ICELAND’S ENERGY RESOURCES AND MASTER PLAN WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS Egill Benedikt Hreinsson, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, ICELAND email:
[email protected] ABSTRACT The Icelandic Master plan (MP) for evaluating renewable energy resources was initiated by the Government of Iceland in 1999 and is currently in its Phase 2 stage, here called MP2. MP2 is at the time of writing, under review by the Iceland Parliament (Alþingi) waiting to be passed as law and is subject to environmental and economic scrutiny. The MP2 continued the effort of MP1 of assessing the country’s hydroelectric and geothermal energy resources but with the emphasis on preservation vs. utilization. Other renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar, have not been estimated in the MP. The energy resources and progress in their evaluation in the MP is reviewed and summarized and results and conclusions are drawn regarding these indigenous energy resources, as seen in the MP2. The paper sets forth an updated view of the scope and limits of the viable energy resources in terms of hydro and geothermal resources and projects to be harnessed in the future for local utilization and export. KEY WORDS Renewable Energy, Resources, Planning, Hydroelectric, Geothermal.
has been composed of 2 phases, here called MP1 and MP2 [3]. The time frame of MP1 was from 1999 to 2003 and it concluded with a preliminary ruling with limited data [5]. The MP2 has been ongoing since 2004 but was finalized in 2011 with a report [3]. The MP1 results were presented in a previous paper [5] and many papers have been based on the MP1 such as: [5], [8], [9], [11], [10]. This paper will review the above evaluation process of the MP, in particular MP2. The MP has tried to focus on setting limits to the exploitation of the energy resources. The paper will also describe these resources considering the environmental and economic limitations, such as those as specified by the MP1 and MP2 and other aspects. In section 2 we will review the (a) present electricity generation, (b) hydro resources, (c) geothermal energy resources and (d) general energy utilization. In section 3 the MP will be reviewed with its individual working groups (WGs) and main results. Finally, in section 4, the main conclusions will be drawn regarding the scope of the MP and its application in future policy development and energy utilization, including export and trading interaction of the resources with international electricity markets and local utilization by energy intensive industry.
1
2
Introduction
Iceland has an abundance of renewable energy resources when compared to the size of its economy. These resources are among the highest in the world when compared to the population. These are primarily hydro and geothermal resources but recently wind energy has come into increased focus. The wind and solar resources however remain to be estimated. Hydro energy has, of course, been used primarily for electricity generation, while geothermal energy has been used for space heating in this relatively cold climate, as well as for electricity generation. Wind energy for electricity generation may in the future come increasingly into focus, since hydro reservoirs with stored energy are an ideal back-up medium for the intermittent wind resource. To reach a possible consensus on the extent of the utilization and which sites should be preserved, the Master Plan (MP) for assessing the renewable energy resources of hydro and geothermal energy, (See: www.rammaaaetlun.is) was formally initiated in 1999 by the Government of Iceland. Up to the present, the plan
Iceland’s energy resources
Figure 1 shows a traditional type of estimate, historically presented on many occasions, of the size of the resources and the present level of utilization, in 2005 and in 2010. The total amount of available energy resources is here estimated to be about 50,000 GWh/year with approximately 32% already utilized in 2010. The Master plans, MP1 and MP2, are an attempt to refine and update such an estimate, where limitations, such as the environmental impact, and the national economic impact are a formal part of the process, in addition to the project economic and technical characteristics. Table 1 presents an overview of the total amount of resources, both already harnessed and new resources according to the MP’s, with projects not yet exploited. A few comments are in order regarding Table 1. First, the existing system, both hydro and geothermal is shown as ”in operation” and the historical power and energy data are from [1] and are valid for 2010. Fuel based energy generation is ignored since it is not a part of the
2010
TWh /year 50
40
Geothermal
30
Energy Intensive Industry
2005
16
10 8,5
79%
8,5 TWh /year
Hydro 20
16 TWh /year
100%
32% 17 %
Energy Intensive Industry
65% General demand
35%
0 Total Resources
Resource Breakdown 2005
General demand
21% Resource Breakdown 2010
Figure 1. The primary resources are those of hydro and geothermal where this estimate assumes the total resource for electricity generation to be about 50,000 GWh/year. Only about 32% of these have been harnessed in 2010. Wind and other renewable energy resources such as solar or tidal are not part of the MP but may be included in future versions
resources. The installed capacity of fuel based stations is, however, counted since it contributes to the total system capacity in MW. Again, wind resources are not included, since they have not been a part of the MP. Secondly, the amount of new resources is from [3] which is summarized in Tables 2 and 4. This includes all projects appraised by the MP irrespective of the ranking in term of environmental and other factors. Therefore, the estimate can be viewed as gross including all those projects that may later be subject to preservation, for instance for environmental reasons. Third, the grand total in Table 1 is the sum of existing plants in operation and possible new projects (Gross). The total gross amount of resources according to the bottom line in Table 1, suitable for electricity generation, is therefore in the order of 65,000 GWh/year of which about 17,000 is already harnessed or 26.2%. This figure lies between 16,000 and 17,500 GWh/year, when considering the preliminary and final results [7] and [3]. Therefore, one can say that a relatively small fraction of these gross energy resources has been harnessed so far, at least when compared to the utilization levels in many neighboring Western European countries. Additional development of these resources will need to consolidate conflicting views. The purpose of the present MP is exactly this consolidation process. 2.1
Existing generation
We will briefly review here the composition of the existing power system.
Table 1. Break-down of hydro and geothermal energy resources in operation in 2010 and new from MP2 without considering environmental and other restrictions Type of resource – – Fuel stations in operation Geothermal in operations Hydro in operation TOTAL in operation New geothermal projects New hydro projects TOTAL new resources Grand total geothermal Grand total hydro Grand TOTAL
Energy Generation Capability (GWh/yr) – 4,465 12,592 17,057 30,435 17,500 47,935 34,900 30,092 64,992
Installed Capacity (MW) 120 575 1883 2578 3773 2338 6111 4348 4221 8569
Figure 2 shows the rapid growth in recent decades of the generation capacity both hydro and geothermal. The fuel based capacity is negligible. The Figure basically shows the expansion process as a stepwise increasing curve in terms of installed MW, where each step, with the associated timing and size in MW corresponds to a whole station or a subset of units within a station. The average linear growth rate from almost zero in 1930 to about 2000 MW in 2010 is indicated by the straight broken line in the figure. This amounts to about 2000 MW in 60 years or 33 MW per year on the average. An attempt to fit an exponential curve to the growth is also depicted graphically, although the corresponding exponential growth figure is left out. Figure 2 does not include all micro-projects, which results in the discrepancy between the generation level in Figure 2 and Table 1. We will briefly list the major generating units. As indicated previously, the power system consists of both hydro and geothermal stations. The largest of the hydro station is Kárahnjúkar (690 MW) followed by Búrfell (270 MW), Hrauneyjafoss (210 MW), Blanda (150 MW), Sigalda (150 MW), Sultartangi (120 MW), Sog (90 MW in 3 plants), Vatnsfell (65 MW), Laxá (27 MW), Andakíll (8 MW) and Elliðaár (3 MW). Geothermal stations include Hellisheiði (303 MW), Nesjavellir (120 MW), Reykjanes (100 MW), Svartsengi (75 MW), Krafla (60 MW) and Bjarnarflag (3 MW). Thermal fuel station are Straumsvík (35 MW) and several mostly non-active diesel generators. The largest generating company, Landsvirkjun has an installed capacity of 1,895 MW, with 1,797 MW in 13 hydro stations and 63 MW in 2 geothermal stations, in addition to Straumsvík (35 MW) gas turbine [6]. Next, the new and additional resources will be reviewed, starting with the geothermal energy resources. After that the hydro resources will be outlined.
Table 2. A list of geothermal projects evaluated in the Master Plan (MP). The table show all 44 non-mutually exclusive geothermal projects evaluated. The total energy generation capacity from these projects is 30,435 GWh/yr assuming a total installed capacity of 3773 MW. The first column is simply the table item. The 2nd column is the identification number (ID) referred to on the map in Figure 5. Also shown is estimated installed capacity (MW) for each projects according to its design and the firm energy generation capability (in GWh/year). The cost group for each project is shown as well as the connection cost to the main grid. This table is adapted from [7], p.13.
Total installed capacity (MW) 2200 2000
1600 1400 1200
Capa- Energy Cost ConnGeothermal city (GWh Group ection Project Name (MW) /yr) Cost ($/MWh /yr) 1 61 Reykjanes 80 568 2.5 6.2 2 62 Stóra Sandvík 40 328 2.5 11.6 3 63 Eldvörp (Svartsengi) 50 410 3.0 7.6 4 64 Sandfell 40 328 3.0 16.0 5 65 Trölladyngja 50 410 3.0 12.2 6 66 Sveifluháls 50 410 2.0 14.9 7 67 Austurengjar 40 328 2.0 19.3 8 68 Brennisteinsfjöll 25 200 3.0 30.3 9 69 Meitillinn 45 369 3.0 7.1 10 70 Gráuhnúkar 45 369 3.0 7.7 11 71 Hverahlíð 90 738 3.0 4.5 12 72 Hellisheiði 90 738 3.0 3.2 13 73 Innstidalur 45 369 3.0 3.7 14 74 Bitra 90 738 3.0 5.2 15 75 Þverárdalur (Ölfusv.l.) 90 738 3.0 4.0 16 76 Ölfusdalur 10 82 2.5 8.1 17 77 Grændalur 120 984 3.0 4.0 18 78 Geysir 25 200 3.0 21.3 19 79 Hverabotn 49 392 3.0 44.8 20 80 Neðri-Hveradalir 49 392 3.0 44.1 21 81 Kisubotnar 49 392 3.0 42.2 22 82 Þverfell 49 392 3.0 47.0 23 83 Hveravellir 70 560 3.0 39.3 24 84 Blautakvísl 181 1448 3.0 12.7 25 85 Vestur-Reykjadalir 181 1448 3.0 13.7 26 86 Austur-Reykjadalir 181 1448 3.0 13.9 27 87 Ljósártungur 181 1448 3.0 16.8 28 88 Jökultungur 181 1448 3.0 17.5 29 89 Kaldaklof 181 1448 3.0 16.7 30 90 Landmannalaugar 181 1448 3.0 12.6 31 91 Hágönguvirkjun, 1 45 369 3.0 62.6 32 104 Hágönguvirkjun, 2 90 738 2.0 25.0 33 92 Vonarskarð 145 1160 3.0 38.9 34 93 Kverkfjöll 155 1240 3.0 41.9 35 94 Askja 135 1080 3.0 23.4 36 95 Hrúthálsar 20 160 3.0 37 96 Fremrinámar 45 369 3.0 46.1 38 97 Bjarnarflag 90 738 2.0 5.8 39 98 Krafla I- stækkun 40 320 2.0 5.3 40 99 Krafla II, 1. áfangi 45 369 2.0 13.6 41 103 Krafla II, 2. áfangi 90 738 2.0 6.8 42 100 Gjástykki 45 369 3.0 14.3 43 102 Þeistareykir 180 1476 2.0 3.4 44 101 Þeistareykir-Vestursvæði 90 738 2.0 16.3 Total 3773 30435 Currency rate of exchange 1 US$ = 120.0 ISK (Iceland kr)
Vatnsfell Nesjavellir Sultartangi Nesjavellir
1000
400 200 0
Hrauneyjafoss
Svartsengi Búrfell
Krafla
800 600
Table ID Item # # on map
Kárahnjúkar
1800
Blanda
Svartsengi Krafla Lagarfoss Sigalda Búrfell Mjólká Steingrímsstöð Laxá Ljósafoss Írafoss Laxá
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Figure 2. The historical expansion of the installed hydro and geothermal generating capacity in the Icelandic power system. Smaller stations are omitted.
2.2
Geothermal Energy Resources
Geothermal energy is an important factor in providing Iceland with energy for space heating. This energy is in many ways an important basis for the Icelandic economy and Iceland’s independence. It has been used widely for electricity generation and the increase in geothermal generation has been explosive in recent years [4]. In 2008 about 62% of the primary energy consumption came from geothermal resources. The economic value of the savings in space heating with geothermal energy, as compared to using oil or gas, is important especially when compared to the size of the economy. The average household in regions with geothermal space heating pays only a fraction of the cost, if these houses were heated with imported oil. Geothermal energy projects have been appraised in the MP2 [3]. Table 2 outlines a list of 44 such potential future projects, and the data are from [3]. It should be noted, that this is a gross list, including all projects, such as those that may be subject to preservation for environmental reasons, as discussed below. The 2nd column in Table 2 (ID # ) refers to the map in Figure 5, with the location of each project and is an project ID number used throughout the MP and this paper. The 3rd column is the project name, the 4th column is the estimated installed MW of each geothermal project. Next is a column with firm energy generation. The 6th column indicates the cost group as shown in Table 3 with approximate classification. Finally the connection cost for each project to the grid is shown in the last column.
Primary energy utilization (PJ)
Table 3. Cost groups; The table shows ranges of investment cost per unit of energy generation, in US dollar/MWh/year for each of the 6 cost groups. Accurate life cycle costs were not evaluated by the MP team so the cost group classification is approximate. Group # 6 covers, for instance, all projects with a higher cost than 567 US$ for each MWh/year in generated firm energy output. (Rate of exchange: 1 US$ = 120 Iceland kr.) From [3], p. 31 Cost group 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lower limit (US$/MWh/yr) 0 225 275 333 442 567
Upper limit (US$/MWh/yr) 225 275 333 442 550 -
ID # on map
Hydroelectric Project
Capa- Energy Utilisa- Cost city (GWh tion Group (MW) /yr) Time
1 17 Skaftárveita án miðlunar -465 2 24 Tungnárlón -270 3 27 Norðlingaölduveita -635 4 12 Arnardalsvirkjun 570 4000 5 16 Skaftárveita með miðlun -245 6 31 Urriðafossvirkjun 130 980 7 40 Búlandsvirkjun 150 970 8 6 Skatastaðavirkjun B 184 1260 9 10 Hrafnabjargavirkjun A 89 622 10 18 Skaftárvirkjun 125 760 11 19 Hólmsárvirkjun - án miðlunar 72 450 12 20 Hólmsárvirkjun - miðlun 72 470 13 21 Hólmsárvirkjun neðri 48 360 14 25 Bjallavirkjun 46 340 15 28 Búðarhálsvirkjun 80 585 16 38 Selfossvirkjun 30 250 17 5 Blönduveita 20 131 18 7 Skatastaðavirkjun C 156 1090 19 8 Villinganesvirkjun 33 237 20 13 Helmingsvirkjun 270 2100 21 14 Djúpá 75 498 22 15 Hverfisfljót 40 260 23 23 Markarfljótsvirkjun B 109 735 24 26 Skrokkölduvirkjun 30 215 25 29 Hvammsvirkjun 82 665 26 30 Holtavirkjun 53 415 27 33 Bláfellsvirkjun 76 536 28 34 Búðartunguvirkjun 50 320 29 35 Haukholtsvirkjun 60 358 30 37 Hestvatnsvirkjun 40 300 31 1 Hvítá í Borgarfirði 20 125 32 2 Glámuvirkjun 67 400 33 4 Hvalá 35 259 34 11 Eyjadalsárvirkjun 8 58 35 22 Markarfljótsvirkjun A 14 120 36 32 Gýgjarfossvirkjun 21 146 37 39 Hagavatnsvirkjun 20 140 38 3 Skúfnavatnavirkjun 8.5 60 39 9 Fljótshnúksvirkjun 58 405 40 36 Vörðufell 52 170 Total in table 2994 22405 Total without double counting MI projects 2338 17500 Currency rate of exchange 1 US$ = 120.0 ISK (Iceland kr)
(h/yr) ---7018 -7538 6467 6848 6989 6080 6250 6528 7500 7391 7313 8333 6550 6987 7182 7778 6640 6500 6743 7167 8110 7830 7053 6400 5967 7500 6250 5970 7400 7250 8571 6952 7000 7059 6983 3269 7485 7485
1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
200
Fractional breakdown: Coal Oil 80
100
Coal
60
150
40
Geothermal
20
100
Hydro
0 1950
1970
1990
2010
Oil
Peat
50 0 1940
Geothermal Hydro
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Mór
Figure 3. Primary energy use in Iceland from 1940 to 2010 in PJ (PetaJoule). The different shades show Hydro, Geothermal, Oil and Coal as primary resources. The insert shows fuel substitution, where oil replaced coal and how renewable energy is gradually replacing oil. [2]
Table 4. Hydroelectric projects evaluated by the MP. The firm energy capacity of all the projects evaluated is 22,405 GWh/yr. However, some of the projects are mutually exclusive with different designs at a given project site. The accumulated energy of the whole set without any such duplication is 17,500 GWh/yr. From [7], p.12 Table Item #
250
Connection Cost ($/MWh /yr) ---5.0 -3.3 12.5 10.3 14.3 14.8 31.2 26.7 34.8 11.3 12.1 4.4 22.2 11.9 12.6 2.0 9.9 22.3 19.6 85.8 5.8 6.7 22.1 15.7 15.8 14.5 46.0 17.3 47.1 35.7 148.8 179.2 51.2 151.4 50.1 17.0
It should be emphasized, that Table 2 is a gross list, so a number of project will most likely fall under preservation restrictions as discussed below in section 3. Furthermore, the MP is not an economic evaluation of projects or resource types and therefore, unfortunately, lifecycle costs are not explicitly considered in the MP. Generally, however, the lifetime of hydro is considerably higher than that of geothermal projects and operation cost is lower. Next we will discuss the list of hydroelectric resources a as a list of hydro projects in subsection 2.3. 2.3
Hydroelectric Resources
Potential future hydroelectric projects have been estimated in the MP2 [3]. Table 4 outlines a list of 40 such projects. Each column in Table 4 will be discussed here. Column #1 is an item # in the table. Column #2 is the ID number of each project, see the map in Figure 5. After the project name comes installed capacity in MW (Column 4) and project firm energy (Column 5). The utilization time (hours per year) is shown in column #6. In column #7 is the cost group as explained in Table 3 and finally in column #8 is the connection cost of connecting the project to the main grid. Again, the cost group is not based on accurate lifecycle calculation but and is therefore approximate. Finally in the next section the general use of energy resources will be briefly outlined. 2.4
General use of Energy Resources
Although we will not discuss primary energy utilization here (space heating, transportation, etc.) it may be appropriate to mention the rapid development shown in figure 3. This includes both indigenous hydro and geothermal energy and imported fossil fuel energy.
The main conclusion of Figure 3 is the series of fuel substitution processes ongoing in the last 100 years, where oil replaced coal and is in turn being replaced by renewable energy resources, such as hydro and geothermal. This is true for primary energy utilization as well as electricity generation.
3 3.1
The Master Plan (MP) The MP1 and MP2 methodology
As has been previously discussed, the MP has been split into two phases, MP1 and MP2. MP1, 1999–2003, evaluated and ranked hydro-power projects and geothermal options in 8 high-temperature areas. The MP2, a total of 40 + 44 = 84 projects have been evaluated both hydro and geothermal. The MP2 ranks these projects to produce a result, which will take differing criteria into account, such as environmental issues, the issue of complete preservation and project economics. In the MP, proposed projects are evaluated and categorized on the basis factors, such as economic efficiency, and benefit from the national economic perspective. The potential for employment and regional development is also considered. The environmental impact, and how wildlife is affected is taken into account, as well as if cultural heritage, ancient monuments, grazing and other traditional land use is affected. Also „visual pollution” in the landscape is considered and if and how the project affects outdoor activities, fishing, and hunting. At all stages of the evaluation process, the public and non-governmental organizations are and have been consulted regarding expert opinions and results. Public participation has has been welcomed. In MP1, Landvernd, the National Association for the Protection of the Icelandic Environment established a forum based on on-line participation for discussions and information exchange. Also open meetings were held, workshops and press conferences. In MP2 a similar methodology has been applied, with an open web site (www.rammaaaetlun.is), interaction with stakeholders, public meetings and media conferences. 3.2
Scope and responsibility of the MP
The MP has been the joint responsibility by The Ministry of Industry and The Ministry for the Environment. At the start these ministries established the Steering Committees (SC). The first SC with 16 members, prepared a preliminary ranking without completing the final evaluation. In 2007, a second SC with 14 members was formed to complete the task. 3.3
Special Working groups (WG)
As in the MP1 several working groups (WGs) contributed and supported the SC. These groups were composed of a
Table 5. The table shows the main ranking by of the 84 projects both hydro and geothermal. These are the main results of the MP Steering committee (SC) ranking based on the individual WGs’ results and other issues. See the main text for explanations of each of the 10 columns. The ID number, for each project, is shown in bold type in columns # 2 and 7. Note the headings are identical for the left and right part of the table. This table is adapted from [3], p. 15 - 21 and 143 - 149 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ID Rank IndID Rank Ind# on UTIL PR ex # on UTIL PR ex map NE map NE 72 1 66 40 43 96 43 24 43 5 2 65 73 44 7 44 23 4 61 3 64 38 45 10 45 22 24 98 4 63 54 46 14 47 21 28 28 5 62 31 47 32 48 20 71 62 6 57 63 48 16 50 19 67 70 7 61 66 49 13 49 18 2 69 8 58 69 50 6 51 17 3 99 8 58 49 51 20 46 16 34 103 8 58 22 52 18 52 15 21 71 11 56 41 53 92 53 14 15 97 12 54 23 54 79 55 10 51 63 13 55 59 55 80 55 10 48 64 14 53 76 56 81 55 10 46 30 15 52 42 57 82 55 10 45 29 16 51 27 58 23 59 9 19 67 17 50 70 59 12 54 8 1 101 18 48 20 60 84 60 1 10 102 18 48 5 61 85 60 1 14 26 20 45 64 62 86 60 1 12 66 21 47 68 63 87 60 1 13 73 22 46 65 64 88 60 1 9 65 23 44 62 65 89 60 1 7 75 24 43 36 66 90 60 1 6 91 25 37 52 67 1 81 104 25 37 26 68 2 16 74 27 42 37 69 3 82 31 28 41 17 70 8 55 4 29 39 44 71 11 83 27 30 40 33 72 15 61 21 31 36 56 73 22 79 68 32 33 80 74 34 53 77 33 34 29 75 35 47 39 34 35 77 76 36 57 24 35 32 72 77 37 60 25 36 31 58 78 38 75 9 37 30 25 79 76 84 19 38 29 35 80 78 78 17 40 28 50 81 83 32 33 41 27 30 82 93 8 100 39 26 39 83 94 11 40 42 25 18 84 95 74
number of experts and professionals. There were 4 different working groups, WG1, WG2 WG3 and WG4, as listed below: • WG1 evaluated what impact proposed power projects will have on nature, the landscape, geological formations, vegetative cover, and flora and fauna, as well as cultural and archaeological heritage and ancient monuments. • WG2 evaluated the impact on tourism, outdoor or recreational activities, agriculture, vegetation, fishing in rivers and lakes, and hunting. • WG3 evaluated the impact that proposed power projects would have on national economic activity, employment, and regional development. • WG4 identified potential power projects, both hydro and geothermal, and carried out technical and economic evaluations on their firm energy output, cost and capacity. Not all the WG ranked all the projects [3]. In fact 66 of the 84 projects were appraised by all WGs. Table 5 shows the ranking of the projects by the SC as a result of ranking by the individual WGs. The columns of the table are as follows. Columns 1 and 6 are just the table items. Columns 3 and 7 are the project ID numbers referred to elsewhere in this paper. Columns 3 and 8 are Ranking with respect to utilization called UTIL. Therefore the project ranked as #1 (with UTIL) has the highest potential or recommendation of being realized or utilized for electricity generation. Columns 4 and 9 are Ranking with respect to preservation called here PR. Similarly the project ranked as #1 (with PR) has the highest potential or recommendation of being preserved and NOT utilized for electricity generation. Finally columns 5 and 10 are rankings based on WG3’s criteria such as economic impact and regional development. This is the SC ranking with the label NE. Figure 4 shows a 2-dimensional plot of the projects as dots on the figure with their ID numbers and represent the results of ranking from WG1 and WG2. The horizontal axis shows decreased negative impact to the right in the figure, based on WG1’s criteria (Nature, cultural/archaeological heritage, etc). The vertical axis shows decreased negative impact upwards in the figure, based on WG2’s criteria (Tourism, recreation, etc). Therefore the projects that are clustered at the upper right rank favorably in terms of utilization or harnessing these resources for electricity generation. The opposite is true for the projects at the lower left (Preservation zone). Therefore the lower left in the Figure has been called ”Preservation point of view” and the upper right has been called the ”Energy utilization point of view”. The SC used circles drawn from these points to rank projects with respect to preservation as opposed to energy utilization, as shown in 4.
3.4
The Evaluation Process
The National Energy Authority [2] and power companies have compiled reports on project proposals they wish to have evaluated by the Steering Committee. Most of these reports have been made public and, as a first phase in the process, the public and stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the reports and offer comments. Subsequently, the reports have been evaluated and graded by the 4 WG’s. The WG’s findings are compiled by the SC and all projects have been graded on the basis of their overall feasibility. Finally, as previously outlined, the SC categorized the project proposals and identified on one hand, proposals that appear to be feasible in terms of both their economic implications and their environmental consequences. On the other hand, proposals that, for economic or environmental reasons, should not be carried out, were also defined. This may be the case for the foreseeable future or only until further studies have been made. The result of this work, finished in 2011 is the proposed MP for the utilization of hydro and geothermal energy resources [3] [7].
4
Conclusions and results
The primary conclusions regarding the MP as discussed in this paper are as follows: • The main ranking of the 84 project into the ”preservation” or ”energy utilization” category is shown in Table 5. • The primary objective of the MP2 was to categorize the hydro and geothermal resources with respect to preservation or energy utilization using expert working groups (WGs) with their own assessments and ranking procedures. The objective was ackomplished using 4 WGs on a total of 84 projects. • A strong correlation was between the results of WG1 and WG2. Weaker correlation was among the other WGs. • Economical or lower cost projects are found both within a group o projects that ranked high and low with respect to preservation. Therefore the Steering committee (SC) presented its own ranking largely based on WG1 and WG2 rankings but used other results as a reference. • In the overall ranking process the SC used the ideas presented in Figure 4 where a circle is drawn from the lower left or upper right position to indicate the distance from or to a „preservation point of view” or alternatively a „utilization point of view”. • As previously mentioned, wind resources and other renewable energy resources, such as tidal or solar,
Figure 5. The primary project sites for projects of the Master Plan (MP). Hydro projects are shown as blue dots with the associated ID number (See Tables 2), while the geothermal are indicated as red dots. Most of the projects are located in the volcanically active zone that stretches from the South-west peninsula to the North-east of Iceland. Also shown as a blue square, is the potential site for a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable converter station in Eastern Iceland.
Decreasing negative impact on tourism and other uses according to WG2
Utilization zone
72 28 861 7 99 1 5 13 0 9 98 70 69 62 101 71 6 30 3 6 63 10 02 65 6 4 64 2 6 29 73 7 27 2 66 67 6 31 74 75 7 2 68 24 26 2 39 25 2 2 77 21 97 9
17 7 6
0
1 13
12 92 1 18 84 4-90 -90 79 9-82 -82 23
40 10
9 91 104 1
9
3 96 33
19 1
16 32 1 14
10 10 20 2
Decreasing negative impact on nature and archaeological and cultural heritage according to WG1
Preservation zone
Figure 4. Zones indicating preservation versus utilization. Each project is shown as a dot in the figure and ID #s for some projects are shown for each dot. The radius of the circles drawn in the direction of the arrows indicate ranks for the projects in terms of preservation or utilization. Therefore these projects can be uniquely ranked based on this radius. Adapted from [3], p.14
have not been part of the MP. Therefore these resources are not included in this review paper. It is hoped that future versions of the MP, or another comparable evaluation, will include all such renewable and environmentally friendly energy resources. • Unfortunately, the MP cost group classification is only based on partial information or investment cost per unit of energy output per year. It is hoped that lifecycle cost based on operations cost and formal project economic lifetimes will be included in future versions. It is believed that the lack of cost information submitted may be due to market competition conditions. However, as the cost applies to harnessing natural resources for the national benefit and as the MP is being debated in the Althing (Parliament) complete information is important, since these results are subject to open public policy decisions. It is this author’s opinion that the MP may be an ongoing process and the project will be reevaluated in years to come as opportunities arise to harness theses and other renewable energy resources. Such resources are an important factor in the economy and the MP is a valuable effort in systematically categorizing the options available regarding future energy options and preservation versus energy utilization.
References [1] Energy statistics 2011. Technical report, Orkustofnun, Reykjavik, December 2011. [2] Orkustofnun (the national energy authority) web site: http://www.orkustofnun.is. 2012. [3] Sveinbjörn Björnsson (ed.). Niðurstöður 2. áfanga rammaáætlunar (Results of the phase 2 of the mp in Icelandic). Technical report, Steering Committee of The MP, Ministry of Industry, Reykjavik, 2011. [4] Egill Benedikt Hreinsson. Renewable energy resources in Iceland – environmental policy and economic value. Vaasa, Finland, 9 -11 of July, 2008. Nordic Conference on Production and Use of Renewable Energy. [5] Egill Benedikt Hreinsson. Environmental, technical, economics and policy issues of the master plan for the renewable hydro and geothermal energy resources in Iceland. In Universities Power Engineering Conference, 2007. UPEC 2007. 42nd International, pages 726 –731, sept. 2007. [6] Landsvirkjun. (www.lv.is), 2011.
Landsvirkjun
annual
report
[7] Rammaáætlun. Niðurstöður faghópa, kynningar og umsagnarferli verkefnisstjórnar (Results from working groups with public presentation and consulting in Icelandic). Technical report, Rammaáætlun, Orkugarður, Reykjavík, March 2010. [8] Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir and Rögnvaldur Ólafsson. Nature tourism assessment in the Icelandic master plan for geothermal and hydropower development. part ii: assessing the impact of proposed power plants on tourism and recreation. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(4):333–349, 2010. [9] Björnsson S. Adalsteinsson H. Steingrímsson, B. Master plan for geothermal and hydropower development in Iceland. A Presentation at Short Course on Geothermal Development in Central America – Resource Assessment and Environmental Management, organized by UNU-GTP and LaGeo San Salvador, El Salvador„ 25 November – 1 December. 2007. [10] Þóra Ellen Tórhallsdóttir. Strategic planning at the national level: Evaluating and ranking energy projects by environmental impact. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(6):545 – 568, 2007. [11] Þóra Ellen Þórhallsdóttir. Environment and energy in Iceland: A comparative analysis of values and impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(6):522 – 544, 2007.
