Abstract
The Netherlands is aiming for a more sustainable, low-carbon energy system. For the power system, this energy transition implies (1) a larger share of electricity from variable renewable energy (VRE), in particular from sun and wind; (2) a larger share of electricity in total energy use, i.e. a higher rate of electrification of the energy system by means of electric vehicles, heat pumps, power-to-products, etc.; and—as a result of these two trends—(3) a higher need for flexibility and system integration. This chapter analyses the implications of the Dutch energy transition for the integration and flexibility needs of the Dutch power system within an EU electricity market and trading context. In particular, by means of the EU28+ electricity market model COMPETES, we assess the potential of EU power trading as one of the options to meet these needs besides other domestic flexibility options such as flexible power generation, VRE curtailment, demand response and energy storage. The modelling results show that the flexible power trade potential is rather substantial—and even dominant—depending on the level of interconnection capacity and market integration across EU member states. In addition, we briefly discuss complementary results by means of the NL energy system model OPERA, notably on demand response as a potentially large domestic flexibility option.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The overall objective of the project ‘flexibility of the power system in the Netherlands’ (FLEXNET) was to analyse demand and supply of flexibility in the power system of the Netherlands up to 2050. This project was carried out over the years 2015–2017 by a consortium consisting of the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) and several members of Netbeheer Nederland, i.e. the Dutch branch organisation of energy network operators. For further information on the FLEXNET project and its deliverables, see https://www.ecn.nl/flexnet/.
- 2.
For a full discussion of all major results of the FLEXNET project, see its deliverables at the project website (https://www.ecn.nl/flexnet/).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Note that these findings are based on the assumption that no demand response takes place (as demand response is treated as a flexibility supply option).
- 6.
For a further discussion of the major characteristics of COMPETES, including its major input values and modelling assumptions, see the phase 2 report of the FLEXNET project (Sijm et al. 2017b).
- 7.
For details on the methodology to estimate cross-border transmission (interconnection) capacity, see Sijm et al. (2017b), notably Appendices A, B and C.
- 8.
The difference between charging and discharging refers to physical energy storage losses.
- 9.
For a further analysis of the trends in hourly variations of residual supply and the resulting mix of flexibility options to meet flexibility needs according to other indicators (besides total hourly ramps), see Sijm et al. (2017b).
- 10.
As the mix of flexibility options is similar to the mix of downward flexibility options in energy terms (see upper part of Fig. 13), the bottom part does not distinguish between these two categories of flexibility options but actually refers to both categories.
- 11.
For details on (1) the OPERA model; (2) its approach, input values and other modelling assumptions used to analyse demand response (and other domestic flexibility options); and (3) the outcomes of the OPERA modelling analyses, see the second phase report of the FLEXNET project (Sijm et al. 2017b), in particular Chapter 3 (pp. 107–144) and Appendix D (pp. 209–219).
- 12.
Note that Fig. 14 shows only a comparison of the upward flexibility demand/supply as the downward flexibility demand/supply levels are exactly similar to the upward levels (see also footnote 10).
- 13.
For details on these follow-up projects, contact the corresponding author of this paper (Jos Sijm).
References
ECN, PBL, CBS, & RVO.nl. (2015). Nationale Energieverkenning 2015. Amsterdam: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Policy Studies (in Dutch).
ENTSO-E. (2016). Ten-Year Network Development Plan, Brussels. Belgium: ENTSO-E.
Sijm, J., Gockel, P., de Joode, J., Musterd, M., & Westering, W. (2017a). The demand for flexibility of the power sector in the Netherlands, 2015-2050. Report of phase 1 of the FLEXNET project. Amsterdam: ECN and Alliander.
Sijm, J., Gockel, P., van Hout, M., Özdemir, Ö., van Stralen, J., Smekens, K., van der Welle, A., Musterd, M., & Westering, W. (2017b). The supply of flexibility for the power sector in the Netherlands, 2015-2050. Report of phase 2 of the FLEXNET project. Amsterdam: ECN and Alliander.
Acknowledgement
This chapter is based on some major findings of the FLEXNET project (for details, including deliverables, see https://www.ecn.nl/flexnet/). Drafting this chapter, however, was financed fully through funding from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in the Netherlands under ECN project number 5.5053.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sijm, J., Koutstaal, P., Özdemir, Ö., van Hout, M. (2019). Energy Transition Implications for Demand and Supply of Power System Flexibility: A Case Study of the Netherlands Within an EU Electricity Market and Trading Context. In: Gawel, E., Strunz, S., Lehmann, P., Purkus, A. (eds) The European Dimension of Germany’s Energy Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03374-3_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03374-3_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03373-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03374-3
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)