Climate change impacts on energy sector in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR)

Climate change could have positive or negative effects on energy related issues. This section emphasizes climate change’s effects on the energy demand for heating and cooling but also climate change’s effects on renewable energy sources. 

The summary of the impacts on energy production from different studies are presented in Table 1. For further details about the each subsection and specific studies, click on the links below the table. For tips on how to interpret the information in the table, see the Swedish example on the right.

Table 1. Climate change impacts on energy in the BalticClimate countries – a summary of general outlooks for the found impact scenarios interpreted from different scientific studies
(↑↑ Considerable increase; ↑ Slight increase; ↓↓ Considerable decrease; ↓ Slight decrease; ○ No or insignificant change; ~ Outcome very uncertain; ~↑ Outcome uncertain, increase tendency; ~↓ Outcome uncertain, decrease tendency; ─ Not included in the analysis)

Climate change impacts on:

SWE

FIN

EST

LAT

LIT

RU

GER

Hydropower production
Hydropower potential ↑ (↑↑)
Wind energy resources ~↑ ~↑ ~↑ ~↑ ~↑
Wind power production
Heating and cooling needs In winter ↓, in summer ↑
Heating needs ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
Cooling needs ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ 

For examples of impact scenarios reviewed from different scientific papers/reports, see the following subsections

Hydropower production (Scandinavia)

The EEA (2008) report included research results from an assessment of climate change effects on hydropower production in Scandinavia. Climate data from two regional circulation models (RCMs) (HadAM and ECHAM) driven by SRES B2 emission scenario for 2070-2100 with reference period of 1961-1990 was used in the study. However, it is not clear how the impact modelling or assessment was performed.

Figure 1 illustrates the projected hydropower production by regions. All regions of Sweden and Finland are projected to have the same or increased production in the future. The ECHAM model generally provides higher numbers of hydropower production in the future compared to the results based on HadAM. A general projection of future hydropower production in the BSR is illustrated in Table 2, interpreted from the results in EEA (2008).









Figure 1. Projected changes in hydropower production in Scandinavia due to climate change (Fig. 7.8 in EEA (2008))

Table 2. General outlook for hydropower production
(↑ Slight increase; ─ Not included in the analysis)

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ─ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Hydropower potential (Sweden)

A report produced by the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007) included research results of climate change effects on hydropower. Simulated inflow, expressed as energy, in Sweden’s major rivers for the period 2071-2100 compared to 1961-1990 for four climate scenarios was used to evaluate the hydropower potential in Sweden (RCAO-H/A2, RCAO-H/B2, RCAO-E/A2 and RCAO-E/B2) (Figure 2). The calculations were performed by the EMPS model, which simulates the drift of a power system for a chosen weather year (ibid).

According to the SRES B2 climate simulations hydropower is expected to increase 7-22% whereas the A2 climate scenario results in an increase of 10-31% (Gode et al., 2007). The northernmost rivers which currently have the highest production are projected to have the largest increase in production as well. A general projection of future hydropower potential in the BSR is illustrated in Table 3, interpreted from the results in a report by the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007).






Figure 2. Four climate scenarios of annual increase (%) in hydropower potential 2071-2100 compared to 1961-1990 (Fig. 4.16 in Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007))

Table 3. General outlook for hydropower potential
(↑↑ Considerable increase; ↑ Slight increase; ─ Not included in the analysis) 

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ↑ (↑↑) ─ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Wind energy resources (Northern Europe)

Pryor et al. (2005) have analyzed the potential climate change impact on wind energy resources in northern Europe using a regional climate model. Four-time daily outputs of the wind speed from the RCAO model was used to calculate: mean wind speeds, percentiles of the wind speed distribution, extreme wind speeds, directional frequencies, Weibull distribution parameters and energy density in each grid cell, and spatial and temporal autocorrelation functions. The results showed changes in mean wind speed, wind energy and 90th percentile wind speed between the control (1961-1990) and 2071-2100 (Figure 3). The RCAO A2 simulations were run for two sets of boundary conditions, ECHAM4/OPYC3 and HadAM3H.

The projections for the Baltic Sea from the ECHAM4/OPYC3 boundary conditions resulted in a larger change than what was provided with the HadAM3H boundary conditions. The mean wind speed was calculated to increase around 10 to 15% based on the ECHAM4/OPYC3 simulations and 5 to 10% based on the HadAM3H simulations. The calculated mean energy density was estimated to increase around 30 to 45% with the ECHAM4/OPYC3 projections and 15 to 30% with the HadAM3H. The wind speed and energy density projections for the BSR’s mainland have generally the same projections with both simulations; -5 to 10% and 15 to 30% increase for mean wind speed and energy density, respectively. A general projection of future wind energy resources in the BSR is illustrated in Table 4, interpreted from the results in Pryor et al. (2005).

 
Figure 3. Mean wind speed (a), wind energy density (b) and 90th percentile wind speed (c) changes between the control run and the RCAO simulations of 2071–2100 using the A2 simulation and boundary conditions from ECHAM4/OPYC3. (d), (e) and (f) as in (a) to (c) but for boundary conditions from HadAM3H. A value of 0.1 indicates a 10% increase in the A2 simulation value relative to the control run (Fig. 6 in Pryor et al. (2005)) (click to enlarge)

Table 4. General outlook for mean wind speed and energy density
(~↑ Outcome uncertain, increase tendency; ─ Not included in the analysis) 

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ~↑ ~↑ ~↑ ~↑ ~↑ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Wind power production (Sweden, Finland)

Climate change effects on wind power production in Scandinavia have been investigated by the Nordic Energy Research (2007). Regional wind power production for the reference period 1961-1990 was compared with two climate scenarios for 2070-2100, Hadley B2 and Max Planck B2. The Hadley B2 simulated no noteworthy change in wind power production over time whereas the Max Planck B2 run resulted in generally more wind in the northern parts. Northern Finland was projected to have 10% increase of wind power production. A general projection of future wind power production in the BSR is illustrated in Table 5, interpreted from the results in the Nordic Energy Research (2007) report.

Table 5. General outlook for wind power production 
(↑ Slight increase; ─ Not included in the analysis)

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ─ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Heating needs (Sweden)

A report from the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007) included results of an investigation on Sweden’s future heating needs in residential and business premises. The estimation was carried out based on the RCA3-E A2 climate scenario and the current property holdings. The climate change effects on energy needs were determined using the assumption of a linear relation between the number of heating degree days and energy needs. The simulated number of heating degree days for the 21st century was compared to 1961-1990. The European Union (EU) has as an objective to optimize energy use in the construction and property sector. For Sweden, the objective means an optimization potential for housing and property holdings of 30% until 2020. This study of energy need for heating assumed a fulfillment of this EU objective.

The resulting projections indicated that the energy need for heating in Sweden will fall about 28, 32 and 37% by the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, respectively, if the EU’s objective of optimization are achieved (Figure 4). If the EU’s objective instead should be disregarded and only the effect of climate change is considered, the energy use still is expected to fall, but not the same extent.

Figure 4. Changed number of heating degree days and the effect of energy optimization on heating needs for the 21st century based on RCA3-EA2 climate scenario (Fig. 4.21 in Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (2007) based on IVL (2007))

Back to the list of subsections

 

Heating and cooling needs (Finland)

Hanson et al. (2007) have modeled the development of electricity consumption over the next 100 years of climate change in Finland. They used a model based on the number of heating and cooling degree days (HDD and CDD, respectively) and monthly energy consumption. The fluctuation in CDD and HDD were used by the model to describe increased or decreased electricity and gas demand on a month-to-month basis. The climate change was based on four emission scenarios, SRES A1FI, A2, B2 and B1.

The result of future electricity (30-year mean monthly ratios) relative to a baseline (1961-1990) for Finland (Figure 5) implies a reduced electricity consumption during winter and about 5% increased consumption during summer in the 2080s. A general projection of heating and cooling needs in Finland is illustrated in Table 6, interpreted from the results in Hanson et al. (2007).

Figure 5. Monthly ratios of Finnish monthly electricity consumption under four SRES scenarios with respect to a baseline (1961-1990) computed using a model based on CDD and HDD for the 2050 and 2080s (Fig. 3 in Hanson et al. (2007)) (click to enlarge)

Table 6. General outlook for electricity consumption for heating and cooling
(↑ Slight increase; ↓ Slight decrease; ─ Not included in the analysis)

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change Winter: ↓ Summer: ↑ ─ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Heating and cooling needs (Europe)

The future heating and cooling needs within Europe have been estimated by Eskeland et al. (2009). They based their estimations on heating and cooling demand. An explicit microeconomic model that included impacts and adaptation in an optimizing framework was developed. For the model assessment and simulation of the climate change impacts, a number of input data was required: per capita household electricity consumption, per unit electricity prices (or tariffs), taxes on electricity consumption, per capita income, and historical heating and cooling degree days. The climate changes were estimated using empirical statistical downscaling (E-SDS) based on SRES A1b. The results for the BSR countries are summarized in Table 7. A more general projection of heating and cooling need in the BSR is illustrated in Table 8 and Table 9, interpreted from the results in Eskeland et al. (2009).

Table 7. Changes in cooling degree days (CDD) and heating degree days (HDD) before and after climate change for 21st century under climate scenario of A1b (based on Table 2b in Eskeland et al. (2009))

Country CDD before CDD after HDD before HDD after
Estonia 5 14 4128 3215
Finland 1 1 4601 3654
Germany 56 133 3022 2150
Latvia 21 53 4132 3181
Lithuania 45 102 4194 3163
Sweden 8 18 3904 3081


Table 8. General outlook for heating needs
(↓↓ Considerable decrease; ─ Not included in the analysis)

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ 


Table 9. General outlook for cooling needs

(↑↑ Considerable increase; ○ No or insignificant change; ─ Not included in the analysis)

  SWE FIN EST LAT LIT RU GER
Change ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ 

Back to the list of subsections

 

Look at the impacts on other sectors:

» Agriculture
» Housing and water
» Overall economy
» Forestry
» Health
» Natural environment