We also observe from Fig. 6 that, although smaller than in
scenario 1, also in scenario 2 the contribution of renewable
energy to the primary energy savings target is significant.
6.3. Outlook 2020: heading towards a scenario 1 or scenario
2 future?
Scenarios 1 and 2 provide insight in the contribution of
renewable energy to the energy savings target for two opposing
situations: scenario 1 for the situation that the renewable energy
target is met without additional end-use energy savings compared
to the PRIMES-2007 baseline and scenario 2 for the situation that
the renewable energy target is met and maximum cost-effective
end-use savings are applied. The question is how the future will
unfold: scenario 1-like or scenario 2-like?
In a recent study for the European Climate Foundation (ECF)
(Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a), the updated energy
outlook for Europe for 2020 (Capros et al., 2010) has been used
to analyze the latest progress towards the 20% primary energy
savings target. Starting point for this study was the PRIMES-2007
baseline scenario from which the 16 EJ (394 Mtoe, see footnote 2)
primary energy savings volume can be derived which is needed to
achieve the 2020 savings target. The updated PRIMES baseline
scenario for the EU (referred to as ‘‘PRIMES-2009’’) has been used
to include the most recent insights regarding the 2020 energy
outlook. This updated baseline scenario includes the impact of the
recent economic recession, new insights on the development of
important drivers such as mobility for the transport sector, and
the impact of the latest climate and energy policies (implemented
after 2006), both not included in the PRIMES-2007 baseline
scenario.
Roughly half of the decreased energy use between PRIMES2007 and PRIMES-2009 (3 EJ) can be attributed to the economic
recession and adjusted growth figures (Ecofys and Fraunhofer
Institute, 2010a). The 3 EJ has been calculated by adjusting
the PRIMES-2007 2020 energy use to the reduced activity data
(either value added or passenger- and ton-kilometers) in industry,
tertiary sector and transport in PRIMES-2009.
The remaining difference in primary energy use between
PRIMES-2007 and PRIMES-2009 has been attributed to recent
energy savings policies and the additional renewable energy
projected in PRIMES-2009 compared to PRIMES-2007. The additional renewable energy leads to almost 1 EJ ‘primary energy
savings’ whereas the identified energy savings from recent energy
savings policies are built up as follows (Ecofys and Fraunhofer
Institute, 2010a):
More efficient passenger cars (the CO2 regulation), realizing
around 0.8–1.0 EJ of primary energy savings. This compares to
a 9% overall energy savings in the EU passenger car fleet
in 2020.
Implementation of other energy savings policies such as the
Eco-design Directive (5 implementation measures that are
included in the PRIMES-2009 baseline scenario), the recast
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), the recast
Labeling Directives and the Combined Heat & Power (CHP)
Directive (1.0–1.3 EJ).
17
It should be noted that in the Fraunhofer study relative low energy prices
have been used compared to present (2010/11) price levels. Taking present levels
would increase the cost-effective savings potential.
7
Implementation of four new implementation measures that
were recently decided under the Eco-design Directive and not
included in the PRIMES-2009 baseline scenario (1.9 EJ).18
In summary, the recession effect (3 EJ), additional renewable
energy in PRIMES-2009 compared to PRIMES-2007 (1 EJ) and
recent energy efficiency policies (4 EJ) sum to 8 EJ and are
insufficient to meet the 16 EJ primary energy savings volume
aimed for in 2020. The Ecofys/Fraunhofer study therefore identifies a policy gap of 8 EJ for 2020 (see Fig. 7) and stresses the need
for further strengthening the energy policies in place and for
additional policies to close the gap.
In the PRIMES-2009 baseline scenario the share of renewable
energy in final energy consumption is 15% in 2020 (Capros et al.,
2010). This is quite a bit higher than the 12.7% in PRIMES-2007,
but still means that another 5% points renewable energy needs to
be added to achieve the 20% renewable energy target. This can be
realized (1) either via additional renewable energy or (2) via enduse energy savings (lowering final energy demand increases the
share of a fixed amount of renewable energy in total final energy).
Variant 1: Meeting the renewable energy target primarily with
additional renewable energy.
Meeting the 5% additional share of renewable energy via
additional renewable energy (left-hand bar Fig. 8) on the other
hand is a more expensive way of meeting both the renewable
energy and energy savings target:
To meet the renewable energy target, significant investments
in new capacity are needed (in addition to the capacity already
projected for 2020).
A substantial share of the energy savings target is filled in with
more expensive renewable energy instead of cost-effective
end-use savings. Fig. 5 already showed that the majority of the
end-use energy savings potential is cost-effective. This insight
is also confirmed in the IEA (2008) report ‘Energy Technology
Perspectives’. In addition, several studies (e.g. McKinsey and
Company, 2010; Ecofys et al., 2009) show that at the time
horizon 2020–2030 most renewable energy potential is on the
one hand not yet cost-effective and on the other, more
expensive than most of the end-use energy savings potential.
This variant is scenario 1-like.
Variant 2: Meeting the renewable energy target primarily with
end-use savings.
Meeting the 5% additional share of renewable energy (largely)
via end-use savings (right-hand bar Fig. 8) can be considered the
most cost-efficient way of meeting both the renewable energy
and the energy savings target:
The renewable energy target is primarily met by reducing final
energy demand which means an increase of the share of
renewable energy without investing in new capacity (in
addition to the new capacity already projected for 2020).
The primary energy savings target is largely met with costeffective end-use energy savings.19
This variant is scenario 2-like.
18
These additional Eco-design savings are included in the PRIMES-2009
Reference Scenario which has been published in the same report as the PRIMES2009 Baseline Scenario (Capros et al., 2010). This Reference Scenario data was not
yet available at the time of the Ecofys/Fraunhofer study for the European Climate
Foundation (January–May 2010), whereas the Baseline Scenario data was.
19
Note however, that sufficient energy savings policies are not yet in place to
meet the energy savings target (Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a).
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Gross inland consumption of primary energy [EJ]
8
100
90
80
Distance to target
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2020
Net recession effect / adjusted growth figures
Additional savings from RES compared to PRIMES-2007
Latest energy savings policies
Remaining energy savings gap to meet the 20% energy savings target
Fig. 7. Assessment of the energy savings policy gap (data from Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute (2010a)).
the one hand, the European Commission is well aware that
Europe is not on track in meeting its energy savings target, being
one of the main reasons for coming up with strengthened and
new policy actions to close the gap (European Commission,
2011a). This would indicate a future which is more scenario
2-like. On the other hand, the Ecofys/Fraunhofer study for the
European Climate Foundation shows that a tripling of today’s
policy impact is needed to achieve the 20% primary energy
savings target (Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a). It is
doubtful whether such tripling of the policy impact can be
achieved with the proposed policy package. This, in combination
with the binding character of the renewable energy target, would
indicate a future which will look more like scenario 1.
18
16
Primary energy savings (EJ)
14
12
10
8
6
4
7. Consequences for policy
2
In this article we have shown that, on a net base, renewable
energy provides ‘primary energy savings’. These energy savings
are the result of the 100% conversion efficiency for wind, solar and
hydro electricity used in Eurostat energy statistics and the rather
strong penetration of these renewable energy sources, especially
of wind energy. As a consequence, renewable energy contributes
to Europe’s 20% primary energy savings target. This contribution
is not yet recognized by policy makers. Neither the Green Paper
on Energy Efficiency (European Commission, 2005), the Action
Plan for Energy Efficiency (European Commission 2006), the
Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 25
and 26 March 2010 (European Commission, 2010a), nor the 2011
Energy Efficiency Plan (European Commission, 2011a) mention
this interaction between renewable energy and energy savings.
We feel, however, that insight in this interaction is crucial for
policy makers to understand the impact of their policies.
Such insight, however, could result in wrong policy incentives.
In one of its communications the European Commission shows
that Europe is not on track meeting its 20% energy savings target:
a maximum of 13% savings may be achieved in 2020 if policy
measures are properly implemented at Member State level
(European Commission, 2008b). In the 2011 Energy Efficiency
Action Plan, it is even stated that only half of the 20% objective
0
Variant 1
"focus on additional RES"
Variant 2
"focus on end-use savings"
Additional energy savings needed to meet the energy savings target
Recession effect
Additional energy savings PRIMES-2009 vs PRIMES-2007
Additional energy savings from RES PRIMES-2009 vs PRIMES-2007
Additional energy savings from RES to meet the RES target
Fig. 8. Two variants showing the contribution of renewable energy to the primary
energy savings target in 2020 when meeting the renewable energy target, taking
into account the recession effect and the impact of new policies since 2006. The
red bar shows the amount of primary energy savings that needs to be realized
with additional policies (or strengthening of policies in place) in order to meet the
primary energy savings target. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
In the title of this section we raised the question whether
Europe is heading for a scenario 1-like future (focus on additional
renewable energy) or a scenario-2-like future (focus on end-use
savings). Most likely, the answer lies somewhere in between. On
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040
R. Harmsen et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
will be achieved (European Commission, 2011a). This is confirmed by a recent study of Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute
(2010a), which also shows that only half of the energy savings
target will be achieved without strengthening the energy policies
in place or implementing additional policies.
Realizing energy savings and implementing effective energy
savings policies turns out to be an extremely difficult policy effort.
This, in combination with the indicative character of the energy
savings target versus the binding character of the renewable
energy targets, holds the risk that a policy focus on meeting the
renewable energy target and booking in the primary energy
savings (left-hand bar in Fig. 8) decreases the need and incentives
for demand-side energy savings.
In our view, however, the fact that renewable energy leads to
primary energy savings due to the use of the Primary Energy
Method may not be an argument to give the renewable energy
target a more pronounced place in the policy hierarchy than the
energy savings target. This would also be undesirable as (part of)
the benefits of realizing demand-side energy savings potential out
there will be missed, whereas substantial additional investments
in renewable energy are needed. Among the missed benefits are
(Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a):
h78 billion savings on Europe’s annual energy bill.
Creation of 1 million new jobs by 2020.
Reducing Europe’s import dependency.
Increase the share of renewable energy without investing in
additional renewable energy capacity.
Get back on track for realizing deep GHG emission reduction
objectives on the long term (2050).
Could the described interaction between renewable energy
and energy savings be avoided? The answer is ‘yes’. An energy
savings target focusing on end-use sectors (instead of the whole
economy) and expressed in final energy (instead of primary
energy) would avoid the interaction between the savings target
and the renewable energy target. Moreover, the Ecofys and
Fraunhofer Institute (2010a) shows that 85% of the total costeffective energy savings potential up to 2020 can be found in enduse sectors. A final energy savings target would therefore still
cover the majority of the energy savings potential available.20
If the European policy makers insist on an energy savings target
covering all primary energy use, the role of renewable energy should
be explicitly taken into account when setting the target.
References
Andrews, J., Jelley, N., 2007. Energy Science: Principles, Technologies and Impacts,
first ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Buck, S.te, van Keulen, K., Bosselaar, L., Gerlagh, T., 2010. Protocol monitoring
hernieuwbare energie (Protocol Monitoring Renewable Energy)—Update
2009. Agentschap NL, May 2010.
Capros, P., Mantzos, L., Papandreou, V., Tasios, N., 2008. European Energy and
Transport, Trends to 2030—Update 2007. ICIS-NTUA, Athens, Greece. Client:
European Commission.
Capros, P., Mantzos, L., Tasios, N., De Vita, A., Kouvaritakis, N., 2010. EU Energy
Trends to 2030—Update 2009. ICIS-NTUA, Athens, Greece. Client: European
Commission.
CBS (Statistics Netherlands), 2009. Renewable energy in the Netherlands 2008.
The Hague/Heerlen.
9
Ecofys et al., 2009. Sectoral Emission Reduction Potentials and Economic Costs for
Climate Change (SERPEC-CC) Summary report. Study for DG-Environment.
Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010a. Energy Savings 2020—how to triple the
impact of energy savings policies in Europe (final version). Ecofys & Fraunhofer ISI for the European Climate Foundation, September 2010.
Ecofys and Fraunhofer Institute, 2010b. The Feasibility of Binding Energy Savings
Targets in the EU—Part 1: Facts and Figures. Ecofys & Fraunhofer ISI for the
European Climate Foundation. Unpublished report, April 2010.
Edwards, R., Larive, J.-F., Mahieu, V., Rouveirolles, P., 2007.Well to wheel analysis
of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. CONCAWE, EUCAR and Joint Research Centre, March 2007.
EurObserver, 2011. Interactive EurObser’ER Database. Visited March 2011.
European Commission, 2003. Directive 2003/30/EC of 8 May 2003 on the
promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.
European Commission, 2005. Green Paper on Energy Efficiency or Doing More
With Less. COM(2005) 265 final.
European Commission, 2006. Communication from the Commission—Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential. COM(2006) 545 final.
European Commission, 2007. Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European
Council of 8 and 9 March 2007.
European Commission, 2008a. Commission staff working document – impact
assessment – document accompanying the package of implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for
2020. SEC(2008) 85 final.
European Commission, 2008b. Communication from the Commission—energy
efficiency: delivering the 20% target. COM(2008) 772 final.
European Commission, 2008c. Annex to the impact assessment: document
accompanying the Package of Implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020. SEC(2008) 85
volume II.
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources.
European Commission, 2010a. EUCO 7/10 European Council Presidency Conclusions, Brussels 25 and 26 March 2010.
European Commission, 2010b. EUCO 13/10 European Council, 17 June 2010,
Conclusions.
European Commission, 2011a. Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. COM(2011) 109/4.
European Commission, 2011b. A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon
economy in 2050. COM(2011) 112/4 Provisional Text.
European Commission, 2011c. Impact assessment: accompanying document to the
Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. SEC(2011) 277 final.
Eurostat & European Commission, 2011. Energy, transport and environment
indicators Edition 2010. Eurostat Pocketbooks, ISSN 1725-4566.
Fraunhofer-Institute for Systems and Innovation Research and partners, 2009.
Study on the Energy Savings Potentials in EU Member States, Candidate
Countries and EEA Countries. Final Report for the European Commission
Directorate-General Energy and Transport. EC Service Contract Number
TREN/D1/239-2006/S07.66640.
IEA & Eurostat, 2005. Energy Statistics Manual. International Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA, 2008. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. International Energy Agency,
Paris.
Lundgren, J., Hermansson, R., Dahl, J., 2004. Experimental studies of a biomass
boiler suitable for small district heating systems. Journal of Biomass and
Bioenergy 26, 443–453.
McKinsey & Company, 2010. Impact of the financial crisis on carbon economics:
Version 2.1 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve.
Patel, M.R., 2006. Wind and Solar Power Systems: Design, Analysis, and Operation.
CRC Press.
Patel, M., 2008. Understanding bio-economics. European Plastic News, 28–29
(March).
Patel, M., Crank, M., Dornburg, V., Hermann, B., Roes, L., 2006. Medium and long
term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk
chemicals from renewable resources. BREW project for DG-Research, Utrecht,
September 2006.
Segers, R., 2008. Three options to calculate the percentage renewable energy: An
example for a EU policy debate. Journal of Energy Policy 36, 3243–3248.
Yoshida, Y., Dowaki, K., Matsumura, Y., Matsuhashi, R., Li, D., Ishitani, H.,
Komiyama, H., 2003. Comprehensive comparison of efficiency and CO2 emissions between biomass energy conversion technologies—position of supercritical water gasification in biomass technologies. Journal of Biomass and
Bioenergy 25, 257–272.
20
Whereas efficiency improvement in the energy supply sector should be
driven by the EU Emission Trading Scheme.
Please cite this article as: Harmsen, R., et al., The unrecognized contribution of renewable energy to Europe’s energy savings target.
Energy Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.040