Content uploaded by Hans-Josef Fell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hans-Josef Fell on Apr 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.513
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
temperature function for a long-term district heat demand forecast
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
aIN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research -Instituto Superior Técnico,Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
bVeolia Recherche & Innovation,291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
cDépartement Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement -IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
Abstract
District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
prolonging the investment return period.
The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand –outdoor temperature function for heat demand
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
The results showed that when only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
(the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.513
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
1876-6102
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
11th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, IRES 2017, 14-16 March 2017,
Düsseldorf, Germany
The role of storage technologies for the transition to a 100%
renewable energy system in Ukraine
Michael Childa*, Christian Breyera,b, Dmitrii Bogdanova, Hans-Josef Fellb
aLappeenranta University of Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
bEnergy Watch Group, Albrechtstr. 22, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
A transition towards a 100% renewable energy (RE) power sector by 2050 is investigated for Ukraine. Simulations using an hourly
resolved model define the roles of storage technologies in a least cost system configuration. Results indicate that the levelised cost
of electricity will fall from a current level of 82 €/MWhe to 60 €/MWhe in 2050 through the adoption of low cost RE power
generation and improvements in efficiency. If the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the
cost would be 54 €/MWhe, which can be expected for the time beyond 2050. In addition, flexibility of and stability in the power
system are provided by increasing shares of energy storage solutions over time, in parallel with expected price decreases in these
technologies. Total storage requirements include 0-139 GWhe of batteries, 9 GWhe of pumped hydro storage, and 0-18,840 GWhgas
of gas storage for the time period. Outputs of power-to-gas begin in 2035 when renewable energy production reaches a share of
86% in the power system, increasing to a total of 13 TWhgas in 2050. A 100% RE system can be a more economical and efficient
solution for Ukraine, one that is also compatible with climate change mitigation targets set out at COP21. Achieving a sustainable
energy system can aid in achieving other political, economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several
barriers through proper planning and supportive policies.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
Keywords: energy transition; storage technologies; Ukraine, 100% Renewable Energy; energy system optimization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-40-829-7853.
E-mail address: Michael.Child@lut.fi
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
11th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, IRES 2017, 14-16 March 2017,
Düsseldorf, Germany
The role of storage technologies for the transition to a 100%
renewable energy system in Ukraine
Michael Childa*, Christian Breyera,b, Dmitrii Bogdanova, Hans-Josef Fellb
aLappeenranta University of Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
bEnergy Watch Group, Albrechtstr. 22, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
A transition towards a 100% renewable energy (RE) power sector by 2050 is investigated for Ukraine. Simulations using an hourly
resolved model define the roles of storage technologies in a least cost system configuration. Results indicate that the levelised cost
of electricity will fall from a current level of 82 €/MWhe to 60 €/MWhe in 2050 through the adoption of low cost RE power
generation and improvements in efficiency. If the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the
cost would be 54 €/MWhe, which can be expected for the time beyond 2050. In addition, flexibility of and stability in the power
system are provided by increasing shares of energy storage solutions over time, in parallel with expected price decreases in these
technologies. Total storage requirements include 0-139 GWhe of batteries, 9 GWhe of pumped hydro storage, and 0-18,840 GWhgas
of gas storage for the time period. Outputs of power-to-gas begin in 2035 when renewable energy production reaches a share of
86% in the power system, increasing to a total of 13 TWhgas in 2050. A 100% RE system can be a more economical and efficient
solution for Ukraine, one that is also compatible with climate change mitigation targets set out at COP21. Achieving a sustainable
energy system can aid in achieving other political, economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several
barriers through proper planning and supportive policies.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
Keywords: energy transition; storage technologies; Ukraine, 100% Renewable Energy; energy system optimization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-40-829-7853.
E-mail address: Michael.Child@lut.fi
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
1. Introduction
The landmark Paris Agreement of the 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change recognized the need for global response to the impending threat of climate change [1]. As part of the
agreement, such response involves limiting “global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels
and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” through low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1].
Among the countries ratifying the agreement was Ukraine, which targets that GHG emissions will not exceed 60% of
the 1990 level in 2030 [2]. Importantly, Ukraine aims to achieve this target in a context of multiple, large-scale
problems in the fore: armed conflict, net emigration, economic and industrial degrad ation [3], and over-dependence
on imported fossil and nuclear fuel [4]. On one hand, it may seem ambitious to achieve such a GHG reduction target
and fix the “many problems on the table” [2]. However, integrated and dynamic actions can attempt to tackle the
multitude of problems through “efficient and effective policies and imposing of limitations of GHG emissions which
are beyond current international obligations of Ukraine” [3]. On the other hand, Ukraine emission targets have been
described as “unacceptable in terms of ambition” as they promote higher GHG emissions than are seen currently, and
inadequate if Ukraine is to realize its “huge potential for climate action”[5].
Nomenclature
A-CAES Adiabatic compressed air energy storage
CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CHP Combined heat and power
CSP Concentrating solar thermal power
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GT/ST Gas turbine/Steam turbine
GW/GWh Gigawatt/Gigawatt hour
HHB Hot heat burner
HVDC High voltage direct current
ICE Internal combustion engine
INDC Intended nationally determined contribution
kW/kWh Kilowatt/Kilowatt hour
LCOC/E/S/T Levelised cost of curtailment/electricity/storage/transmission
LUT Lappeenranta University of Technology
Mt Megaton
MW/MWh Megawatt/Megawatt hour
OCGT Open cycle gas turbine
PHS Pumped hydro storage
PP Power plant
PtG, PtH Power to gas, Power to heat
PV Photovoltaics
RE Renewable energy
SME Small to medium enterprises
TES Thermal energy storage
TW/TWh Terawatt/Terawatt hour
WACC Weighted average cost of capital
e electric units
eq equivalent units
gas gas units
th thermal units
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 411
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
11th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, IRES 2017, 14-16 March 2017,
Düsseldorf, Germany
The role of storage technologies for the transition to a 100%
renewable energy system in Ukraine
Michael Childa*, Christian Breyera,b, Dmitrii Bogdanova, Hans-Josef Fellb
aLappeenranta University of Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
bEnergy Watch Group, Albrechtstr. 22, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
A transition towards a 100% renewable energy (RE) power sector by 2050 is investigated for Ukraine. Simulations using an hourly
resolved model define the roles of storage technologies in a least cost system configuration. Results indicate that the levelised cost
of electricity will fall from a current level of 82 €/MWhe to 60 €/MWhe in 2050 through the adoption of low cost RE power
generation and improvements in efficiency. If the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the
cost would be 54 €/MWhe, which can be expected for the time beyond 2050. In addition, flexibility of and stability in the power
system are provided by increasing shares of energy storage solutions over time, in parallel with expected price decreases in these
technologies. Total storage requirements include 0-139 GWhe of batteries, 9 GWhe of pumped hydro storage, and 0-18,840 GWhgas
of gas storage for the time period. Outputs of power-to-gas begin in 2035 when renewable energy production reaches a share of
86% in the power system, increasing to a total of 13 TWhgas in 2050. A 100% RE system can be a more economical and efficient
solution for Ukraine, one that is also compatible with climate change mitigation targets set out at COP21. Achieving a sustainable
energy system can aid in achieving other political, economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several
barriers through proper planning and supportive policies.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
Keywords: energy transition; storage technologies; Ukraine, 100% Renewable Energy; energy system optimization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-40-829-7853.
E-mail address: Michael.Child@lut.fi
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
11th International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, IRES 2017, 14-16 March 2017,
Düsseldorf, Germany
The role of storage technologies for the transition to a 100%
renewable energy system in Ukraine
Michael Childa*, Christian Breyera,b, Dmitrii Bogdanova, Hans-Josef Fellb
aLappeenranta University of Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
bEnergy Watch Group, Albrechtstr. 22, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
A transition towards a 100% renewable energy (RE) power sector by 2050 is investigated for Ukraine. Simulations using an hourly
resolved model define the roles of storage technologies in a least cost system configuration. Results indicate that the levelised cost
of electricity will fall from a current level of 82 €/MWhe to 60 €/MWhe in 2050 through the adoption of low cost RE power
generation and improvements in efficiency. If the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the
cost would be 54 €/MWhe, which can be expected for the time beyond 2050. In addition, flexibility of and stability in the power
system are provided by increasing shares of energy storage solutions over time, in parallel with expected price decreases in these
technologies. Total storage requirements include 0-139 GWhe of batteries, 9 GWhe of pumped hydro storage, and 0-18,840 GWhgas
of gas storage for the time period. Outputs of power-to-gas begin in 2035 when renewable energy production reaches a share of
86% in the power system, increasing to a total of 13 TWhgas in 2050. A 100% RE system can be a more economical and efficient
solution for Ukraine, one that is also compatible with climate change mitigation targets set out at COP21. Achieving a sustainable
energy system can aid in achieving other political, economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several
barriers through proper planning and supportive policies.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under the responsibility of EUROSOLAR - The European Association for Renewable Energy.
Keywords: energy transition; storage technologies; Ukraine, 100% Renewable Energy; energy system optimization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-40-829-7853.
E-mail address: Michael.Child@lut.fi
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
1. Introduction
The landmark Paris Agreement of the 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change recognized the need for global response to the impending threat of climate change [1]. As part of the
agreement, such response involves limiting “global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels
and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” through low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1].
Among the countries ratifying the agreement was Ukraine, which targets that GHG emissions will not exceed 60% of
the 1990 level in 2030 [2]. Importantly, Ukraine aims to achieve this target in a context of multiple, large-scale
problems in the fore: armed conflict, net emigration, economic and industrial degrad ation [3], and over-dependence
on imported fossil and nuclear fuel [4]. On one hand, it may seem ambitious to achieve such a GHG reduction target
and fix the “many problems on the table” [2]. However, integrated and dynamic actions can attempt to tackle the
multitude of problems through “efficient and effective policies and imposing of limitations of GHG emissions which
are beyond current international obligations of Ukraine” [3]. On the other hand, Ukraine emission targets have been
described as “unacceptable in terms of ambition” as they promote higher GHG emissions than are seen currently, and
inadequate if Ukraine is to realize its “huge potential for climate action”[5].
Nomenclature
A-CAES Adiabatic compressed air energy storage
CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CHP Combined heat and power
CSP Concentrating solar thermal power
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GT/ST Gas turbine/Steam turbine
GW/GWh Gigawatt/Gigawatt hour
HHB Hot heat burner
HVDC High voltage direct current
ICE Internal combustion engine
INDC Intended nationally determined contribution
kW/kWh Kilowatt/Kilowatt hour
LCOC/E/S/T Levelised cost of curtailment/electricity/storage/transmission
LUT Lappeenranta University of Technology
Mt Megaton
MW/MWh Megawatt/Megawatt hour
OCGT Open cycle gas turbine
PHS Pumped hydro storage
PP Power plant
PtG, PtH Power to gas, Power to heat
PV Photovoltaics
RE Renewable energy
SME Small to medium enterprises
TES Thermal energy storage
TW/TWh Terawatt/Terawatt hour
WACC Weighted average cost of capital
e electric units
eq equivalent units
gas gas units
th thermal units
412 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3
It is argued that policy and action are needed to advance the energy transition of Ukraine beyond rhetoric. At the
heart of such a transition appears the need for both greatly improving energy efficiency and a major deployment of
renewable energy (RE) generation [4], [6]. However, no comprehensive study of a transition towards a more
sustainable energy system for Ukraine currently exists. Such modelling of the future could go a long way towards
realising the full potential of domestically available renewable resources and aid in identifying policies needed to
support a transition towards sustainability. Together, such information can contribute to the overall discourse on energy
in Ukraine and aid in the transition towards long-term sustainability.
GHG emissions in Ukraine have decreased in the years since gaining independence, from 944 Mt CO2-eq in 1990
to 353 Mt CO2-eq in 2014 (all values excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). At a level of 37% of 1990
levels, Ukraine has already greatly surpassed the target set out in their Intended Nationally-Determined Contribution
(INDC) report to the UNFCCC [7]. However, much of the reductions immediately after 1990 came as a result of GDP
decline, decreased population and lower living standards similarly found in several countries after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Reversing these trends and achieving standards similar to those found in the European Union are also
important goals for Ukraine, and these are to be achieved by massive reconstruction, increased industrial and
agricultural output, improved infrastructure, and efficiency gains [3]. Realizing such projects will almost certainly
result in increased energy use – particularly electricity, and may result in increased GHG emissions unless
improvements are made responsibly and sustainably. Importantly, GDP growth in Ukraine since the year 2000 has
been achieved in the context of stable or decreasing GHG emissions, demonstrating that GDP/GHG decoupling is
possible. Therefore, greater reductions than those set out in the INDC appear realistic.
One of the biggest geopolitical challenges of Ukraine is its high dependency on energy supplies, especially
natural gas and oil, from Russia. This dependency significantly decreased in the last two years. In 2015, gas imports
from the EU have doubled, reaching 100 TWh, and have for the first time exceeded imports from Russia. The latter
decreased dramatically from 142 TWh in 2014 to 60 TWh last year [4]. Dependency on coal, coming especially from
the war-torn eastern regions of the country, is another major problem. Coal provides some 40% of primary energy
supply and 30% of electricity production. This further undermines energy security in the country. Ukraine is still
heavily dependent on nuclear power generation, accounting for more than 50% of the country’s electricity production
and 20% of primary energy supply [4]. Yet, the existing 15 reactors are outdated and a major safety hazard, as proved
by Chernobyl. Ukraine receives most of its nuclear services and nuclear fuel from Russia. Combined with the economic
weakness, high debts, driven by the import costs of the energy raw materials, and a high unemployment rate lead to
lack of political independence.
The issue of energy independence in Ukraine has moved to the fore in recent years. In particular, ongoing
dependence on several energy carriers, such as nuclear fuel, oil and natural gas has been identified as a weakness of
the current Ukraine energy system [8]. The current share of RE in Ukraine is reported as 1.4% in terms of installed
generating capacity [9]. However, a feed-in-tariff in Ukraine has started stimulating investments especially in the solar
energy sector. In 2014, only 100 kW of solar energy was installed on the private roofs in Ukraine. Meanwhile in 2016,
this figure reached 10 MW. In 2016, the Ukrainian government also announced plans to install up to 4 GW of solar
energy in the Chernobyl nuclear wasteland [10]. However, the potential of RE generation is much higher, with good
domestic solar, wind, biomass, biogas and hydro resources. The extent to which Ukraine can become completely
independent of imports has never been studied, and therefore offers a starting point for a vision of future.
Approximately 80% of global GHG emissions arise from the energy sector, while the balance comes from such
sectors as agriculture and forestry, manufacturing, aviation, and waste management, among others. It has been argued
that significant reductions in non-energy sectors may be disruptive or overly expensive burdens for societies [11],
thereby placing an emphasis on the need to achieve net zero emissions in the energy sector if countries around the
world are to “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse
gases in the second half of this century” [1]. This has placed a focus on 100% renewable energy systems due to
sustainability and reliability issues related to nuclear power and carbon capture and storage technologies [12]. For this
reason, the aim of this work is to determine a transitional pathway for Ukraine to reach a 100% renewable, fully
independent power system by 2050. Achieving a sustainable energy system can aid in achieving other political,
economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several barriers through proper planning and
supportive policies. For this reason, this work also aims to identify potential barriers to achieving a sustainable energy
system as well as determining possible solutions to overcome such barriers
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2. Methods
The Ukrainian power system was modelled with the LUT energy system model described in [13]. This tool is based
on linear optimization of energy system parameters under a set of applied constraints. A summary of the model is
found in Figure 1. A full set of technical and financial assumptions used in this study can be found at [14].
2.1. Model summary
The target function of the model is to optimize the system so that total annual energy system cost is minimized.
This cost is calculated as the sum of the annual costs of the installed capacities of each technology, costs of energy
generation, and costs of generation ramping. In addition, the system includes distributed generation and self-
consumption of residential, commercial and industrial prosumers by installing respective capacities of rooftop PV
systems and batteries. The target function for prosumers is the minimization of the cost of consumed electricity,
calculated as the sum of self-generation cost, annual cost, and cost of electricity consumed from the grid. From this,
the cost of selling excess generation to the grid is subtracted. These target functions were applied in five-year time
steps from 2015 to 2050 while two important constraints were built into the model. First, no more than 20% growth
in RE installed capacities compared to total power generation capacities could be achieved for each five -year time
step so as to avoid excessive disruption to the power system. Second, no new nuclear or fossil-based power plants
could be installed after 2015. The exception to this constraint was for gas turbines, a highly efficient technology that
can accommodate sustainably produced synthetic natural gas (methane).
The model is first calibrated to represent actual energy system performance in 2015. Importantly for Ukraine, this
calibration involved recognizing great inefficiency in the power system. This was particularly related to low
availability factors for thermal power plants (20%) and nuclear power plants (70%) as well as quite high transmission
and distribution losses (11%) [8]. From 2020 onwards, power plant availability factors were increased in the model to
a maximum 95% for thermal plants and 85% for nuclear plants. In addition, it was assumed that transmission and
distribution losses would decrease by approximately one percentage point in each five year time slice from the current
level to one in line with the EU average of 4.5% by 2050. Electricity demand was assumed to grow by 1.2% annually
based on a trend projected for Europe [15]. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse efficiency beyond the
system level, it is important to note that such electricity demand can only be achieved through widespread end -user
efficiency initiatives if significant growth is to occur in both population and industrial activity, as stated in the Ukraine
INDC.
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 413
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3
It is argued that policy and action are needed to advance the energy transition of Ukraine beyond rhetoric. At the
heart of such a transition appears the need for both greatly improving energy efficiency and a major deployment of
renewable energy (RE) generation [4], [6]. However, no comprehensive study of a transition towards a more
sustainable energy system for Ukraine currently exists. Such modelling of the future could go a long way towards
realising the full potential of domestically available renewable resources and aid in identifying policies needed to
support a transition towards sustainability. Together, such information can contribute to the overall discourse on energy
in Ukraine and aid in the transition towards long-term sustainability.
GHG emissions in Ukraine have decreased in the years since gaining independence, from 944 Mt CO2-eq in 1990
to 353 Mt CO2-eq in 2014 (all values excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). At a level of 37% of 1990
levels, Ukraine has already greatly surpassed the target set out in their Intended Nationally-Determined Contribution
(INDC) report to the UNFCCC [7]. However, much of the reductions immediately after 1990 came as a result of GDP
decline, decreased population and lower living standards similarly found in several countries after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Reversing these trends and achieving standards similar to those found in the European Union are also
important goals for Ukraine, and these are to be achieved by massive reconstruction, increased industrial and
agricultural output, improved infrastructure, and efficiency gains [3]. Realizing such projects will almost certainly
result in increased energy use – particularly electricity, and may result in increased GHG emissions unless
improvements are made responsibly and sustainably. Importantly, GDP growth in Ukraine since the year 2000 has
been achieved in the context of stable or decreasing GHG emissions, demonstrating that GDP/GHG decoupling is
possible. Therefore, greater reductions than those set out in the INDC appear realistic.
One of the biggest geopolitical challenges of Ukraine is its high dependency on energy supplies, especially
natural gas and oil, from Russia. This dependency significantly decreased in the last two years. In 2015, gas imports
from the EU have doubled, reaching 100 TWh, and have for the first time exceeded imports from Russia. The latter
decreased dramatically from 142 TWh in 2014 to 60 TWh last year [4]. Dependency on coal, coming especially from
the war-torn eastern regions of the country, is another major problem. Coal provides some 40% of primary energy
supply and 30% of electricity production. This further undermines energy security in the country. Ukraine is still
heavily dependent on nuclear power generation, accounting for more than 50% of the country’s electricity production
and 20% of primary energy supply [4]. Yet, the existing 15 reactors are outdated and a major safety hazard, as proved
by Chernobyl. Ukraine receives most of its nuclear services and nuclear fuel from Russia. Combined with the economic
weakness, high debts, driven by the import costs of the energy raw materials, and a high unemployment rate lead to
lack of political independence.
The issue of energy independence in Ukraine has moved to the fore in recent years. In particular, ongoing
dependence on several energy carriers, such as nuclear fuel, oil and natural gas has been identified as a weakness of
the current Ukraine energy system [8]. The current share of RE in Ukraine is reported as 1.4% in terms of installed
generating capacity [9]. However, a feed-in-tariff in Ukraine has started stimulating investments especially in the solar
energy sector. In 2014, only 100 kW of solar energy was installed on the private roofs in Ukraine. Meanwhile in 2016,
this figure reached 10 MW. In 2016, the Ukrainian government also announced plans to install up to 4 GW of solar
energy in the Chernobyl nuclear wasteland [10]. However, the potential of RE generation is much higher, with good
domestic solar, wind, biomass, biogas and hydro resources. The extent to which Ukraine can become completely
independent of imports has never been studied, and therefore offers a starting point for a vision of future.
Approximately 80% of global GHG emissions arise from the energy sector, while the balance comes from such
sectors as agriculture and forestry, manufacturing, aviation, and waste management, among others. It has been argued
that significant reductions in non-energy sectors may be disruptive or overly expensive burdens for societies [11],
thereby placing an emphasis on the need to achieve net zero emissions in the energy sector if countries around the
world are to “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse
gases in the second half of this century” [1]. This has placed a focus on 100% renewable energy systems due to
sustainability and reliability issues related to nuclear power and carbon capture and storage technologies [12]. For this
reason, the aim of this work is to determine a transitional pathway for Ukraine to reach a 100% renewable, fully
independent power system by 2050. Achieving a sustainable energy system can aid in achieving other political,
economic and social goals for Ukraine, but this will require overcoming several barriers through proper planning and
supportive policies. For this reason, this work also aims to identify potential barriers to achieving a sustainable energy
system as well as determining possible solutions to overcome such barriers
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2. Methods
The Ukrainian power system was modelled with the LUT energy system model described in [13]. This tool is based
on linear optimization of energy system parameters under a set of applied constraints. A summary of the model is
found in Figure 1. A full set of technical and financial assumptions used in this study can be found at [14].
2.1. Model summary
The target function of the model is to optimize the system so that total annual energy system cost is minimized.
This cost is calculated as the sum of the annual costs of the installed capacities of each technology, costs of energy
generation, and costs of generation ramping. In addition, the system includes distributed generation and self-
consumption of residential, commercial and industrial prosumers by installing respective capacities of rooftop PV
systems and batteries. The target function for prosumers is the minimization of the cost of consumed electricity,
calculated as the sum of self-generation cost, annual cost, and cost of electricity consumed from the grid. From this,
the cost of selling excess generation to the grid is subtracted. These target functions were applied in five-year time
steps from 2015 to 2050 while two important constraints were built into the model. First, no more than 20% growth
in RE installed capacities compared to total power generation capacities could be achieved for each five -year time
step so as to avoid excessive disruption to the power system. Second, no new nuclear or fossil-based power plants
could be installed after 2015. The exception to this constraint was for gas turbines, a highly efficient technology that
can accommodate sustainably produced synthetic natural gas (methane).
The model is first calibrated to represent actual energy system performance in 2015. Importantly for Ukraine, this
calibration involved recognizing great inefficiency in the power system. This was particularly related to low
availability factors for thermal power plants (20%) and nuclear power plants (70%) as well as quite high transmission
and distribution losses (11%) [8]. From 2020 onwards, power plant availability factors were increased in the model to
a maximum 95% for thermal plants and 85% for nuclear plants. In addition, it was assumed that transmission and
distribution losses would decrease by approximately one percentage point in each five year time slice from the current
level to one in line with the EU average of 4.5% by 2050. Electricity demand was assumed to grow by 1.2% annually
based on a trend projected for Europe [15]. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse efficiency beyond the
system level, it is important to note that such electricity demand can only be achieved through widespread end -user
efficiency initiatives if significant growth is to occur in both population and industrial activity, as stated in the Ukraine
INDC.
414 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5
Fig. 1. Main inputs and outputs of the LUT energy system model [16]
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the LUT energy system model [16]. Acronyms not introduced elsewhere include: ST - steam turbine, PtH - power-to-
heat, ICE - internal combustion engine, GT - gas turbine, PtG - power-to-gas, PHS - pumped hydro storage, A-CAES - adiabatic compressed air
energy storage, TES - thermal energy storage, HHB - hot heat burner, CSP – concentrating solar thermal power.
2.2. Applied technologies
Technologies introduced to the model can be classified into four main categories: electricity generation, energy
storage, energy sector bridging, and electricity transmission. All technologies are shown in the Figure 2. For this
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
analysis, the integration of desalination and non-energy industrial gas demand was not included. In addition, HVDC
interconnections with neighbouring countries was not included in order to show complete energy independence of the
Ukrainian energy system.
2.3. Financial and technical assumptions
Financial assumptions are made for all energy system components in five-year time steps. A full list of financial
and technical assumptions can be found at [14]. Electricity prices for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors
were derived by the same method as [17] and extended to 2050. For all scenarios, weighted average cost of capital
(WACC) is set at 7%. However, WACC is set at 4% for residential PV prosumers due to lower expectations of
financial return. Excess electricity generated by prosumers is fed into the national grid and is assumed to be sold for
a transfer price of 0.02 €/kWh. Before such transfer, the model ensures that prosumers satisfy their own demand for
electricity. No other financial incentives for solar PV production are assumed.
Current installed capacities of all technologies were provided by [18]. Upper limits for all the RE
technologies and for pumped hydro storage were calculated according to Bogdanov and Breyer [13]. Upper limits for
all other technologies are not specified. Due to energy efficiency reasons, it is assumed that available biomass, waste
and biogas fuels are available throughout the year evenly. A synthetic electricity demand profile was created based on
data from [19], [20].
2.4. Renewable energy potentials
Resource potentials for renewable energy categories were derived from a number of sources. First, generation
profiles for solar CSP, solar PV (optimally tilted and single-axis tracking), and wind power (onshore and offshore)
were calculated according to [13]. Capacity factors for onshore wind generation and solar PV can be seen at [14].
Second, a hydropower feed-in profile was based on precipitation data for the year 2005 as a normalised sum of
precipitation throughout the country. Third, biomass and waste potentials were divided into three main categories:
solid wastes, including used wood and industrial residues; solid residues, including straw, agricultural residues and
forestry residues; and biogas, including gas produced from municipal biowaste, animal excrement, landfill gas and
sewage gas. Solid waste potential is derived from [21]. All other biomass potentials are derived from the Bioenergy
Association of Ukraine [22]. Excluded from the biomass potential of Ukraine are reported values for energy crops.
While such energy crops may provide opportunities over the short-term for Ukraine, it is expected that available land
will be needed for agricultural crops over the long-term, and not used for energy purposes. Costs for biomass were
based on data provided by [21] and [22]. For solid wastes, a gate fee of €53 was assumed for 2015, raising to €100 in
2050. Finally, geothermal energy potential was calculated according to the method described in [16].
3. Results
Main modelling results are compiled in Figures 3-9. Further results and analysis can be found from the
Supplementary Material [14].
Figure 3 shows how the model developed installed capacities for all technologies. Due to power system efficiency
improvements, 2020 sees lower installed capacities providing greater amounts of power and little need for new
installed capacities. From that point the development towards renewable generation proceeds in order to replace older
fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Wind power develops quickly, while solar PV and biomass power plants develop
more quickly from 2030 onwards. Installed capacities appear to increase at a greater rate in 2050. As the final fossil
fuel and nuclear power plants leave the system, they are primarily replaced by fixed tilted solar PV. The exaggerated
increase in installed capacity can be explained by the lower number of full load hours for solar PV systems compared
to thermal power plants. What is more, in 2050 PtG takes on a more prominent role in the energy system, thereby
creating an increased demand for electricity and need for greater generation capacity. Figure 4 shows electricity
generation increasing steadily to supply a growing, more industrious Ukraine. In 2050, the share of solar PV in total
generation is 40%, followed by wind power, at 34%. The increase in electricity demand associated with PtG is also
evident in 2050. A 100% renewable energy system is achieved for Ukraine by 2050.
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 415
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5
Fig. 1. Main inputs and outputs of the LUT energy system model [16]
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the LUT energy system model [16]. Acronyms not introduced elsewhere include: ST - steam turbine, PtH - power-to-
heat, ICE - internal combustion engine, GT - gas turbine, PtG - power-to-gas, PHS - pumped hydro storage, A-CAES - adiabatic compressed air
energy storage, TES - thermal energy storage, HHB - hot heat burner, CSP – concentrating solar thermal power.
2.2. Applied technologies
Technologies introduced to the model can be classified into four main categories: electricity generation, energy
storage, energy sector bridging, and electricity transmission. All technologies are shown in the Figure 2. For this
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
analysis, the integration of desalination and non-energy industrial gas demand was not included. In addition, HVDC
interconnections with neighbouring countries was not included in order to show complete energy independence of the
Ukrainian energy system.
2.3. Financial and technical assumptions
Financial assumptions are made for all energy system components in five-year time steps. A full list of financial
and technical assumptions can be found at [14]. Electricity prices for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors
were derived by the same method as [17] and extended to 2050. For all scenarios, weighted average cost of capital
(WACC) is set at 7%. However, WACC is set at 4% for residential PV prosumers due to lower expectations of
financial return. Excess electricity generated by prosumers is fed into the national grid and is assumed to be sold for
a transfer price of 0.02 €/kWh. Before such transfer, the model ensures that prosumers satisfy their own demand for
electricity. No other financial incentives for solar PV production are assumed.
Current installed capacities of all technologies were provided by [18]. Upper limits for all the RE
technologies and for pumped hydro storage were calculated according to Bogdanov and Breyer [13]. Upper limits for
all other technologies are not specified. Due to energy efficiency reasons, it is assumed that available biomass, waste
and biogas fuels are available throughout the year evenly. A synthetic electricity demand profile was created based on
data from [19], [20].
2.4. Renewable energy potentials
Resource potentials for renewable energy categories were derived from a number of sources. First, generation
profiles for solar CSP, solar PV (optimally tilted and single-axis tracking), and wind power (onshore and offshore)
were calculated according to [13]. Capacity factors for onshore wind generation and solar PV can be seen at [14].
Second, a hydropower feed-in profile was based on precipitation data for the year 2005 as a normalised sum of
precipitation throughout the country. Third, biomass and waste potentials were divided into three main categories:
solid wastes, including used wood and industrial residues; solid residues, including straw, agricultural residues and
forestry residues; and biogas, including gas produced from municipal biowaste, animal excrement, landfill gas and
sewage gas. Solid waste potential is derived from [21]. All other biomass potentials are derived from the Bioenergy
Association of Ukraine [22]. Excluded from the biomass potential of Ukraine are reported values for energy crops.
While such energy crops may provide opportunities over the short-term for Ukraine, it is expected that available land
will be needed for agricultural crops over the long-term, and not used for energy purposes. Costs for biomass were
based on data provided by [21] and [22]. For solid wastes, a gate fee of €53 was assumed for 2015, raising to €100 in
2050. Finally, geothermal energy potential was calculated according to the method described in [16].
3. Results
Main modelling results are compiled in Figures 3-9. Further results and analysis can be found from the
Supplementary Material [14].
Figure 3 shows how the model developed installed capacities for all technologies. Due to power system efficiency
improvements, 2020 sees lower installed capacities providing greater amounts of power and little need for new
installed capacities. From that point the development towards renewable generation proceeds in order to replace older
fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Wind power develops quickly, while solar PV and biomass power plants develop
more quickly from 2030 onwards. Installed capacities appear to increase at a greater rate in 2050. As the final fossil
fuel and nuclear power plants leave the system, they are primarily replaced by fixed tilted solar PV. The exaggerated
increase in installed capacity can be explained by the lower number of full load hours for solar PV systems compared
to thermal power plants. What is more, in 2050 PtG takes on a more prominent role in the energy system, thereby
creating an increased demand for electricity and need for greater generation capacity. Figure 4 shows electricity
generation increasing steadily to supply a growing, more industrious Ukraine. In 2050, the share of solar PV in total
generation is 40%, followed by wind power, at 34%. The increase in electricity demand associated with PtG is also
evident in 2050. A 100% renewable energy system is achieved for Ukraine by 2050.
416 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7
Fig. 3. Cumulative installed capacity for all generation technologies from 2015 to 2050.
Fig. 4. Total electricity generation by generation technology from 2015 to 2050.
The role of storage technologies increases with the share of renewable energy (Figure 5). Traditional PHS provides
most of the needed storage for the system from 2015 to 2025. However, the PtG process contributes to seasonal storage
of gas in 2050, while batteries cover the shorter term storage demands from 2030 onwards. The share of renewable
energy generation in the system reaches 58% in 2030, when battery storage appears in the system. The share of
renewables is 86% in 2035 and 2040, and an increase in battery storage is evident. In 2040, renewables increase to
90%, and battery storage continues to increase, most notably for solar PV prosumers. As the share of renewables
8 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
reaches 100% in 2050, batteries increase considerably and seasonal gas storage becomes a noticeable part of the
energy system.
Fig. 5. Relative contribution of storage technologies to end-user electricity demand from 2015 to 2050.
Figures 6 and 7 show hourly results for all generation, storage and consumption over typical winter (January 9-15)
and summer (June 23-29) weeks. From these figures it can be seen that wind power generation tends to be greater
when solar PV generation is lower, and vice-versa, suggesting a seasonal complement. Curtailment is necessary at
times of high wind energy generation, or when the combination of wind and solar PV generation is highest. However,
in total, curtailment losses are less than 4% in 2050. The role of batteries as daily storage is noticeable, and appears
strongly related to solar PV generation. During the summer week (Figure 7), the role of prosumer batteries is
particularly evident. In addition, batteries cover much more of the evening demand during the summer week. The
creation of storable gas through the PtG process is apparent during the summer week, and the use of this gas in the
Gas-to-Power process is seen during the winter week. Hydro dams and biomass-based generation are also more
evident during the winter week, a time of low solar PV production and increased overall energy demand. This
demonstrates an important flexibility of the supply side.
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 417
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7
Fig. 3. Cumulative installed capacity for all generation technologies from 2015 to 2050.
Fig. 4. Total electricity generation by generation technology from 2015 to 2050.
The role of storage technologies increases with the share of renewable energy (Figure 5). Traditional PHS provides
most of the needed storage for the system from 2015 to 2025. However, the PtG process contributes to seasonal storage
of gas in 2050, while batteries cover the shorter term storage demands from 2030 onwards. The share of renewable
energy generation in the system reaches 58% in 2030, when battery storage appears in the system. The share of
renewables is 86% in 2035 and 2040, and an increase in battery storage is evident. In 2040, renewables increase to
90%, and battery storage continues to increase, most notably for solar PV prosumers. As the share of renewables
8 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
reaches 100% in 2050, batteries increase considerably and seasonal gas storage becomes a noticeable part of the
energy system.
Fig. 5. Relative contribution of storage technologies to end-user electricity demand from 2015 to 2050.
Figures 6 and 7 show hourly results for all generation, storage and consumption over typical winter (January 9-15)
and summer (June 23-29) weeks. From these figures it can be seen that wind power generation tends to be greater
when solar PV generation is lower, and vice-versa, suggesting a seasonal complement. Curtailment is necessary at
times of high wind energy generation, or when the combination of wind and solar PV generation is highest. However,
in total, curtailment losses are less than 4% in 2050. The role of batteries as daily storage is noticeable, and appears
strongly related to solar PV generation. During the summer week (Figure 7), the role of prosumer batteries is
particularly evident. In addition, batteries cover much more of the evening demand during the summer week. The
creation of storable gas through the PtG process is apparent during the summer week, and the use of this gas in the
Gas-to-Power process is seen during the winter week. Hydro dams and biomass-based generation are also more
evident during the winter week, a time of low solar PV production and increased overall energy demand. This
demonstrates an important flexibility of the supply side.
418 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9
Fig. 6. Hourly results for a typical winter week (January 9-15).
Fig. 7. Hourly results for a typical midsummer week (June 23-29).
10 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Figure 8 shows carbon emissions falling significantly after the phase out of coal power after 2020. Further
reductions occur as imported natural gas is replaced by domestically-produced methane. By 2050, the Ukraine energy
system is completely decarbonised.
Fig. 8. Total carbon emissions and ratio of emissions to electricity generation from 2015 to 2050.
Figure 9 shows the trend of decreasing levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) over the years 2015 to 2050. Higher
cost nuclear and coal-based generation is replaced by lower cost wind, solar PV and biomass-based power production.
Lower capital expenditures, operational costs, fuel costs and emissions costs contribute to lower LCOE over time . If
the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the LCOE would be 54 €/MWhe,
which can be expected for the time beyond 2050.
Fig. 9. Levelised cost of electricity and the contribution of technologies (left) and breakdown in cost categories (right). Levelised cost of
electricity and the contribution of levelised costs of primary generation (LCOE primary), storage (LCOS), curtailment (LCOC), fuel cost, and
carbon emission cost. Transmission costs (LCOT) are zero as interconnections with neighbouring countries were not utilized in this study.
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 419
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9
Fig. 6. Hourly results for a typical winter week (January 9-15).
Fig. 7. Hourly results for a typical midsummer week (June 23-29).
10 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Figure 8 shows carbon emissions falling significantly after the phase out of coal power after 2020. Further
reductions occur as imported natural gas is replaced by domestically-produced methane. By 2050, the Ukraine energy
system is completely decarbonised.
Fig. 8. Total carbon emissions and ratio of emissions to electricity generation from 2015 to 2050.
Figure 9 shows the trend of decreasing levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) over the years 2015 to 2050. Higher
cost nuclear and coal-based generation is replaced by lower cost wind, solar PV and biomass-based power production.
Lower capital expenditures, operational costs, fuel costs and emissions costs contribute to lower LCOE over time . If
the capacity in 2050 would have been invested for the cost assumptions of 2050, the LCOE would be 54 €/MWhe,
which can be expected for the time beyond 2050.
Fig. 9. Levelised cost of electricity and the contribution of technologies (left) and breakdown in cost categories (right). Levelised cost of
electricity and the contribution of levelised costs of primary generation (LCOE primary), storage (LCOS), curtailment (LCOC), fuel cost, and
carbon emission cost. Transmission costs (LCOT) are zero as interconnections with neighbouring countries were not utilized in this study.
420 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 11
4. Discussion
Results from modelling show that a 100% renewable power system is achievable for Ukraine by 2050. What is
more, this represents a least cost solution for the country based on the assumptions used in this work. For the first
time, it is possible to see the transition towards a 100% renewable Ukrainian power system.
Results for LCOE calculations for Ukraine in 2050 are similar to other studies using the LUT model which show
a global range of about 50-70 €/MWh for 100% power systems in 2030 [13], [16], [23]–[29] These studies suggest
that further integration of desalination and non-energy gas demands into the energy system model could result in
further LCOE savings, suggesting an interesting area of further research for Ukraine. The findings of the current study
are similar to those found in another comprehensive analysis of the Ukrainian energy system [30]. In their report,
IRENA concludes that increased renewable energy shares will reduce Ukraine’s overall energy system costs, which
is the same structural finding of this research.
In addition, several other studies conclude that 100% RE systems are either less expensive [12], or not significantly
more expensive than energy systems which do not feature such high shares of RE [31]–[33]. Importantly, the findings
of the current study are in line with another that shows the higher cost of nuclear power or fossil fuel based carbon
capture and storage (CCS) on an LCOE basis [34]. These are reported as 112 €/MWh for new nuclear and gas CCS,
and 126 €/MWh for coal CCS in the UK. Of particular relevance is the share of levelised cost of storage (LCOS)
within the LCOE calculation for 2050 Ukraine. From 2035 onwards, the share of LCOS increases from 10% to 20%
of LCOE. However, given the possibility of integrating an expected electrified transport demand and potential
substitution of electric vehicle batteries for some of the stationary batteries used in this model, further savings in LCOS
can be foreseen, as well as possible revenue for electric car owners. Several studies have indicated that the integration
of electric vehicle batteries into an energy system can not only support higher shares of intermittent RE, but can reduce
the need for high capacities of stationary batteries [12], [35], [36]. This also represents a further area of inquiry for
the Ukrainian energy system.
The roles of intermittent RE such as solar PV and wind energy are significant in the future power system modelled
for Ukraine in 2050. Wind energy represents 39% of total electricity generation, while solar PV represents 45%. This
intermittent generation is balanced by strategic use of hydropower by the model, as well as by power generated from
biomass and waste. Electricity storage solutions also play a key role in maintaining the important balance between
supply and demand. On a daily and multi-day level, batteries and PHS play a strong role in maintaining such balance.
Results also indicate that PtG provides a longer-term, seasonal storage for the Ukraine power system. This result is in
line with several studies that show the importance of a mix of storage strategies [37] –[39].
The role of storage in the future 100% renewable power systems is quite significant. In terms of absolute volume
of storage, gas storage dominates the power system as PtG is utilized as a seasonal storage device after 2035. Before
that time, the current installed capacity of PHS is sufficient to balance the system that is dominated by nuclear power
production. As the current fleet of nuclear power plants reaches its lifetime and is replaced by renewable power
generation, particularly solar PV and wind power, the relevance of storage increases. After 2035, storage output equals
approximately 15% of electricity supply, increasing to 35% by 2050. Results indicate that the share of renewable
energy in total generation is 58% in 2030, and 86% in 2035. In that time, the relevance of storage solutions increases
significantly. This is in line with previous studies which suggest that electricity storage devices would be needed after
a 50% penetration of renewable energy, and that seasonal storage would be needed after the share exceeded 80% [37],
[38].
The change in the capacity mix for Ukraine represents a clear departure from a system currently based on coal,
natural gas, and nuclear power. It should also be pointed out that this change aids in achieving four important goals.
First, the gradual phasing out of existing capacity will mean no stranded assets. Second, Ukraine can seize the
opportunity to reduce major inefficiencies associated with coal-based and nuclear power in particular. Currently,
thermal power plants operate at capacity factors of approximately 20% and nuclear power plants operat e about 70%.
As aging capacity leaves the system, these capacity factors should improve somewhat over the short term according
to modelling results. As this capacity leaves the system entirely and is replaced by much more efficient conversion
technologies such as solar PV and wind, the entire system benefits and costs decrease as indicated by LCOE
calculations. Third, Ukraine can avoid corruption and strong lobbyism that is highly associated with the current energy
system [4]. Fourth, Ukraine can increase energy security through domestic investment in renewable energy generation
12 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
and storage technologies. Perhaps one of the most explicit examples of this will be the recently announced 1 GW solar
PV project that will be constructed in the exclusion zone around the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant [40].
IRENA [30] points out that several barriers exist to realising higher shares of renewable energy, and other sources
outline similar barriers [4], [8], [41]. In particular, the high upfront capital expenditures associated with renewable
energy generation mean that investors are sensitive to uncertainty and risk. Reducing such negative factors must come,
therefore, from predictable and stable policies which “should be maintained over long periods to allow for the
continuity of investments into renewable energy technologies” [30]. Of particular importance to the transition of the
Ukraine energy system towards sustainability will be commitments to modernising existing energy infrastructure,
decreasing energy intensity, and greatly increasing energy efficiency [41].
A decisive factor will be a modern, efficient and 100% renewable based energy system in Ukraine. Fluctuations of
renewable energy can be balanced by means of different storage methods, including Power-to-Gas, Power-to-Heat,
batteries, pumped storage hydro power stations, etc. and the integration of the demand-oriented flexibility of
hydropower, bioenergy, hydropower and geothermal energy across all energy dependent sectors: electricity, heating,
cooling, transport and industry. Oil and gas in the heating and transport sector should be replaced by electrification as
much as possible. Although, sustainable biofuel will still play a significant role in the transport sector (construction
machinery and agriculture). Fertile and degraded land areas in Ukraine offer great chances for biofuel production, and
at the same time will help to mitigate climate change through the creation of carbon sinks.
One of the most important drivers hereto is a favourable political framework, including laws providing financial
security to investors in renewable energy and energy efficiency, both domestically and abroad. Such laws can also
enable a wide range of actors to invest, especially private people, small and medium enterprises, farmers, public
utilities and financial institutions. A feed-in-tariff and a privileged grid access can guarantee such long-term
investment security. A feed-in-tariff law should be based on the German model of the year 2000 and not on tendering.
International experience has proved that tenders benefit only large business investors and hinder investments in
renewable energy from civil society and SMEs. Also key is a change in the energy industry framework legislation,
stimulation of competition through unbundling as well as reduction of monopolies and oligopolies, and combating
corruption.
Know-how transfer, education and training in the energy sector through offensive programs at universities and
vocational training schools as well as a state-financed campaign on raising public awareness about renewable energy
and energy efficiency through decentralized energy agencies and energy consultants will be key. Also important is
establishment of partnerships of municipalities in Ukraine with many best-practice municipalities in Germany and
throughout Europe.
5. Conclusion
A 100% renewable power system is achievable for Ukraine by 2050. Such a system represents a least cost
alternative for Ukraine, is lower in cost than the current system based on fossil fuels and nuclear power, can answer
increasing demands for power in the future, and can result in complete energy independence for the country. However,
shifts in energy policy are needed at a national level to support the transition needed to reach national goals and
international commitments regarding carbon emissions reduction and climate change mitigation. In addition, further
commitments towards increasing efficiency throughout the energy system appear necessary. It also appears that a
more ambitious GHG emission target for Ukraine is achievable.
Diversification within the fossil and nuclear energy sector cannot serve as a solution. A new gas pipeline the EU
has built in Ukraine serves only as a short-term solution since the EU is still heavily dependent on Russian natural gas
supplies. At the same time as its own production of natural gas in the EU, especially in the UK, the Netherlands,
Germany goes down, the EU will have problems with its own energy security. Therefore, the only long-lasting,
economical and environmentally reasonable solution is rapid deployment of energy efficiency measures and a
transition to domestic renewable energy sources. Ukraine has a high potential across all renewable energy sources:
solar, wind, water, biomass due to large rural areas and the presence of geothermal energy resources. All these sources
need to be deployed, as they will create many jobs, especially in the rural economy. With supportive policy, Ukraine
has the ability, therefore, to move to the fore in European climate action.
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 421
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 11
4. Discussion
Results from modelling show that a 100% renewable power system is achievable for Ukraine by 2050. What is
more, this represents a least cost solution for the country based on the assumptions used in this work. For the first
time, it is possible to see the transition towards a 100% renewable Ukrainian power system.
Results for LCOE calculations for Ukraine in 2050 are similar to other studies using the LUT model which show
a global range of about 50-70 €/MWh for 100% power systems in 2030 [13], [16], [23]–[29] These studies suggest
that further integration of desalination and non-energy gas demands into the energy system model could result in
further LCOE savings, suggesting an interesting area of further research for Ukraine. The findings of the current study
are similar to those found in another comprehensive analysis of the Ukrainian energy system [30]. In their report,
IRENA concludes that increased renewable energy shares will reduce Ukraine’s overall energy system costs, which
is the same structural finding of this research.
In addition, several other studies conclude that 100% RE systems are either less expensive [12], or not significantly
more expensive than energy systems which do not feature such high shares of RE [31]–[33]. Importantly, the findings
of the current study are in line with another that shows the higher cost of nuclear power or fossil fuel based carbon
capture and storage (CCS) on an LCOE basis [34]. These are reported as 112 €/MWh for new nuclear and gas CCS,
and 126 €/MWh for coal CCS in the UK. Of particular relevance is the share of levelised cost of storage (LCOS)
within the LCOE calculation for 2050 Ukraine. From 2035 onwards, the share of LCOS increases from 10% to 20%
of LCOE. However, given the possibility of integrating an expected electrified transport demand and potential
substitution of electric vehicle batteries for some of the stationary batteries used in this model, further savings in LCOS
can be foreseen, as well as possible revenue for electric car owners. Several studies have indicated that the integration
of electric vehicle batteries into an energy system can not only support higher shares of intermittent RE, but can reduce
the need for high capacities of stationary batteries [12], [35], [36]. This also represents a further area of inquiry for
the Ukrainian energy system.
The roles of intermittent RE such as solar PV and wind energy are significant in the future power system modelled
for Ukraine in 2050. Wind energy represents 39% of total electricity generation, while solar PV represents 45%. This
intermittent generation is balanced by strategic use of hydropower by the model, as well as by power generated from
biomass and waste. Electricity storage solutions also play a key role in maintaining the important balance between
supply and demand. On a daily and multi-day level, batteries and PHS play a strong role in maintaining such balance.
Results also indicate that PtG provides a longer-term, seasonal storage for the Ukraine power system. This result is in
line with several studies that show the importance of a mix of storage strategies [37] –[39].
The role of storage in the future 100% renewable power systems is quite significant. In terms of absolute volume
of storage, gas storage dominates the power system as PtG is utilized as a seasonal storage device after 2035. Before
that time, the current installed capacity of PHS is sufficient to balance the system that is dominated by nuclear power
production. As the current fleet of nuclear power plants reaches its lifetime and is replaced by renewable power
generation, particularly solar PV and wind power, the relevance of storage increases. After 2035, storage output equals
approximately 15% of electricity supply, increasing to 35% by 2050. Results indicate that the share of renewable
energy in total generation is 58% in 2030, and 86% in 2035. In that time, the relevance of storage solutions increases
significantly. This is in line with previous studies which suggest that electricity storage devices would be needed after
a 50% penetration of renewable energy, and that seasonal storage would be needed after the share exceeded 80% [37],
[38].
The change in the capacity mix for Ukraine represents a clear departure from a system currently based on coal,
natural gas, and nuclear power. It should also be pointed out that this change aids in achieving four important goals.
First, the gradual phasing out of existing capacity will mean no stranded assets. Second, Ukraine can seize the
opportunity to reduce major inefficiencies associated with coal-based and nuclear power in particular. Currently,
thermal power plants operate at capacity factors of approximately 20% and nuclear power plants operat e about 70%.
As aging capacity leaves the system, these capacity factors should improve somewhat over the short term according
to modelling results. As this capacity leaves the system entirely and is replaced by much more efficient conversion
technologies such as solar PV and wind, the entire system benefits and costs decrease as indicated by LCOE
calculations. Third, Ukraine can avoid corruption and strong lobbyism that is highly associated with the current energy
system [4]. Fourth, Ukraine can increase energy security through domestic investment in renewable energy generation
12 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
and storage technologies. Perhaps one of the most explicit examples of this will be the recently announced 1 GW solar
PV project that will be constructed in the exclusion zone around the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant [40].
IRENA [30] points out that several barriers exist to realising higher shares of renewable energy, and other sources
outline similar barriers [4], [8], [41]. In particular, the high upfront capital expenditures associated with renewable
energy generation mean that investors are sensitive to uncertainty and risk. Reducing such negative factors must come,
therefore, from predictable and stable policies which “should be maintained over long periods to allow for the
continuity of investments into renewable energy technologies” [30]. Of particular importance to the transition of the
Ukraine energy system towards sustainability will be commitments to modernising existing energy infrastructure,
decreasing energy intensity, and greatly increasing energy efficiency [41].
A decisive factor will be a modern, efficient and 100% renewable based energy system in Ukraine. Fluctuations of
renewable energy can be balanced by means of different storage methods, including Power-to-Gas, Power-to-Heat,
batteries, pumped storage hydro power stations, etc. and the integration of the demand-oriented flexibility of
hydropower, bioenergy, hydropower and geothermal energy across all energy dependent sectors: electricity, heating,
cooling, transport and industry. Oil and gas in the heating and transport sector should be replaced by electrification as
much as possible. Although, sustainable biofuel will still play a significant role in the transport sector (construction
machinery and agriculture). Fertile and degraded land areas in Ukraine offer great chances for biofuel production, and
at the same time will help to mitigate climate change through the creation of carbon sinks.
One of the most important drivers hereto is a favourable political framework, including laws providing financial
security to investors in renewable energy and energy efficiency, both domestically and abroad. Such laws can also
enable a wide range of actors to invest, especially private people, small and medium enterprises, farmers, public
utilities and financial institutions. A feed-in-tariff and a privileged grid access can guarantee such long-term
investment security. A feed-in-tariff law should be based on the German model of the year 2000 and not on tendering.
International experience has proved that tenders benefit only large business investors and hinder investments in
renewable energy from civil society and SMEs. Also key is a change in the energy industry framework legislation,
stimulation of competition through unbundling as well as reduction of monopolies and oligopolies, and combating
corruption.
Know-how transfer, education and training in the energy sector through offensive programs at universities and
vocational training schools as well as a state-financed campaign on raising public awareness about renewable energy
and energy efficiency through decentralized energy agencies and energy consultants will be key. Also important is
establishment of partnerships of municipalities in Ukraine with many best-practice municipalities in Germany and
throughout Europe.
5. Conclusion
A 100% renewable power system is achievable for Ukraine by 2050. Such a system represents a least cost
alternative for Ukraine, is lower in cost than the current system based on fossil fuels and nuclear power, can answer
increasing demands for power in the future, and can result in complete energy independence for the country. However,
shifts in energy policy are needed at a national level to support the transition needed to reach national goals and
international commitments regarding carbon emissions reduction and climate change mitigation. In addition, further
commitments towards increasing efficiency throughout the energy system appear necessary. It also appears that a
more ambitious GHG emission target for Ukraine is achievable.
Diversification within the fossil and nuclear energy sector cannot serve as a solution. A new gas pipeline the EU
has built in Ukraine serves only as a short-term solution since the EU is still heavily dependent on Russian natural gas
supplies. At the same time as its own production of natural gas in the EU, especially in the UK, the Netherlands,
Germany goes down, the EU will have problems with its own energy security. Therefore, the only long-lasting,
economical and environmentally reasonable solution is rapid deployment of energy efficiency measures and a
transition to domestic renewable energy sources. Ukraine has a high potential across all renewable energy sources:
solar, wind, water, biomass due to large rural areas and the presence of geothermal energy resources. All these sources
need to be deployed, as they will create many jobs, especially in the rural economy. With supportive policy, Ukraine
has the ability, therefore, to move to the fore in European climate action.
422 Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 13
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the public financing of Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation, for
the ‘Neo-Carbon Energy’ project under the number 40101/14. Special thanks go to Yuliia Oharenko and Oksana
Aliieva from the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Kiev, and Komila Nabiyeva from the Energy Watch Group for valuable
comments during the preparation of this manuscript.
Appendix A.
Supplementary materials for this article can be found at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313255514_Role_of_storage_technologies_for_the_transition_to_a_100_r
enewable_energy_system_in_Ukraine_-_Supplementary_Material
References
[1] United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Paris Agreement,” 21st Conference of the Parties, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf. [Accessed: 02-Oct-
2016].
[2] P. Poroshenko, “Statements made during the Leaders Event at the Paris Climate Change Conference - COP 21 / CMP 11,” 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp11_leaders_event_ukraine.pdf.
[Accessed: 22-Sep-2016].
[3] Government of Ukraine, “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published Documents/Ukraine/1/150930_Ukraine_INDC.pdf. [Accessed: 01-Oct-2016].
[4] K. Nabiyeva, “Energy Reforms in Ukraine: On the Track to Climate Protection and Sustainability?,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.boell.de/en/2016/07/19/energy-reforms-ukraine-track-climate-protection-and-sustainability. [Accessed: 12-Oct-2016].
[5] B. Garside, “Ukraine urged to up climate ambition after INDC draft fails to impress,” Carbon Pulse, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://carbon-pulse.com/8649/. [Accessed: 16-Jan-2017].
[6] G. R. Timilsina, G. Hochman, and I. Fedets, “Understanding energy efficiency barriers in Ukraine: Insights from a survey of
commercial and industrial firms,” Energy, vol. 106, no. July, pp. 203–211, 2016.
[7] The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine, “Ukraine’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2014,” Kiev, 2016.
[8] V. Logatskiy, “Energy sector of Ukraine in 2014-2016 : review and SWOT analysis,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://razumkov.org.ua/upload/1467706848_file.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Oct-2016].
[9] UNDP, “Renewable Energy Snapshot: Ukraine,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/library/environment_energy/renewable-energy-snapshots.html. [Accessed: 12-Oct-
2016].
[10] A. Hirtenstein, “Chernobyl’s Atomic Wasteland May Be Reborn With Solar Energy,” Bloomberg News, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/chernobyl-s-atomic-wasteland-may-be-reborn-with-solar-energy. [Accessed:
31-Jan-2017].
[11] E. Huan-Niemi, O. Niskanen, P. Rikkonen, and H. Rintamäki, “Futures climate policy in Finland: Mitigation measures for agricultural
greenhouse gas emissions,” in 17th International Conference of the Finland Futures Research Centre and the Finland Futures
Academy: Futures Studies Tackling Wicked Problems, Turku, June 11-12,2015.
[12] M. Child and C. Breyer, “Vision and initial feasibility analysis of a recarbonised Finnish energy system for 2050,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 66, 2016.
[13] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “North-East Asian Super Grid for 100% renewable energy supply: Optimal mix of energy technologies for
electricity, gas and heat supply options,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 112, pp. 176–190, 2016.
[14] M. Child, D. Bogdanov, C. Breyer, H.-J. Fell, and K. Nabiyeva, “Transition towards a 100% renewable energy system by 2050 for
Ukraine - Supplementary material,” 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312526869_IRES_2017_Ukraine_100RE_Supplementary_Material_20170119. [Accessed:
16-Jan-2017].
[15] Eurel Task Force, “Electrical power vision 2040 for Europe,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurel.org/home/TaskForces/Documents/EUREL-PV2040-Full_Version_Web.pdf. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
[16] L. Barbosa, D. Bogdanov, P. Vainikka, and C. Breyer, “Hydro, wind and solar power as a base for a 100% Renewable Energy suppl y
for South and Central America,” PLoS ONE, 12, e0173820, 2017.
[17] A. Gerlach, C. Breyer, and C. Werner, “Impact of financing cost on global grid-parity dynamics till 2030,” in 29th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, September 22-26, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2i1xRpW. [Accessed:
December 8, 2016]
[18] J. Farfan and C. Breyer, “Structural changes of global power generation capacity towards sustainability and the risk of stranded
investments supported by a sustainability indicator,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 141, pp. 370–384, 2016.
[19] International Energy Agency, “Key World Energy Statistics 2015,” Statistics, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/energy/http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/key-world-energy-statistics-2015_key_energ_stat-2015-en. [Accessed: 15-Oct-
14 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2016].
[20] International Energy Agency, “Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia: Energy Policies Beyond IEA Countries,” 2015. [Online].
Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/IDR_EasternEuropeCaucasus_2015.pdf. [Accessed: 06-Oct-
2016].
[21] K. Bunzel, V. Zeller, M. Buchhorn, F. Griem, and D. Thrän, “Regionale und globale räumliche Verteilung von Biomassepotenzialen,”
German Biomass Research Center, Leipzig, 2009.
[22] G. Geletukha, T. Zheliezna, P. Kucheruk, and Y. Oliinyk, “State of the art and prospects for bioenergy development in Ukraine,”
Bioenergy Association of Ukraine Position Paper 9, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://uabio.org/img/files/docs/position -paper-uabio-9-
en.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Oct-2016].
[23] A. Gulagi, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “East Asian Super Grid: Can Australia become an electricity source for Asia?,” Sustainability,
9, 233, 2017.
[24] A. Aghahosseini, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “100% renewable energy in North America and the role of solar photovoltaics,” in 32nd
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Munich, June 20-24, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://bit.ly/2jMDx8h. [Accessed: November 3, 2016]
[25] A. Gulagi, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “Solar photovoltaics - a driving force towards 100% renewable energy for India and SAARC,”
PLoS ONE, In press, 2017.
[26] A. Aghahosseini, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “The MENA Super Grid towards 100 % Renewable Energy Power Supply by 2030 The
MENA Super Grid towards 100 % Renewable Energy Power Supply by 2030,” in 11th International Energy Conference, Tehran, May
30-31, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2kKhHSX. [Accessed: November 26, 2016]
[27] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “Integrating the Excellent Wind Resources in North- West Eurasia for a Sustainable Energy Supply in
Europe,” in 15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna, November 15-17, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2jIS7A9. [Accessed:
November 17, 2016]
[28] M. Barasa, D. Bogdanov, A. S. Oyewo, and C. Breyer, “A Cost Optimal Resolution for Sub-Saharan Africa powered by 100%
Renewables for Year 2030 Assumptions,” in 32nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Munich, June 20-
24, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2izNb0A. [Accessed: December 22, 2016]
[29] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “Eurasian Super Grid for 100% Renewable Energy power supply: Generation and storage technologies in
the cost optimal mix,” in ISES Solar World Congress, Daegu, November 8-12, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/1IP8AeN.
[Accessed: December 22, 2016]
[30] International Renewable Energy Agency, “Renewable Energy Prospects for Ukraine,” REMAP 2030, 2015. [Online]. Available:
Renewable Energy Prospects for Ukraine. [Accessed: 31-Oct-2016].
[31] D. Connolly and B. V. Mathiesen, “A technical and economic analysis of one potential pathway to a 100% renewable energy system,”
Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag., vol. 1, pp. 7–28, 2014.
[32] H. Lund and B. V. Mathiesen, “Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems-The case of Denmark in years 2030 and
2050,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 524–531, 2009.
[33] B. V. Mathiesen, H. Lund, D. Connolly, H. Wenzel, P. A. Ostergaard, B. Möller, S. Nielsen, I. Ridjan, P. KarnOe, K. Sperling, and F.
K. Hvelplund, “Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions,” Appl. Energy, vol. 145, pp. 139–
154, 2015.
[34] Agora Energiewende, “Comparing the cost of low-carbon technologies: What is the cheapest option?,” Report by Prognos AB, 2014.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.prognos.com/fileadmin/pdf/publikationsdatenbank/140417_Prognos_Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_EN.p
df. [Accessed: 01-Nov-2016].
[35] M. Child, A. Nordling, and C. Breyer, “Scenarios for a sustainable energy sytem in the Åland Islands in 2030,” Energy Convers.
Manag., vol. 137, pp. 49–60, 2017.
[36] M. Child, A. Nordling, and C. Breyer, “The impacts of high V2G participation in a 100% renewable Åland energy system,” in
International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, Düsseldorf, March 14-16, 2017.
[37] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “The Role of Solar Energy towards 100 % Renewable Power Supply for Israel : Integrating Solar PV ,
Wind Energy , CSP and Storages,” in Proceedings of the 19th Sede Boqer Symposium on Solar Electricity Production, Sede Boqer,
February 23-25, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/1JlaiDI. [Accessed: December 20, 2016]
[38] S. Weitemeyer, D. Kleinhans, T. Vogt, and C. Agert, “Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in future power systems: The role of
storage,” Renew. Energy, vol. 75, pp. 14–20, 2015.
[39] P. D. Lund, J. Lindgren, J. Mikkola, and J. Salpakari, “Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable
renewable electricity,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 45, pp. 785–807, 2015.
[40] GCL-SI Media, “Revive Chernobyl’s exclusion zone: GCL-SI to build PV plant in Ukraine,” Press release, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://en.gclsi.com/site/NewsDetail/185. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2016].
[41] International Energy Agency, “Ukraine 2012,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Ukraine2012_free.pdf. [Accessed: 03-Oct-2016].
Michael Child et al. / Energy Procedia 135 (2017) 410–423 423
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 13
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the public financing of Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation, for
the ‘Neo-Carbon Energy’ project under the number 40101/14. Special thanks go to Yuliia Oharenko and Oksana
Aliieva from the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Kiev, and Komila Nabiyeva from the Energy Watch Group for valuable
comments during the preparation of this manuscript.
Appendix A.
Supplementary materials for this article can be found at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313255514_Role_of_storage_technologies_for_the_transition_to_a_100_r
enewable_energy_system_in_Ukraine_-_Supplementary_Material
References
[1] United Nations/Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Paris Agreement,” 21st Conference of the Parties, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf. [Accessed: 02-Oct-
2016].
[2] P. Poroshenko, “Statements made during the Leaders Event at the Paris Climate Change Conference - COP 21 / CMP 11,” 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/cop21cmp11_leaders_event_ukraine.pdf.
[Accessed: 22-Sep-2016].
[3] Government of Ukraine, “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published Documents/Ukraine/1/150930_Ukraine_INDC.pdf. [Accessed: 01-Oct-2016].
[4] K. Nabiyeva, “Energy Reforms in Ukraine: On the Track to Climate Protection and Sustainability?,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.boell.de/en/2016/07/19/energy-reforms-ukraine-track-climate-protection-and-sustainability. [Accessed: 12-Oct-2016].
[5] B. Garside, “Ukraine urged to up climate ambition after INDC draft fails to impress,” Carbon Pulse, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://carbon-pulse.com/8649/. [Accessed: 16-Jan-2017].
[6] G. R. Timilsina, G. Hochman, and I. Fedets, “Understanding energy efficiency barriers in Ukraine: Insights from a survey of
commercial and industrial firms,” Energy, vol. 106, no. July, pp. 203–211, 2016.
[7] The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine, “Ukraine’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2014,” Kiev, 2016.
[8] V. Logatskiy, “Energy sector of Ukraine in 2014-2016 : review and SWOT analysis,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://razumkov.org.ua/upload/1467706848_file.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Oct-2016].
[9] UNDP, “Renewable Energy Snapshot: Ukraine,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/library/environment_energy/renewable-energy-snapshots.html. [Accessed: 12-Oct-
2016].
[10] A. Hirtenstein, “Chernobyl’s Atomic Wasteland May Be Reborn With Solar Energy,” Bloomberg News, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/chernobyl-s-atomic-wasteland-may-be-reborn-with-solar-energy. [Accessed:
31-Jan-2017].
[11] E. Huan-Niemi, O. Niskanen, P. Rikkonen, and H. Rintamäki, “Futures climate policy in Finland: Mitigation measures for agricultural
greenhouse gas emissions,” in 17th International Conference of the Finland Futures Research Centre and the Finland Futures
Academy: Futures Studies Tackling Wicked Problems, Turku, June 11-12,2015.
[12] M. Child and C. Breyer, “Vision and initial feasibility analysis of a recarbonised Finnish energy system for 2050,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 66, 2016.
[13] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “North-East Asian Super Grid for 100% renewable energy supply: Optimal mix of energy technologies for
electricity, gas and heat supply options,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 112, pp. 176–190, 2016.
[14] M. Child, D. Bogdanov, C. Breyer, H. -J. Fell, and K. Nabiyeva, “Transition towards a 100% renewable energy system by 2050 for
Ukraine - Supplementary material,” 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312526869_IRES_2017_Ukraine_100RE_Supplementary_Material_20170119. [Accessed:
16-Jan-2017].
[15] Eurel Task Force, “Electrical power vision 2040 for Europe,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurel.org/home/TaskForces/Documents/EUREL-PV2040-Full_Version_Web.pdf. [Accessed: 06-Jun-2016].
[16] L. Barbosa, D. Bogdanov, P. Vainikka, and C. Breyer, “Hydro, wind and solar power as a base for a 100% Renewable Energy suppl y
for South and Central America,” PLoS ONE, 12, e0173820, 2017.
[17] A. Gerlach, C. Breyer, and C. Werner, “Impact of financing cost on global grid-parity dynamics till 2030,” in 29th European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, September 22-26, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2i1xRpW. [Accessed:
December 8, 2016]
[18] J. Farfan and C. Breyer, “Structural changes of global power generation capacity towards sustainability and the risk of stranded
investments supported by a sustainability indicator,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 141, pp. 370–384, 2016.
[19] International Energy Agency, “Key World Energy Statistics 2015,” Statistics, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/energy/http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/key-world-energy-statistics-2015_key_energ_stat-2015-en. [Accessed: 15-Oct-
14 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
2016].
[20] International Energy Agency, “Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia: Energy Policies Beyond IEA Countries,” 2015. [Online].
Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/IDR_EasternEuropeCaucasus_2015.pdf. [Accessed: 06-Oct-
2016].
[21] K. Bunzel, V. Zeller, M. Buchhorn, F. Griem, and D. Thrän, “Regionale und globale räumliche Verteilung von Biomassepotenzialen,”
German Biomass Research Center, Leipzig, 2009.
[22] G. Geletukha, T. Zheliezna, P. Kucheruk, and Y. Oliinyk, “State of the art and prospects for bioenergy development in Ukraine,”
Bioenergy Association of Ukraine Position Paper 9, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://uabio.org/img/files/docs/position -paper-uabio-9-
en.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Oct-2016].
[23] A. Gulagi, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “East Asian Super Grid: Can Australia become an electricity source for Asia?,” Sustainability,
9, 233, 2017.
[24] A. Aghahosseini, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “100% renewable energy in North America and the role of solar photovoltaics,” in 32nd
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Munich, June 20-24, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://bit.ly/2jMDx8h. [Accessed: November 3, 2016]
[25] A. Gulagi, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “Solar photovoltaics - a driving force towards 100% renewable energy for India and SAARC,”
PLoS ONE, In press, 2017.
[26] A. Aghahosseini, D. Bogdanov, and C. Breyer, “The MENA Super Grid towards 100 % Renewable Energy Power Supply by 2030 The
MENA Super Grid towards 100 % Renewable Energy Power Supply by 2030,” in 11th International Energy Conference, Tehran, May
30-31, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2kKhHSX. [Accessed: November 26, 2016]
[27] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “Integrating the Excellent Wind Resources in North- West Eurasia for a Sustainable Energy Supply in
Europe,” in 15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna, November 15-17, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2jIS7A9. [Accessed:
November 17, 2016]
[28] M. Barasa, D. Bogdanov, A. S. Oyewo, and C. Breyer, “A Cost Optimal Resolution for Sub-Saharan Africa powered by 100%
Renewables for Year 2030 Assumptions,” in 32nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Munich, June 20-
24, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/2izNb0A. [Accessed: December 22, 2016]
[29] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “Eurasian Super Grid for 100% Renewable Energy power supply: Generation and storage technologies in
the cost optimal mix,” in ISES Solar World Congress, Daegu, November 8-12, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/1IP8AeN.
[Accessed: December 22, 2016]
[30] International Renewable Energy Agency, “Renewable Energy Prospects for Ukraine,” REMAP 2030, 2015. [Online]. Available:
Renewable Energy Prospects for Ukraine. [Accessed: 31-Oct-2016].
[31] D. Connolly and B. V. Mathiesen, “A technical and economic analysis of one potential pathway to a 100% renewable energy system,”
Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag., vol. 1, pp. 7–28, 2014.
[32] H. Lund and B. V. Mathiesen, “Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems-The case of Denmark in years 2030 and
2050,” Energy, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 524–531, 2009.
[33] B. V. Mathiesen, H. Lund, D. Connolly, H. Wenzel, P. A. Ostergaard, B. Möller, S. Nielsen, I. Ridjan, P. KarnOe, K. Sperling, and F.
K. Hvelplund, “Smart Energy Systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions,” Appl. Energy, vol. 145, pp. 139–
154, 2015.
[34] Agora Energiewende, “Comparing the cost of low-carbon technologies: What is the cheapest option?,” Report by Prognos AB, 2014.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.prognos.com/fileadmin/pdf/publikationsdatenbank/140417_Prognos_Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_EN.p
df. [Accessed: 01-Nov-2016].
[35] M. Child, A. Nordling, and C. Breyer, “Scenarios for a sustainable energy sytem in the Åland Islands in 2030,” Energy Convers.
Manag., vol. 137, pp. 49–60, 2017.
[36] M. Child, A. Nordling, and C. Breyer, “The impacts of high V2G participation in a 100% renewable Åland energy system,” in
International Renewable Energy Storage Conference, Düsseldorf, March 14-16, 2017.
[37] D. Bogdanov and C. Breyer, “The Role of Solar Energy towards 100 % Renewable Power Supply for Israel : Integrating Solar PV ,
Wind Energy , CSP and Storages,” in Proceedings of the 19th Sede Boqer Symposium on Solar Electricity Production, Sede Boqer,
February 23-25, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://bit.ly/1JlaiDI. [Accessed: December 20, 2016]
[38] S. Weitemeyer, D. Kleinhans, T. Vogt, and C. Agert, “Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in future power systems: The role of
storage,” Renew. Energy, vol. 75, pp. 14–20, 2015.
[39] P. D. Lund, J. Lindgren, J. Mikkola, and J. Salpakari, “Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable
renewable electricity,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 45, pp. 785–807, 2015.
[40] GCL-SI Media, “Revive Chernobyl’s exclusion zone: GCL-SI to build PV plant in Ukraine,” Press release, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://en.gclsi.com/site/NewsDetail/185. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2016].
[41] International Energy Agency, “Ukraine 2012,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Ukraine2012_free.pdf. [Accessed: 03-Oct-2016].
