Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Second Strategic Energy Review : an EU energy security and solidarity action plan - Energy Sources, Production Costs and Performance of Technologies for Power Generation, Heating and Transport {C
Date: 2008-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, air quality, energy policy, energy supply, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, innovation, security of supply

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2872 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Second Strategic Energy Review 

AN EU ENERGY SECURITY AND SOLIDARITY ACTION PLAN 

Energy Sources, Production Costs and Performance of Technologies 
for Power Generation, Heating and Transport 

{COM(2008) 781 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2870} 
{SEC(2008) 2871} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Part I: Main Tables....................................................................................................... 3 

Part II: Methodology and Data..................................................................................... 9 

Energy Technologies for Power Generation ................................................................ 9 

Energy Sources for Heating ....................................................................................... 17 

Energy Sources for Transport Fuels........................................................................... 21 

References .................................................................................................................. 22 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

1. 

Europe  needs  to  act  now  to  deliver  sustainable,  secure  and  competitive  energy.  The  inter-
related  challenges  of  climate  change,  security  of  energy  supply  and  competitiveness  are 
multifaceted  and  require  a  profound  change  in  the  way  Europe  produces,  delivers  and 
consumes  energy.  Harnessing  technology  is  vital  to  achieve  the  Energy  Policy  for  Europe 
objectives adopted by the European Council on 9 March 20071.  

This  document  provides  a  comparative  analysis  of  energy  sources,  production  costs  and 
performance of technologies for power generation, heating and transport for use in the Second 
Strategic EU Energy Review (SEER). It builds upon the work performed for the first Strategic 
EU  Energy  Review  COM(2007)1,  and  relies  on  the  capacity  of  SETIS,  the  information 
system  of  the  European  Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (SET-Plan).  The  comparative 
Tables  presented  in  the  previous  SEER  exercise  have  been  updated.  The  portfolio  of 
technologies  considered  for  the  power  sector  has  been  also  expanded  to  include  carbon 
capture power plants, a large scale oil fired plant and an additional biomass conversion route. 
In addition, two fuel price scenarios have been considered to reflect variations in the future 
price  of  energy  commodities.  All  reported  values  in  the  Tables  for  electricity  generation, 
heating  and  transport  fuels  have  been  calculated  following  a  consistent  methodology,  hence 
they  are  directly  comparable.  The  calculations  rely  on  up-to-date  available  data  and 
information on energy conversion technology performance. 

This report consists of two parts. Part I includes the three Tables for use in the 2nd SEER. Part 
II  provides  a  comprehensive  description  of  the  implemented  methodology  and  includes  the 
technology-related data used for the calculations, accompanied by a reference list.  

2. 

PART I: MAIN TABLES 

1 

European  Council  conclusions  adopted  on  the  basis  of  the  Commission's  Energy  Package,  e.g.  the 
Communications: 'An Energy Policy for Europe' COM(2007)1, 'Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 
degrees Celsius - The way ahead for 2020 and beyond' COM(2007)2 and 'A European strategic energy 
technology plan (SET-plan) - Towards a low carbon future' COM(2007)723 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 2-1: Energy Technologies for Power Generation – Moderate Fuel Price Scenario (a) 

Energy 
source 

Power generation technology 

Production Cost of Electricity (COE) 
Projection for 
2020 

Projection for 
2030 

State-of-the-
art 2007 

Open Cycle Gas Turbine (GT) 
Natural gas  Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 

- 

- 

€ 2005/MWh 
65 ÷ 75 (b) 
50 ÷ 60 

€ 2005/MWh 
90 ÷ 95 (b) 
65 ÷ 75 

€ 2005/MWh 
90 ÷ 100 (b) 
70 ÷ 80 

Oil 

Coal 

(CCGT) 
Internal Combustion Diesel 
Engine 
Combined Cycle Oil-fired 
Turbine (CC)  
Pulverised Coal Combustion 
(PCC) 
Circulating Fluidised Bed 
Combustion (CFBC) 
Integrated Gasification 
Combined Cycle (IGCC)  

Wind 

Biomass 

Nuclear  Nuclear fission 
Solid biomass 
Biogas 
On-shore farm 
Off-shore farm 
Large 
Small 
Photovoltaic 
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 

Hydro 

Solar 

CCS 

n/a 

85 ÷ 95 

80 ÷ 90 

- 

- 

- 

CCS 

- 

- 

CCS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100 ÷ 125 (b) 

140 ÷ 165 (b) 

140 ÷ 160 (b) 

95 ÷ 105 (b) 

125 ÷ 135 (b) 

125 ÷ 135 (b) 

40 ÷ 50 

n/a 

45 ÷ 55 

45 ÷ 55 

n/a 

50 ÷ 85 

80 ÷ 195 

55 ÷ 215 

75 ÷ 110 

85 ÷ 140 

35 ÷ 145 

60 ÷ 185 

65 ÷ 80 

80 ÷ 105 

75 ÷ 85 

70 ÷ 80 

75 ÷ 90 

45 ÷ 80 

85 ÷ 200 

50 ÷ 200 

55 ÷ 90 

65 ÷ 115 

30 ÷ 140 

55 ÷ 160 

65 ÷ 80 

75 ÷ 100 

75 ÷ 85 

70 ÷ 80 

65 ÷ 85 

45 ÷ 80 

85 ÷ 205 

50 ÷ 190 

50 ÷ 85 

50 ÷ 95 

30 ÷ 130 

50 ÷ 145 

520 ÷ 880 
170 ÷ 250 (d) 

270 ÷ 460 
110 ÷ 160 (d) 

170 ÷ 300 
100 ÷ 140 (d) 

Net efficiency 
2007 

38% 
58% 
49% (c) 

45% 

53% 

47% 
35% (c) 

40% 

45% 
35% (c) 
35% 
24% ÷ 29% 
31% ÷ 34% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Lifecycle GHG emissions 
Indirect 
emissions 

Direct (stack) 
emissions 

Lifecycle 
emissions 

kg CO2/MWh 

kg CO2(eq)/MWh kg CO2(eq)/MWh

530 
350 
60 

595 

505 

725 
145 

850 

755 
145 
0 
6 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
120 (d) 

110 
70 
85 

95 

80 

95 
125 

110 

100 
125 
15 
15 ÷ 36 
1 ÷ 240 
11 
14 
6 
6 
45 
15 

640 
420 
145 

690 

585 

820 
270 

960 

855 
270 
15 
21 ÷ 42 
6 ÷ 245 
11 
14 
6 
6 
45 
135 (d) 

Fuel price 
sensitivity 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

nil 

nil 

nil 
Low 

(a) Assuming fuel prices as in 'European Energy and Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007' (barrel of oil 54.5$2005 in 2007, 61$2005 in 2020 and 63$2005 in 2030) 
(b) Calculated assuming base load operation 
(c) Reported efficiencies for carbon capture plants refer to first-of-a-kind demonstration installations that start operating in 2015 
(d) Assuming the use of natural gas for backup heat production

EN 

4 

EN 

 
  
Table 2-2: Energy Technologies for Power Generation – High Fuel Price Scenario (a) 

Energy 
source 

Power generation technology 

Production Cost of Electricity (COE) 
Projection for 
2020 

Projection for 
2030 

State-of-the-
art 2007 

Open Cycle Gas Turbine (GT) 
Natural gas  Combined Cycle Gas Turbine 

- 

- 

€ 2005/MWh 
80 ÷ 90 (b) 
60 ÷ 70 

€ 2005/MWh 
145 ÷ 155 (b) 
105 ÷ 115 

€ 2005/MWh 
160 ÷ 165 (b) 
115 ÷ 125 

Oil 

Coal 

(CCGT) 
Internal Combustion Diesel 
Engine 
Combined Cycle Oil-fired 
Turbine (CC)  
Pulverised Coal Combustion 
(PCC) 
Circulating Fluidised Bed 
Combustion (CFBC) 
Integrated Gasification 
Combined Cycle (IGCC)  

Wind 

Biomass 

Nuclear  Nuclear fission 
Solid biomass 
Biogas 
On-shore farm 
Off-shore farm 
Large 
Small 
Photovoltaic 
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 

Hydro 

Solar 

CCS 

n/a 

130 ÷ 140 

140 ÷ 150 

- 

- 

- 

CCS 

- 

- 

CCS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

125 ÷ 145 (b) 

200 ÷ 220 (b) 

230 ÷ 250 (b) 

115 ÷ 125 (b) 

175 ÷ 185 (b) 

200 ÷ 205 (b) 

40 ÷ 55 

n/a 

50 ÷ 60 

50 ÷ 60 

n/a 

55 ÷ 90 

80 ÷ 195 

55 ÷ 215 

75 ÷ 110 

85 ÷ 140 

35 ÷ 145 

60 ÷ 185 

80 ÷ 95 

100 ÷ 125 

85 ÷ 100 

100 ÷ 120 

95 ÷ 105 

95 ÷ 105 

85 ÷ 95 

95 ÷ 110 

55 ÷ 90 

90 ÷ 215 

50 ÷ 200 

55 ÷ 90 

65 ÷ 115 

30 ÷ 140 

55 ÷ 160 

85 ÷ 95 

90 ÷ 105 

55 ÷ 85 

95 ÷ 220 

50 ÷ 190 

50 ÷ 85 

50 ÷ 95 

30 ÷ 130 

50 ÷ 145 

520 ÷ 880 
170 ÷ 250 (d) 

270 ÷ 460 
130 ÷ 180 (d) 

170 ÷ 300 
120 ÷ 160 (d) 

Net efficiency 
2007 

38% 
58% 
49% (c) 

45% 

53% 

47% 
35% (c) 

40% 

45% 
35% (c) 
35% 
24% ÷ 29% 
31% ÷ 34% 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Lifecycle GHG emissions 
Indirect 
emissions 

Direct (stack) 
emissions 

Lifecycle 
emissions 

kg CO2/MWh 

kg CO2(eq)/MWh kg CO2(eq)/MWh

530 
350 
60 

595 

505 

725 
145 

850 

755 
145 
0 
6 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
120 (d) 

110 
70 
85 

95 

80 

95 
125 

110 

100 
125 
15 
15 ÷ 36 
1 ÷ 240 
11 
14 
6 
6 
45 
15 

640 
420 
145 

690 

585 

820 
270 

960 

855 
270 
15 
21 ÷ 42 
6 ÷ 245 
11 
14 
6 
6 
45 
135 (d) 

Fuel price 
sensitivity 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

Very high 

High 

Medium 

High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

nil 

nil 

nil 
Low 

(a) Assuming fuel prices as in DG TREN 'Scenarios on high oil and gas prices' (barrel of oil 54.5$2005 in 2007, 100$2005 in 2020 and 119$2005 in 2030) 
(b) Calculated assuming base load operation  
(c) Reported efficiencies for carbon capture plants refer to first-of-a-kind demonstration installations that start operating in 2015 
(d) Assuming the use of natural gas for backup heat production

EN 

5 

EN 

 
  
Table 2-3: Energy Sources for Heating – Moderate Fuel Price Scenario (a) 

Energy source 

EU-27 market share by 
energy source 
(residential sector) (b) 

Fuel retail price 
(inc. taxes) 

Production Cost of Heat (inc. taxes) 

Lifecycle GHG emissions 

Running cost 

Total cost 

Direct (stack) 
emissions 

Indirect 
emissions 

Lifecycle 
emissions 

Natural gas 

Fossil fuels 

Heating oil 

Coal 

Wood chips 

Biomass, solar 
and other 

Pellets 

Solar 

Geothermal 

45.4% 

20.0% 

3.1% 

11.6% 

€ 2005/toe 

€ 2005/toe 

€ 2005/toe 

t CO2 /toe 

t CO2(eq)/toe 

t CO2(eq)/toe 

625 

640 

375 

390 

580 

- 

- 

750 ÷ 950 

1050 ÷ 1300 

800 ÷ 1100 

1325 ÷ 2025 

675 ÷ 750 

1500 ÷ 1825 

700 ÷ 900 

1550 ÷ 2650 

900 ÷ 1300 

1675 ÷ 4125 

275 ÷ 300 

1350 ÷ 9125 

525 ÷ 900 

1025 ÷ 3625 

2.5 

3.5 

5.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.7 

0.6 

0.7 

0.3 

0.7 

0.3 

3.2 

4.1 

6.1 

0.3 

0.7 

0.3 

0.2 ÷ 5.9 

0.2 ÷ 5.9 

Electricity 

12.3% 

1470 

1500 ÷ 1575 

1600 ÷ 2475 

0.0 

0.7 ÷ 15.2 

0.7 ÷ 15.2 

(a) Assuming fuel prices as in 'European Energy and Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007' (barrel of oil 54.5$2005) 
(b) District heating has an additional share of 7.6% of the market 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
  
Table 2-4: Energy Sources for Heating – High Fuel Price Scenario (a) 

Energy source 

EU-27 market share by 
energy source 
(residential sector) (b) 

Fuel retail price 
(inc. taxes) 

Production Cost of Heat (inc. taxes) 

Lifecycle GHG emissions 

Running cost 

Total cost 

Direct (stack) 
emissions 

Indirect 
emissions 

Lifecycle 
emissions 

Natural gas 

Fossil fuels 

Heating oil 

Coal 

Wood chips 

Biomass, solar 
and other 

Pellets 

Solar 

Geothermal 

45.4% 

20.0% 

3.1% 

11.6% 

€ 2005/toe 

€ 2005/toe 

€ 2005/toe 

t CO2 /toe 

t CO2(eq)/toe 

t CO2(eq)/toe 

1010 

1030 

590 

410 

610 

- 

- 

1125 ÷ 1400 

1425 ÷ 1750 

1200 ÷ 1600 

1775 ÷ 2525 

975 ÷ 1025 

1775 ÷ 2100 

725 ÷ 925 

1575 ÷ 2675 

925 ÷ 1350 

1700 ÷ 4175 

275 ÷ 300 

1350 ÷ 9125 

650 ÷ 1100 

1150 ÷ 3775 

2.5 

3.5 

5.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.7 

0.6 

0.7 

0.3 

0.7 

0.3 

3.2 

4.1 

6.1 

0.3 

0.7 

0.3 

0.2 ÷ 5.9 

0.2 ÷ 5.9 

Electricity 

12.3% 

1875 

1925 ÷ 1975 

2025 ÷ 2900 

0.0 

0.7 ÷ 15.2 

0.7 ÷ 15.2 

(a) Assuming high fuel prices as in DG TREN 'Scenarios on high oil and gas prices' (barrel of oil 100$2005) 
(b) District heating has an additional share of 7.6% of the market 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
  
Table 2-5: Energy Sources for Road Transport – Moderate and High Fuel Price Scenario 

Energy source for road transport 

Petrol and diesel 

Natural gas (CNG) (d) 

Domestic biofuel (e) 

Tropical bio-ethanol 

Second-generation biofuel (e) 

Cost of Fuels to the EU 

Moderate Fuel Price Scenario (a) 
€ 2005/toe 

High Fuel Price Scenario (b) 
€ 2005/toe 

470 

500 

725 ÷ 910 

700 (f) 

1095 ÷ 1245 

675 

630 

805 ÷ 935 

790 (f) 

1100 ÷ 1300 

Lifecycle GHG emissions (c) 

t CO2(eq)/toe 

3.6 ÷ 3.7 

3.0 

1.9 ÷ 2.4 

0.4 

0.3 ÷ 0.9  

(a)  Values are given for 2015, assuming oil price of 57.9$2005/barrel as in 'European Energy and Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007'  
(b)  Values are given for 2015, assuming oil price of 83.3$2005/barrel as in DG TREN 'Scenarios on high oil and gas prices' 
(c)  Data subject to revision pending on an agreement on an appropriate methodology for calculating indirect land use change 
(d)  Requires a specially adapted vehicle, which is not accounted for in the reported values 
(e)   Ranges is between cheapest wheat-ethanol and biodiesel 
(f)  Values are based on an assumed competitive market price of biofuels imported in the EU 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
3. 

3.1. 

PART II: METHODOLOGY AND DATA 

Energy Technologies for Power Generation 

This  section  describes  the  methodology  and  data  used  for  the  comparison  Table  of  energy 
technologies for power generation. Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 summarise the techno-
economic characteristics of the selected state-of-the-art power generation technologies.  

3.1.1.  Technologies 

The technologies addressed are: 

1. 

Natural gas fuelled 

– 

– 

– 

Open cycle gas turbine  

Combined cycle gas turbine 

Combined cycle gas turbine with carbon capture and storage (CCS) 

2. 

Oil fuelled 

– 

– 

Diesel internal combustion engine 

Oil fired combined cycle 

3. 

Coal fuelled 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Pulverised fuel 

Pulverised fuel with carbon capture and storage 

Circulating fluidised bed  

Integrated gasification combined cycle 

Integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage 

4. 

5. 

Nuclear fission 

–  Water cooled reactor 

Biomass fuelled 

– 

– 

Biomass  fired  combustion  steam  cycle:  large  (>10MWe)  and  small  scale 
(≤10MWe) 

Biogas from co-digestion and landfill gas 

6. 

Wind 

– 

– 

On-shore wind 

Off-shore wind 

7. 

Hydropower 

– 

– 

Large scale (>10MWe) 

Small scale (≤10MWe) 

8. 

Solar power 

– 

– 

Photovoltaics 

Concentrating solar thermal power 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
It is noted that cogeneration of heat and power is not considered in this analysis. 

3.1.2. 

Indicators 

For each technology the following indicators are reported: 

(I) Production cost of electricity (current and projected to 2020 and 2030): The levelized 
production cost of electricity, expressed in constant €(2005)/MWh of net power generated, is 
used to compare the economic competitiveness among power generation technologies during 
their life time. The reported values for the production cost of electricity for each technology 
refer to a state-of-the-art facility, assumed to start operating in the indicated year (2007, 2020 
or  2030),  as  described  in  Table  3-1.  The  reported  range  reflects  variations  in  capital  costs 
which depend on specific technology choices, plant location, etc. The reported range does not, 
however, reflect the variability in the fuel retail prices between the Member States2.  

The reported production cost values have been calculated using the following formula: 

COE

=

SCI

(
1
+⋅
8760

)
IDC
⋅
LF
⋅

CRF

+

Where: 

FOM
⋅

8760

LF

+

VOM

+

FC

+

CC

+

CTS

COE  …is the levelized production cost of electricity, in €2005/MWh, 

SCI  …is the specific overnight capital investment of the power generation facility, 

in €2005/MW, 

IDC  …is the interest during construction, 

CRF  …is the capital recovery factor, 

LF  …is the annual load factor of the facility, 

FOM …refers to the annualized fixed operating costs during the facility life time, in 

€2005/MW, 

VOM …refers to the annualized variable operating costs during the facility life time, 

in €2005/MWh, 

FC  …refers to annualized fuel costs during the facility life time, in €2005/MWh, 

CC  …refers to annualized carbon costs during the facility life time, in €2005/MWh  

CTS  …refers to annualized expenditures for transport and storage of captured CO2 
during the facility life time, in €2005/MWh (only applicable to plants with CCS). 

All values are reported in net power capacity (MW) or generated electricity (MWh). 

In  more  detail,  values  for  SCI  were  collected  from  the  most  recent  available  literature.  The 
reported ranges reflect market variations in investment costs for a given technology within the 
EU  and  within  a  same  power  class.  Values  reported  in  the  literature  in  currency  other  than 
euros were converted to euros based on the Eurostat exchange rates for the reference year of 
the  data  given  in  the  publication  and  were  converted  to  2005  euros  (€2005)  using  the  annual 
average inflation rates for the Euro area as reported by Eurostat. Finally, to include the recent 
price  increases  these  values  were  adjusted  to  January  2007  using  the  chemical  engineering 

2 

An average European fuel price has been considered as discussed below. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
plant  cost  index3.  The  SCI  values  are  shown  in  Table  3-2.  Values  for  future  SCIs  were 
calculated on the assumption that current prices will decrease due to learning effects. Hence, 
based on the technology learning theory, the future specific cost of a technology, SCIF, was 
calculated using the global installed capacity as a proxy, based on the formula: 

SCI

F

=

SCI

P

)

LR

(
1ln
−
2ln

⎛
⎜⎜
⎝

C
C

F

P

⎞
⎟⎟
⎠

Where: 

SCIP  …is the current specific capital investment cost, 

CP  …is the current global installed capacity, 

CF  …is the installed capacity of the technology in a future time, e.g. in 2020, 

LR  …is the learning rate of the technology. 

Values for CP, CF and LR were collected from the literature and are also shown in Table 3-3. 
Especially,  for  fossil  fuel  power  plants  with  CCS,  it  was  assumed  that  the  first-of-the-kind 
installations  will  start  operating  in  2015.  Furthermore,  the  global  installed  capacity  of  each 
technology is kept constant for the two fossil fuel price scenarios. 

The IDC was calculated considering the construction time for each plant (see Table 3-3) and a 
capital expenditure profile during construction: 

IDC

=

Where: 

CT

=∑

k

W
1

(
1

+

r

CT

)

k

(
k
−−

1

) 1
−

CT  …is the construction time, 

Wk  …is the fraction of total capital used in year k, 

r  …is the interest rate. 

For all technologies an interest rate of 10% was assumed for the calculation of IDC. 

The capital recovery factor (CRF) was calculated from the formula: 

CRF

=

d
(
1

(
1
d
+⋅
)
n
+

d

)
−

n

1

Where d is the real discount rate and n is the facility life time.  

For all technologies a real discount rate of 10% was assumed. Moreover, it was assumed that 
the economic life time of facility is equal to the technical life time (see Table 3-3). 

It  was  further  assumed  that  all  facilities  operate  in  a  base-load  mode  with  a  LF  of  85%, 
including open cycle gas turbines and diesel reciprocating engines that are used also to meet 
peak load. The following exceptions were made: 

– 

Photovoltaics: 11% 

3 

For more information see: Updating the CE Plant Cost Index, Chemical Engineering, January 2002, p. 
62. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
– 

Concentrating solar thermal power: 41%4 

–  Wind: on-shore 23% and off-shore 39% 

– 

– 

Landfill: 75%  

Hydropower: Large scale 50% and Small scale 57%  

FOM  costs  account  for  maintenance,  which  was  calculated  as  a  fraction  of  the  total 
investment costs (calculated using the net capacity and SCI values from Table 3-1 and Table 
3-2  respectively)  based  on  standard  sectoral  costing  methodologies;  salaries  (assuming  an 
annual  average  salary  of  €55,000  and  estimating  the  number  of  people  employed  in  each 
facility); and overheads (30% of salaries). The evolution of FOM costs during the life time of 
a facility (due to learning effects, etc.) was considered through an annualizing process, where 
the annual FOM values were discounted to the net present value and then multiplied by the 
CRF. VOM costs account for the cost of consumables, chemicals, auxiliary power, etc. Values 
were obtained from the literature. Table 3-2 shows the total operational and maintenance costs 
(OM)5 normalised to the installed net capacity. 

Fuel costs (FC) were calculated for two scenarios, moderate and high. The fuel prices for the 
moderate  scenario  are  derived  from  the  DG  TREN  publication  'European  Energy  and 
Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007'6, while fuel prices for the high scenario are based 
on  DG  TREN  'Scenarios  on  high  oil  and  gas  prices'7.  Moreover,  prices  for  biomass  were 
calculated  based  on  values  reported  in  EUBIONET  II8  and  adjusted  to  reflect  the  biomass 
price trends considered in the previously mentioned DG TREN scenarios. These values reflect 
the fuel price at the plant gate. Table 3-2 shows the fuel prices assumed for the years 2007, 
2020 and 2030. The evolution of FC during the life time of a facility, due to changes in fuel 
prices, was also considered through an annualizing process, as described above for FOM. In 
the  case  of  nuclear  energy,  the  fuel  price  encompasses  the  whole  fuel  cycle  including 
provisions for waste management. For concentrating solar thermal power, FC were calculated 
assuming  a  constant  consumption  of  natural  gas  of  385 TJ  per  year  for  backup  heat 
production. 

Carbon  costs  (CC)  were  considered  only  for  the  projected  costs  of  electricity  in  2020  and 
2030. It was assumed that each tonne of CO2 directly emitted from the facility was charged 
with  €41/tCO2  and  €47/tCO2  in  2020  and  2030  respectively.  CC  were  also  annualized 
similarly  to  FOM.  The  annual  CO2  emissions  during  plant  operation  were  derived  from  the 
IPCC  Guidelines  for  National  Greenhouse  Gas  Inventories9,  as  explained  below.  It  was 
assumed that concentrating solar thermal power does not carry carbon costs. 

In  the  case  of  power  plants  with  carbon  capture  technology,  the  cost  of  CO2  transport  and 
storage  costs  was  also  taken  into  account  for  the  calculation  of  the  production  cost  of 
electricity and was treated as an additional operational cost element. A value of €20 per tonne 
of  CO2  captured  was  assumed  to  account  for  the  cost  of  transport  and  storage  of  captured 
CO2. 

Dismantling costs were not considered except in the case of nuclear plants, where the cost of 
decommissioning was included both in SCI and FOM.  

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Including thermal storage and natural gas backup. Load factor is assumed constant over time. 
This accounts for FOM and VOM, and excludes fuel and carbon costs 
See reference [80] 
To be published 
See reference [56] 
See reference [127] 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(II) Net efficiency: The reported values refer to the current state-of-the-art power generating 
facility with the exception of the CCS plants. For the latter, the reported values refer to first-
of-a-kind  demonstration  installations,  assumed  to  start  operating  in  2015  (for  references  see 
Table 3-1). These net efficiency values were used for calculating fuel and carbon costs, and 
hence  the  production  cost  of  electricity.  The  net  efficiency  values  used  for  calculating  the 
projected cost of electricity in 2030 are also shown in Table 3-1. 

(III) Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions: Values for the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions  for  current  state-of-the-art  facilities  were  obtained  from  the  pertinent  literature 
and/or calculated by the JRC based on in-house life cycle assessment data.  

The  lifecycle  GHG  emissions  for  fossil  fuel  technologies  comprise  the  direct  (stack) 
emissions  from  the  combustion/gasification  process  and  the  indirect  emissions  originating 
among  others  from  the  fuel  supply  chain  and  plant  construction.  Direct  emissions  were 
calculated according to IPCC Guidelines. In the case of carbon capture, the direct emissions 
are  the  difference  between  the  produced  and  captured  CO2  amounts.  Conservative  capture 
rates  have  been  assumed  (85%  for  all  CCS  technologies),  which  is  the  minimum  capture 
efficiency proposed by the IPCC Guidelines. The indirect emissions of plants were based on 
an average value provided by the Ecoinvent Life Cycle Inventory10 for the supply of each type 
of  fuel  in  Europe.  Indirect  emissions  from  other  stages  of  the  life  cycle  (e.g.  construction) 
were obtained based on available data for relevant facilities. Finally, the calculated lifecycle 
emissions were harmonized with the life cycle GHG emission values of similar technologies 
available in the Ecoinvent database and other relevant literature11. 

For  the  non-fossil  fuel  technologies,  lifecycle  GHG  emissions  were  obtained  directly  from 
available references listed in Table 3-3.  

It  is  noted  that  the  pathways  for  the  supply  of  fuel  and  raw  materials,  and  the  location  of 
power  generation  facilities  have  a  significant  influence  on  lifecycle  emissions.  Table  3-3 
shows  the  range  of  values  calculated  by  the  JRC  or  reported  in  the  literature  with  the 
corresponding references. 

(IV) Fuel price sensitivity: This refers to the sensitivity of the production cost of electricity 
to  changes  in  fuel  prices,  which  can  be  estimated  by  the  fraction  of  fuel  costs  to  the  total 
production cost of electricity. In the context of this analysis, the following scale was assumed: 

Sensitivity 

Very high 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Fraction of fuel cost to COE - ∆(FC)  

∆(FC) > 60% 

60% ≥ ∆(FC) > 40% 

40% ≥ ∆(FC) > 20% 

∆(FC) ≤ 20% 

10 
11 

See reference [95] 
See reference [103] and [104] 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 3-1: Technology description, installation size, and current and future conversion efficiency 

Technology 

Description 

Open Cycle Gas Turbine (GT) 

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) 

Industrial gas turbine 
Plant  with  state-of-art  heavy  duty  industrial  turbines,  optimised  heat 
recovery steam generator and anti-NOx equipment 

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine with CCS  As above, equipped with post-combustion capture based on MEA scrubbing

Internal Combustion Diesel Engine 
Combined Cycle Oil-fired Turbine 
Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) 

Heavy duty reciprocating engine 
Plant with state-of-the-art oil-fired industrial turbines  
Supercritical power plant, steam at 600ºC, FGD and SCR 

Pulverised Coal Combustion with CCS  As above, equipped with post-combustion capture based on MEA scrubbing
Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion 
(CFBC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
(IGCC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
with CCS 

Plant  with  a  dry-fed  entrained  flow  gasifier  and  state-of-the-art  syngas 
turbines 
Mean performance of dry- and slurry-fed IGCC plants with pre-combustion 
capture using the Selexol process 
III  water  cooled 
Generation 
evolutionary light water reactor designs as EPR and ABWR) 

Circulating fluidised bed plant 

(mainly  considering 

reactor  designs 

Nuclear fission 

Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– small scale 
Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– large scale 
Biogas plant 
Landfill Gas 

Combustion boiler with a steam turbine 

Fluidized bed combustion boiler with a steam turbine 

Farm-scale co-digestion biogas plant 
Landfill with a gas engine 

On-shore Wind 

On-shore wind turbine in a farm configuration 

Off-shore Wind 

Hydropower – large scale 

Hydropower – small scale 

Photovoltaics 
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 

Off-shore  wind  turbine  in  a  farm  configuration,  located  in  shallow  waters
(up to 30m) 
Hydropower  plant  above  10  MWe,  considering  different  configurations
from the building of a new facility, the extension of an existing facility and
the powering an existing hydro scheme 
Hydropower  plant  below  10  MWe  considering  different  configurations
from the building of a new facility, the extension of an existing facility and
the powering an existing hydro scheme 
System based on crystalline silicon panels 
Parabolic trough collector with storage and natural gas backup power plant 

Net capacity 

[MW]
250 

References 
[1] 

2007 (2015 for CCS) 
[%] 
References 
[1] 
38% 

Net efficiency 

[1],[5],[24],[91] 

58% 

[1] 

650 

550 
50 
175 
800 
500 

300 

675 

[7],[5],[97-98] 
[24] 
[100] 
[1],[5],[24],[91] 
[7],[5],[97] 

[1],][24] 

[1],[97],[101],
[102],[88],[91] 

49% 
45% 
53% 
47% 
35% 

40% 

[5] 
[99] 
JRC 
[91],[101] 
[5] 

[101] 

2030 
References 
[89] 

[89] 

JRC 
JRC 
JRC 
JRC 
JRC 

[101] 

[%] 
45% 

65% 

55% 
48% 
59% 
54% 
42% 

50% 

45% 

[101],[102] 

57% 

[101] 

600 

[7],[97],[102] 

35% 

[102] 

47% 

1600 

[19],[15],[33-38]

35% 

[19],[15], 
[33-38] 

36% 

5 

30 

0.3 
4.4 

2 

3.6 

20 
75 
250 

2 

10 

1 
50 

[54],[55] 

24% 

[42], [54], [55]

25% 

[54] 

[41],[42],[113] 
[41] 
[1],[24],[41], 
[64-65],[119] 
[1],[24],[41], 
[77-78],[119] 
[41],[63] 
[41],[63] 
[41],[63] 

[41],[63] 

[41],[63] 

JRC 
[146] 

29% 

31% 
34% 

[42], [54] 

[41], [43] 
[41], [42] 

30% 

32% 
36% 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

JRC 

JRC 

JRC 

JRC 

JRC 
JRC 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
Table 3-2: Overnight specific capital investment and O&M costs of power generation technologies, and assumed fuel prices 

Technology 

SCIP (state-of-the-art, 2007) 

[€ 2005/kW] 

Annualized O&M costs (VOM+FOM) 
[€ 2005/kW] 

Open Cycle Gas Turbine (GT) 
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) 
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine with CCS 
Internal Combustion Diesel Engine 
Combined Cycle Oil-fired Turbine 
Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) 
Pulverised Coal Combustion with CCS 
Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion 
(CFBC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
(IGCC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
with CCS 

REF 
310 
635 
1200 
800 
1000 
1265 
2250 

1400 

Range 
200 ÷ 400 
480 ÷ 730 
1000 ÷ 1300 
550 ÷ 1350 
900 ÷ 1100 
1000 ÷ 1440 
1700 ÷ 2700 

1250 ÷ 1500 

References 
[2-3] 
[1],[5],[24],[91] 
[7],[5],[97-98] 
[3],[24] 
[100] 
[1],[5],[24],[91] 
[92],[94],[97] 

[1,24] 

1550 

1400 ÷ 1650 

[1],[97],[101],[102],[88],[91] 

2100 

1700 ÷ 2400 

[7],[97],[102] 

Nuclear fission 

2680 

1970 ÷ 3380 

[8-32],[1] 

Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– small scale 
Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– large scale 

3800 

2900 ÷ 5080 

[42],[54],[55],[85],[147] 

2450 

2020 ÷ 3220 

[54],[42],[55] 

Biogas plant 

Landfill Gas 

On-shore Wind 

3140 

1530 

2960 ÷ 5790 

1400 ÷ 2000 

1140 

1000 ÷ 1370 

Off-shore Wind 

2000 

1750 ÷ 2750 

Hydropower – large scale 

Hydropower – small scale 

Photovoltaics 

Concentrating Solar Power 

2510 
1800 
1350 
4500 
2900 
4700 

5000 

(a) Natural gas consumed for backup heat production.

1750 ÷ 4500 
1230 ÷ 3650 
900 ÷ 3100 
2500 ÷ 6600 
2000 ÷ 4800 
4100 ÷ 6900 

[41],[42],[43],[45], 
[108],[113] 
[41],[48],[49] 
[1],[6],[19],[24],[40-42], 
[64-70] 
[1],[6],[19],[24], 
[40-41],[66],[68],[70],[119] 

[6],[41],[60],[63],[126] 

[6],[41],[60],[63],[126],[147] 

[136],[24],[90],[94] 

4000÷6000 

[146],[6],[19],[24],[137-143] 

REF 
10 
25 
40 
40 
50 
60 
90 

70 

65 

85 

90 

260 

135 

245 

200 

35 

80 

75 
55 
40 
130 
85 
80 

115 

References 

JRC,[5] 

JRC 

Fuel prices (Moderate / High) 
[€ 2005/toe] 
2020 

2030 

2007 

250 

440 

L: 300
H: 510 

L: 550
H: 745 

L: 320 
H: 595 

L: 540 
H: 920 

JRC,[5],[94],[102] 

90 

L: 95 
H: 155 

L: 105 
H: 190 

Range 
6 ÷ 13 
19 ÷ 26 
37 ÷ 44 
29 ÷ 63 
48 ÷ 55 
50 ÷ 67 
76 ÷ 101 

62 ÷ 71 

61 ÷ 69 

74 ÷ 95 

74 ÷ 107 

[1],[22-25],[27],[31],[38-39] 

33 

235 ÷ 292 

[42],[54],[55],[120],[125] 

160 

90 

270 

0 

124 ÷ 161 

[54],[55],[120],[125] 

237 ÷ 334 

199 ÷ 211 

33 ÷ 42 

71 ÷ 105 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
72 ÷ 114 

[113] 

[42],[132] 
[1],[6],[19],[24],[41-42], 
[64-65],[68-70] 
[1],[6],[24],[41-42], 
[64-65],[68],[70] 
[24],[41],[119],[132-134] 
[24],[41],[119],[121],[132-134]
[24],[41],[119],[132-134] 

[24],[41],[119],[132-134] 

JRC,[92] 

111÷121 

[146],[24],[137],[139-143] 

250 (a) 

L: 35 
H: 53 
L: 215
H: 235 
L: 120 
H: 135 

270 

0 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
L: 300 
H: 510 (a) 

L: 37 
H: 63 
L: 235 
H: 275 
L: 135 
H: 160 

270 

0 

L: 320 
H: 595 (a) 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-3: Construction time and life time of facility, current and future global installed capacity, learning rate and lifecycle GHG emissions 

Technology 

Open Cycle Gas Turbine (GT) 
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) 
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine with CCS 
Internal Combustion Diesel Engine 
Combined Cycle Oil-fired Turbine 
Pulverised Coal Combustion (PCC) 
Pulverised Coal Combustion with CCS 
Circulating Fluidised Bed Combustion 
(CFBC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
(IGCC) 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle 
with CCS 
Nuclear fission 
Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– small scale 
Biomass combustion steam cycle  
– large scale 
Biogas plant 
Landfill Gas 
On-shore Wind 
Off-shore Wind 

Hydropower – large scale 

Hydropower – small scale 

Photovoltaics 
Concentrating Solar Power 

Construct. 
time 
[year] 
1 
3 
4 
1 
3 
3 
4 

Life-time 

[year] 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
40 
40 

3 

3 

4 

6 

2 

2 

1 
1 
1 
2 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
0 
2 

40 

40 

40 

40 

30 

30 

25 
25 
20 
20 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
25 
40 

Global installed capacity 

CP 
[GW] 
225 
350 
1 
200 
350 
300 
10 

70 

1 

10 

3 (a) 

62 

4 

95 
12 

C2030 
[GW] 
1110 
790 
61 
930 
790 
790 
235 

230 

3 

235 

100 (a) 

125 

11 

960 
210 

Learning 
rate, LR 
[%] 
5.0% 
5.0% 
2.2% 
3.0% 
3.0% 
6.0% 
2.1% 

6.0% 

11.0% 

5.0% 

3.0% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

12.5% 
11.0% 
8.0% 
8.0% 

References 
[6],[7],[87] 
[6],[7],[96] 
[7],[6] 
[87] 
[6],[7],[96] 
[6],[7],[96] 
[7],[6] 

[101],[101] 

[7] 

[6],[7] 

Lifecycle GHG emission 

tCO2/GWh 
520 ÷ 600 
365 ÷ 495 
80 ÷ 235 
670 ÷ 690 
570 ÷ 590 
800 ÷ 860 
240 ÷ 290 

950 ÷ 980 

References 
[95],[104] 
[95],[103-104] 
[95],[103-104] 
[95],[104] 
[95],[104] 
[95],[103-104] 
[95],[103-104] 

[95],[103-104] 

830 ÷ 860 

[95],[103-104] 

240 ÷ 290 

[95],[103-104] 

[26],[40],[6] 

3 ÷ 40 

[95],[129-131],[103-104] 

[6],[41] 

[6],[41] 

[6],[41],[46],[47] 
[6],[41],[46],[47] 
[6],[64],[68],[73-76] 
[6],[64],[68],[73-76] 

42 

21 

245 
6 
7 ÷ 30 
9 ÷ 22 

[119] 

[119] 

[119] 
[119] 
[95],[40],[103-104] 
[95],[40],[103-104] 

770 

n/a 

-0.5% per year

[6],[41],[73] 

3.5 ÷ 40 

[95],[119] 

75 

8 
0.4 

n/a 

150 
60 

-1.2% per year

[41],[73] 

23.0% 
10.0% 

[94],[93],[6],[93] 
[6],[138],[144-146]  

3.5 ÷ 10 
3.5 ÷ 32 
40 ÷ 110 
135 (b) 

[59],[119],[95] 
[59],[119],[95] 
[40],[95],[103] 
[40] 

(a) Values represent the global installed capacity of Generation III (and 3+) nuclear reactors only, and not the total installed nuclear capacity operating worldwide (370 GW in 2007). 
(b) This includes 15 tCO2/GWh of indirect emissions and the direct combustion emissions from natural gas use. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2. 

Energy Sources for Heating 

This  section  describes  the  methodology  and  data  used  for  the  comparison  Table  of  energy 
sources  for  heating.  Table  3-4  summarises  the  techno-economic  characteristics  of  selected 
current state-of-the-art heat generation technologies.  

3.2.1.  Technologies 

This  analysis  focuses  on  central  heating  systems  for  households  with  heat  generation 
capacities between 15 kWth and 100 kWth. The technologies addressed are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Natural gas fuelled boiler 

Heating oil fuelled boiler 

Coal fuelled boiler 

Biomass fuelled boiler: 

–  Wood chips 

– 

Pellets 

Solar thermal system 

Geothermal with heat pump 

Electricity boiler and heater 

District heating and cogeneration of heat and power (CHP) are not addressed in this analysis. 

3.2.2. 

Indicators 

The methodology used for calculating the cost of heat generation is similar to the one used for 
the calculation of the production cost of electricity. In this section, only the main differences 
are described.  

(I)  Market  share:  The  market  shares  reported  in  the  updated  Table  refer  to  the  residential 
sector  only.  The  reported  values  have  been  adopted  from  the  publication  'European  Energy 
and Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007'12. It is noted that district heating, which has a 
share of 7.6% of the market, has not been considered in the analysis. 

(II) Fuel retail price: This refers to fuel prices for households, including taxes. Fuel costs for 
the  moderate  fuel  price  scenario  are  derived  from  the  DG  TREN  publication  'European 
Energy  and  Transport:  Trends  to  2030  -  Update  2007'13,  while  fuel  costs  for  the  high  fuel 
price scenario are based on the DG TREN 'Scenarios on high oil and gas prices'14. Moreover, 
prices for biomass were calculated based on values reported in EUBIONET II15 and adjusted 
to  reflect  the  biomass  price  trends  considered  in  the  previously  mentioned  DG  TREN 
scenarios. 

(III) Production cost of heat: The production cost of heat, expressed in constant €(2005)/toe 
in  useful  heat  produced,  is  used  to  compare  the  economic  competitiveness  among  different 
energy  sources  for  heating.  The  reported  values  represent  a  snapshot  of  costs  in  2007. 
Running costs refer to the annual cost to produce heat without considering the initial capital 
costs.  Total  costs  refer  to  the  production  cost  that  includes  the  recovery  of  capital.  The 

12 
13 
14 
15 

See reference [80] 
See reference [80] 
To be published 
See reference [56] 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reported values for each energy source refer to a state-of-the-art heating facility, as described 
in Table 3-4. The reported range reflects different technologies and variations in capital costs 
but does not reflect the variability in the fuel retail prices between the Member States. 

The  reported  running  production  cost  values  have  been  calculated  using  the  following 
formula: 

RCH

=

FOM
⋅

8760

LF

+

VOM

+

FC

The reported total production cost values have been calculated using the following formula: 

COH

=

SCI
⋅
8760

CRF
LF
⋅

+

RCH

Where: 

RCH  …is the running cost of heat production, in €2005/toe, 

COH …is the total production cost of heat, in €2005/toe, 

LF  …is the annual load factor of the heating system, 

FOM …refers to the annual fixed operating costs, in €2005/toe, 

VOM …refers to the variable operating costs, in €2005/toe, 

FC  …refers to fuel costs, in €2005/toe, 

SCI  …is the specific overnight capital investment, in €2005/toe, 

CRF  …is the capital recovery factor. 

All values are reported in useful heat produced 

An  annual  load  factor  of  10%  was  used  for  the  calculations  for  all  technologies  except  for 
solar  where  a  value  of  8%  was  used  to  reflect  resource  constraints.  The  former  load  factor 
refers  to  an  average  of  the  annual  operating  time  of  the  heat  production  facility  at  nominal 
capacity to meet the heat demand of a typical European house of about 110 m2 and of a small 
residential  building  of  about  550  m2,  based  on  an  average  annual  outdoor  temperature  of 
8.8°C and an indoor temperature of 20/19/22°C16.  

FOM costs account for the service, maintenance and repair of the heating facility, while VOM 
costs account for the cost of other consumables, mainly auxiliary power. Table 3-4 shows the 
total operational and maintenance costs (OM) normalised to the installed net capacity. 

The  fuel  costs  were  calculated  based  on  the  fuel  retail  prices  as  noted  above  for  the  two 
scenarios. 

The overnight specific capital investment (SCI) for each heating facility refers to the price of 
the heating unit and its installation, excluding the cost of additional infrastructure.  

A real discount rate of 15% was assumed for all technologies for the calculation of the capital 
recovery factor (CRF).  

No carbon costs were considered in the calculation of the cost of heat generation.  

16 

See reference [117] 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(IV)  Life-cycle  greenhouse  gas  emissions:  Life  cycle  emissions  were  calculated  following 
the same methodology and databases as for power generation technologies.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Table 3-4: Technology description, installation size, current conversion efficiency, overnight specific capital investment, life-time and O&M costs of 

heat generation technologies 

Technology 

Description 

Capacity

Efficiency 

[kW] 

[%] 

Natural  gas  fuelled  boiler,  large  size,  combi, 
floorstanding 
Natural  gas  fuelled  boiler,  medium/small  size, 
combi, wall-hung 
Natural  gas  fuelled  condensing  boiler,  medium 
size, combi, wall-hung 
Heating oil  fuelled  boiler,  large  size,  combi,  floor 
standing, with oil reservoir 
Heating  oil  fuelled  boiler,  medium/small  size, 
combi, floorstanding, with oil reservoir 
Heating oil  fuelled  condensing  boiler,  medium 
size, combi, floorstanding, with oil reservoir 
Solid  fuel  fuelled  boiler,  large  size,  with  heat 
buffer 
Wood chips fired boiler, large size, with hot water 
reservoir and heat buffer 

Natural gas 
boiler 

Heating oil 
boiler 

Coal boiler 

Wood chips 

boiler  Wood  chips  fired  boiler,  medium  size,  with  hot 

Pellets boiler 

water reservoir and heat buffer 
Pellets  fired  boiler,  large  size,  with  hot  water 
reservoir and heat buffer, inc. pellets silo 
Pellets  fired  boiler,  medium  size,  with  hot  water 
reservoir and heat buffer, inc. pellets silo 
Pellets  fired  boiler,  small  size,  with  hot  water 
reservoir and heat buffer, inc. pellets silo 

Solar heat  Water heating system 

75 

20 

20 

75 

20 

20 

50 

50 

35 

50 

35 

15 

3.5 

89% 

86% 

104% 

86% 

80% 

99% 

75% 

79% 

79% 

84% 

84% 

84% 

98% 

Large  size  electrical  operated  heat  pump  with 
geothermal heat source 

Geothermal 
heat pump  Medium  size  electrical  operated  heat  pump  with 
horizontal or water ground heat source 
Electric combi heating/water boiler, medium/small 
size, wall-hung 
Resistance heaters with fan assisted air circulation 

Electrical 
heating 

Capital costs, 2007 

[€ 2005/kW], VAT excl. 

Annual O&M costs 
(VOM+FOM) 
[€ 2005/kW], VAT excl. 

Life-
time 

Lifecycle GHG 
emissions 

REF

Range 

References  REF Range  References [year] tCO2/toe References 

References 
[112], [117], 
[116] 
[112], [117], 
[116] 
[112], [117], 
[116] 
[112], [117], 
[116] 
[112], [117], 
[116] 
[112], [117], 
[116] 

110 

95 ÷ 135 

[112], [118] 

9 

9 ÷ 10 

[112], [118]

17 

125  100 ÷ 130

[112] 

13 

11 ÷ 14 

[112] 

145  115 ÷ 155

[112] 

11 

10 ÷ 12 

[112] 

17 

17 

190  160 ÷ 240

[112], [110], 
[118] 

12 

11 ÷ 14 

[112], [118]

17 

325  265 ÷ 355

[112] 

18 

15 ÷ 19 

[112] 

390  310 ÷ 425

[112] 

13 

11 ÷ 14 

[112] 

JRC 

340  310 ÷ 410

JRC 

13 

12 ÷ 15 

JRC 

[110] 

385  325 ÷ 440

[110] 

575  490 ÷ 665

[110] 

355  300 ÷ 410

[110] 

505  430 ÷ 585

940  800 ÷ 1080

980  340 ÷ 2800

[110] 

[135] 

[116] 

[109], [110], 
[111] 
[109], [110], 
[111] 
[109], [110], 
[111] 
[109], [110], 
[111] 
[109], [110], 
[111] 
[92] 

16 

14 ÷ 18 

[110] 

22 

20 ÷ 25 

[110] 

15 

13 ÷ 17 

[110] 

19 

17 ÷ 22 

[110] 

34 

16 

39 

29 ÷ 38 

[110] 

- 

34 ÷ 60 

[92] 

[92] 

3.3 

3.4 

2.9 

4.2 

4.5 

3.6 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

6.1 

[95],[103] 

0.3 

[59], [95] 

0.3 

[59], [95] 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

0.3 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

[95] 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

20 

100 

100% 

500  200 ÷ 1150

[92] 

25  0.2 ÷ 3.7 

15 

20 

2 

100% 

[116] 

640  550 ÷ 720

[115] 

55 

54 ÷ 69 

[112] 

17  0.3 ÷ 5.9 

[95] 

100% 

97% 

JRC 

[123] 

75 

65 ÷ 90 

140 

30 ÷ 300 

JRC 

JRC 

5 

n/a 

- 

- 

JRC 

[123] 

17  0.7÷14.8 

10  0.7÷15.2 

[95] 

[95] 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
3.3. 

Energy Sources for Transport Fuels 

The  techno-economic  characteristics  of  the  selected  transport  fuels  reported  have  been 
calculated  by  the  JRC  based  on  the  methodology  developed  in  the  Well  to  Wheel  JRC–
EUCAR-CONCAWE study17, but using the fuel prices used in this analysis. The time horizon 
considered is 2015. 

Domestic biofuel production encompass ethanol produced from wheat grain with by-product 
credits for animal feed and heat supply from natural gas fired CCGT, and RME biodiesel with 
credits  for  animal  feed.  The  second  generation  biofuel  pathways  are  based  on  ethanol  from 
straw and BTL using short rotation forestry as a feedstock. 

17 

See reference [4] 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

[1] 

[2] 

[3] 

[4] 

[5] 

[6] 

[7] 

[8] 

[9] 

[10] 

[11] 

[12] 

[13] 

[14] 

[15] 

REFERENCES 

Royal academy of engineering: The Cost of Generating Electricity. March 2004 

Nye Thermodynamics Corporation: Prices. Available at  
www.gas-turbines.com/trader/outprice.htm  

IEA GHG: CO2 capture from medium scale combustion installations. Report 2007/7, 
2007 

JRC, EUCAR, CONCAWE: Well-To-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels 
and Powertrains in the European Context - update 2007. March 2007 

IEA GHG: Improvement in power generation with post-combustion capture. Report 
PH4/33, 2004. 

IEA: Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 – Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. 
2008 

E. Rubin et al: Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants 
with CO2 capture. International Journal of GHG control, 1 (2007) 188-197, 2007 

Areva: Finnish EPR Olkiluoto 3 – The world's first third-generation reactor now 
under construction. May 2007 

Finland's EPR milestone. Issue 9, 2007. Available at www.energy-focus.com,  

Finnish plant demonstrates nuclear power industry's perennial problems. Bloomberg 
News, International Herald Tribune, 6.9.2007. Available at www.iht.com 

Florida Power & Light Company: Project "Turkey Point - Units 5&6" of the Florida 
Power & Light Company. Direct Testimony of Steven D. Scroggs, Florida Public 
Service Commission (doc.no. 09467-07), October 2007. Available at 
www.psc.state.fl.us 

NRG forms new nuclear unit with Toshiba. Reuters, 25.03.2008. Available at 
www.reuters.com 

NRG picks Toshiba for South Texas reactor project. Reuters, 10.08.2007. Available 
at www.reuters.com 

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority): New Nuclear Power Plant Licensing 
Demonstration Project - ABWR Cost/Schedule/COL Project at TVA's Bellefonte Site. 
DOE Programme NP2010, August 2005 

GE Nuclear Energy: ABWR - Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Plant General 
Description. General Electric, June 2000 

[16]  Makhijani, A.: Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG 
Reactors at the South Texas Project Site. Institute for Energy and Environmental 
Research, March 2008 

[17] 

[18] 

[19] 

How Much?. Nuclear Engineering International, 29.11.2007.  

Standard & Poor Estimation. Nuclear Engineering International, May 2007, 
Available at www.neimagazine.com 

Eurelectric: The Role of Electricity - A New Path to Secure, Competitive Energy in a 
Carbon-Constrained World. June 2007 

[20] 

The Keystone Centre: Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. June 2007 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
[21] 

Energy Information Administration: Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 
2007. Report #:DOE/EIA-0554(2007), April 2007 

[22]  World Energy Council: The Future Role of Nuclear Power in Europe. January 2007 

[23] 

[24] 

[25] 

Department of Trade and Industry: The Future of Nuclear Power - The Role of 
Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon UK Economy. Consultation Document, DTI/Pub 
8519/4k/05/07/NP, May 2006 

IEA/NEA: Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - 2005 Update. 2005 

Direction Génerale de l'Energie et des Matières Premières: Reference cost of power 
generation. March 2004 

[26]  World Nuclear Association: The New Economics of Nuclear Power. WNA Report, 

2005 

[27] 

[28] 

The University of Chicago: The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. US DOE 
Program NP2010, August 2004 

Canadian Energy Research Institute: Levelised Unit Electricity Cost Comparison of 
Alternate Technologies for Baseload Generation in Ontario. August 2004 

[29]  Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Future of Nuclear Power. 2003 

[30] 

[31] 

[32] 

[33] 

[34] 

US Department of Energy - Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology: A 
Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010. 
October 2001 

Roques et all: Nuclear Power: a Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon Prices? 
The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, Vol.27 No.4. 
October 2006 

J.Harding, Economics of New Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon 
Constrained World. Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre, June 2007 

Areva: EPR. Framatome ANP, March 2005 

Areva: N4 - The most advanced reactor in operation. Framatome ANP, February 
2004 

[35]  Westinghouse Electric Co.: The Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Nuclear Plant - 

Plant Description. 2003 

[36] 

[37] 

[38] 

[39] 

[40] 

[41] 

Technology Fact Sheet - Westinghouse – AP1000. Available at 
www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.pdf  

Technology Fact Sheet - General Electric – ESBWR. Available at 
www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/esbwr.pdf 

IEA: Energy Technology Essentials - Nuclear Power, March 2007 

Beuter,D.: Westminster Energy Forum : EPR Background and its Role in 
Continental Europe. AREVA Corporate Strategy Department, June 2005 

European Commission: A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) - 
Technology Map. SEC(2007) 1510, November 2007 

Ragwitz M., Resch G.: Economic analysis of reaching a 20% share of renewable 
energy sources in 2020 - Annex 1 to the final report: Methodological aspects & 
database for the scenarios of RES deployment. Fraunhofer / Energy Economics 
Group / ECOFYS, August 2006 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
[42] 

[43] 

[44] 

[45] 

[46] 

[47] 

[48] 

[49] 

[50] 

[51] 

[52] 

Van Tilburg, X., et al: Technisch-economische parameters van duurzame 
elektriciteitsopties in 2008-2009 - Eindadvies basisbedragen voor de SDE-regeling. 
ECN / KEMA, January 2008 

Braun R.: Energy Efficiency in Energy Crop Digestion - Based on an Evaluation of 
41 Austrian Full Scale Biogas Plants. IEA Task 37 Energy from Biogas - Biomass 
Conference Berlin 2007. Available at www.iea-biogas.net 

Chesshire, M.: Anaerobic Digestion & Biogas technology within UK Agriculture. 
Greenfinch / Cropgen, 2006. Available at www.cropgen.soton.ac.uk 

IEA Task 37: Biogas- basic data on biogas - Sweden 2007. June 2007 

IEA: Renewables Information. IEA Statistics 2007 

IEA: Electricity Information. IEA Statistics 2007 

US Environmental Protection Agency: Turning a liability into an Asset: A Landfill 
Gas-to-Energy Project Development Handbook. September 1996 

Banks, C.: Status of biogas production and application. University of Southampton. 
May 2007. Available at  
www.iea-biogas.net/Dokumente/berlin/banks_contribution_berlin07.pdf 

ECN: Kosten Duurzame Elektriciteit – Vergistingsopties. Report ECN-C-03-074/F, 
August 2003 

Hogg, D.: Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU, Final Report to DG 
Environment, European Commission. Eunomia Research and Consulting, 2002 

DANCEE/OECD: The FEASIBLE Model, Version 2 - User Manual and 
Documentation, Appendix 4. Prepared by COWI, May 2003 

[53]  Murphy J.D.: Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy production 

from municipal waste. Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1043–1056, 2004 

[54] 

[55] 

[56] 

[57] 

[58] 

[59] 

[60] 

[61] 

Caputo A.C. et al: Economics of biomass energy utilization in combustion and 
gasification plants: effects of logistics variables. Biomass and Bioenergy (2005) 35-
51, 2005 

Bridgwater A.V. et al: A technico-economic comparison of power production by 
biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion. Renewable and Sustainable 
Energy Reviews 6 (2002) 181-248, 2002 

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Biomass fuel Trade in Europe, - 
Summary Report VTT-R-03508-07. EUBIONET II, March 2007 

IFEU, IER: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability - Final report 
on technical data, costs and life cycle inventories of biomass CHP plants. NEEDS 
Project, Deliverable n° 13.2 - RS 1a, April 2008 

DGEMP-DIDEME: Coûts de référence de la production électrique - Deuxième 
partie – Moyens de production décentralisés. 2004 

Pehnt M.: Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. 
Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 55–71, 2006 

DSI: Ilisu Dam and HEPP Environmental Impact Assessment Report. 2006 

Lawrence, S.: Presentation on Hydropower. University of Colorado, Available at 
leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/lawrence/syst6820/Lectures/Hydropower.ppt 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
[62] 

[63] 

[64] 

[65] 

[66] 

[67] 

[68] 

[69] 

[70] 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering and Design Hydropower, Engineering 
Manual. No. 1110-2-1701, Department of the Army, 1985 

Hall, D., Hunt R., Reeves K., Carroll G.: Estimation of Economic Parameters of U.S. 
Hydropower Resources. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 
June 2003 

Global Wind Energy Council / Greenpeace: Global Wind Energy Outlook 2006. 
September 2006 

EWEA: Wind Energy - The Facts. 2004 

Junginger, F., et al: Cost Reduction Prospects for Offshore Wind Farms. Wind 
Energy Vol. 28, No. 1, 2004 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Power Technologies Energy Data Book - 
Fourth Edition. NREL/TP-620-39728, U.S. Department of Energy - Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, August 2006 

Norland, D., Jenkin, T.: Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy Programs: FY 2006 Budget Request. National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, NREL/TP-620-37931, May 2005 

US Department of Energy: Annual Report on US Wind Power Installation, Cost and 
Performance Trends: 2006. May 2007 

Van Tilburg, X., et al: Technisch-economische parameters van duurzame 
elektriciteitsopties in 2008 - Conceptadvies onrendabele topberekeningen. ECN / 
KEMA, September 2006 

[71]  Wien,F.: Power Quality and Utilisation Guide: Distributed Generation and 

Renewables - 8.3.2. Wind Power. KEMA, November 2006 

[72] 

[73] 

Gorban, A., Gorlov, A, Silantyev, V.: Limits of the Turbine Efficiency for Free Fluid 
Flow. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Vol. 123, ASME, December 2001 

REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century): Renewables 2007 
- Global Status Report. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit 
(GTZ) GmbH, 2008 

[74] 

Global Wind Energy Council: Gobal Wind Report 2007. 2008 

[75]  McDonald, A., Schrattenholzer, L.: Learning Rates for Energy Technologies. Energy 

Policy 29, 2001 

[76] 

[77] 

[78] 

[79] 

[80] 

[81] 

Junginger, M., et al: Global Experience Curves for Wind Farms. Energy Policy 33, 
2005 

EWEA: Delivering Offshore Wind Power in Europe. December 2007 

IEA: Offshore wind experiences. June 2005 

Eurostat: Energy, transport and environment indicators - 2007 edition. February 
2008 

DG TREN: European Energy and Transport: Trends to 2030 - Update 2007. April 
2008 

Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources: Reserves, Resources and 
Availability of Energy Resources 2006: status 31.12. 2006, Federal Institute for 
Geosciences and Natural Resources. December 2007 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
[82]  Walla C.: The optimal size for biogas plants, Biomass and Bioenergy, Article in 

Press 2007 

[83] 

[84] 

[85] 

[86] 

Jenkins B.M.: A comment on the optimal sizing of a biomass utilization facility under 
constant and variable cost scaling. Biomass and Bioenergy 13, 1997 

Goldstein R. et al: The Impact of landfill Gas to Energy Projects on Jobs and 
Revenue, 8th Annual LMOP Conference Baltimore, MD, January 2005 

Danish Energy Authority: Technology Data for Electricity and Heat Generating 
Plants. March 2005 

IEA Implementing Agreement IEA Hydropower. Available at 
www.ieahydro.org/faq.htm#a2 

[87]  McNeely, M.: Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, Power Generation Order Survey, 

October 2007 

[88] 

[89] 

[90] 

[91] 

[92] 

[93] 

[94] 

[95] 

[96] 

[97] 

[98] 

[99] 

Cost comparison IGCC and Advanced Coal. EPRI Presentation, 2004, Available at 
www.climatevision.gov/pdfs/coal_roundtable/dalton.pdf 

A Power Generation Strategy for Europe. CAME-GT, 2004. Available at 
www.came-gt.com 

Solarbuzz: Solar module price highlights - April 2008. Available at 
www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm  

IEA: Fossil-fuelled power generation. 2007 

IEA: Renewables for heating and cooling. 2007 

G. Nemet: Learning curves for photovoltaics. Presentation to IEA, 2007. Available at 
www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2007/learning/Nemet_PV.pdf 

IEA: Trends in photovoltaics applications. Report IEA-PVPS T1-16, 2007 

Ecoinvent Centre: Ecoinvent data v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 
Dübendorf, 2007 (CD-ROM) 

IEA: World Energy Outlook 2007. 2007 

IPCC: Special report on carbon capture and storage. 2005 

IEA GHG: Retrofit of CO2 capture to natural gas combined cycle power plants, 
Report 2005/1, 2005 

Boyce, M.P.: Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants. 
ASME Press, 2002 

[100]  Endesa announcements for Son Reus and Cas Tresover power plants. Available at 

www.endesa.es/Portal/en/default.htm 

[101] 

PowerClean: Fossil fuel power generation: State-of-the-art. 2004. 

[102] 

IEA GHG: Potential for improvement in gasification combined cycle power 
generation with CO2 capture. Report 4/19, 2003 

[103]  World Energy Council: Comparison of Energy Systems Using Life Cycle Assessment. 

July 2004 

[104]  Weisser, D.: A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric 
supply technologies. Energy 32 (2007) 1534-1559, ScienceDirect, 2007 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
[105]  ESTTP presentation to SET-Plan Hearings, 2007. Available at 

ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/index_en.htm 

[106]  Khan, I.: A Generator’s View of Future Fuels. Institute of Physics – Combustion 

Physics Group, Cardiff University, April 2005 

[107]  Biomass Power Plants in Europe. Available at  

www.industcards.com/biomass-europe.htm  

[108]  Department of Trade and Industry: UK Biomass Strategy 2007; Working Paper 1 – 

Economic analysis of biomass energy. May 2007 

[109]  Hansen H.: Marktübersicht Pellet-Zentralheizungen und Pelletöfen. Fachagentur 

Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), April 2005 

[110]  Hartman H et al: Handbuch Bioenergy-Kleinanlagen. Fachagentur Nachwachsende 

Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), March 2007 

[111] 

Frei, T.: Nutzung von Getreidekorn als Brennstoff. Fakultät II Studiengang 
Agrarwirtschaft (Diplom) Diplomarbeit, January 2007 

[112]  VHK: Eco-design of Boilers - Preparatory Study, Task 1÷7. Prepared for European 

Commission, DG TREN, September 2007 

[113] 

[114] 

[115] 

Institut fur Energetik und Umwelt Gmbh: Handreichung - Biogasgewinnung und – 
nutzung. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), 2005 

IEA Implementing Agreement for Cooperation in Geothermal Research & 
Technology: IEA Geothermal Energy Annual Report 2006. January 2008 

Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI): Renewable Heat Pumps - A guide for the 
technically minded. Available at www.sei.ie 

[116]  Ecoheatcool Project: Recommendations and project reports. Ecoheatcool and 

Euroheat&Power, 2006 

[117]  VHK: Ecoboiler Integrated Model– Draft V.5b. (20 June 2007). Available at 

www.ecoboiler.org 

[118]  BIOHEAT: Promoting Biomass heating in large buildings and blocks. 

Energieverwertungsagentur – the Austrian Energy Agency (E.V.A.), January 2003 

[119] 

Staiß F. et al: Vorbereitung und Begleitung der Erstellung des Erfahrungsberichtes 
2007 gemäß § 20 EEG. Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung 
Baden-Württemberg (ZSW), im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, 
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, November 2007 

[120]  Müller-Langer F. et al: Monitoring zur Wirkung der Biomassenverordnung. 

Publikationen des Umweltbundesamtes, February 2006 

[121]  Reichmuth M. et al: Auswirkungen der Änderungen des Erneuerbare-Energien-

Gesetzes hinsichtlich des Gesamtvolumens der Förderung, der Belastung der 
Stromverbraucher sowie der Lenkungswirkung der Fördersätze für die einzelnen 
Energiearten. Institute for Energy and Environment, November 2006 

[122]  Eurostat: Gas prices for EU households and industrial consumers on 1 January 

2007. Statistics in focus 78/2007, 2007 

[123]  Gustavsson, L., Joelsson, A.: Energy conservation and conversion of electrical 
heating systems in detached houses. Energy and Buildings 39, 2007 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
[124]  DG TREN with Eurostat: EU Energy and Transport in Figures 2007. December 

2007 

[125]  Nitsch J.: Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in 

Deutschland. DLR/IFEU/WI, March 2004 

[126] 

Fichtner: Gutachten zur Berücksichtigung großer Laufwasserkraftwerke im EEG. 
July 2003 

[127]  Eggleston, H.S. at al: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories. IPCC 2006, prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
Programme, IGES, 2006 

[128]  Borjesson, P.: Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems—Part I:Fuel-cycle 

emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy 30, 2006 

[129] 

IAEA: Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. April 2006 

[130] 

Sustainable Development Commission: The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon 
Economy. Position Paper, March, 2006 

[131]  World Nuclear Association: Energy Balances and CO2 Implications. March 2006 

[132]  OXERA: Results of Renewables Market Modelling. DTI, 2004 

[133]  EPRI: California Renewable Technology Market and Benefits Assessment. Final 

Report, California Energy Commission, November 2001 

[134]  California Energy Commission: Comparative Cost of California Central Station 

Electricity Generation Technologies. Final Staff Report, June 2003 

[135] 

IEA SHC: Solar heat worldwide - Edition 2007. 2007 

[136] 

[137] 

IEA: Trends in Photovoltaic Applications - Survey report of selected IEA countries 
between 1992 and 2007. IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme, August 2008 

Sargent & Lundy: Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar 
Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts (prepared for Department of Energy 
and National Renewable Energy Laboratory). May 2003 

[138]  Greenpeace with ESTIA and IEA SolarPACES Implementing Agreement: 

Concentrated Solar Thermal Power - Now. September 2005 

[139]  Leitner, A.: Fuel from the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential Western Energy Supply. RDI 

Consulting, prepared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA, July 2002 

[140]  DLR: MED-CSP: Concentrating Solar Power for the Mediterranean Region. April 

2005 

[141]  Zhang, Y., Smith, S.J.: Long-Term Modeling of Solar Energy: Analysis of 

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and PV Technologies. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory, prepared for US DOE, August 2008 

[142] 

[143] 

IEA SolarPACES Implementing Agreement: Parabolic Trough Systems. Available at 
www.solarpaces.org/CSP_Technology/csp_technology.htm 

Pitz-Paal, R. at al: ECOSTAR - European Concentrated Solar Thermal Road-
Mapping - Roadmap Document. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. 
(DLR), February 2005 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
[144]  Eichhammer, W at al: Assessment of the World Bank / GEF Strategy for the Market 
Development of Concentrating Solar Thermal Power. Fraunhofer / CSIRO / CSIR, 
May, 2005 

[145]  Kearney, D.W, Tester, J.W: Key Factors Affecting the Future of Concentrating Solar 
Thermal Power Plants. International Executive Conference on Expanding the Market 
for Concentrating Solar Power: Launching the 5000 MW CSP Global Market 
Initiative, October, 2003. Available at http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/ 

[146]  Direct communication to the European Commission from European Solar Thermal 

Electricity Association (ESTELA), October 28, 2008 

[147]  Ministère de l 'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement durable et de 

l'Aménagement du territoire: Synthèse publique de l'étude des couts de référence de 
la production électrique. 2008 

EN 

29 

   EN