Page 155 - Sustainable Cities and Communities Design Handbook

132 Sustainable Cities and Communities Design Handbook

3. Further development of the 100% renewable energy system in such a way
that possibilities are created for the transformation to 100% renewable
energy in Denmark as a whole.
The distinction between phases 2 and 3 is based on the fact that the purpose
of the project is not to create an isolated “energy island” with no connections
to the surroundings. On the contrary, the purpose is to show what a 100% RES
future will look like and what it will take to implement it. Consequently, e.g.,
vehicles in Frederikshavn fueled by RES in 2015 will have to be able to leave
the town. However, they may not be able to refuel in other parts of Denmark
until the whole county is converted into a 100% RES system. Also, vehicles
from outside Frederikshavn will still have to be able to refuel in the town. A
sufficient quantity of “biogasoline” will be produced to cover the transport
demand in Frederikshavn, but not all cars will be expected to change to the use
of biogasoline. Moreover, cars from Frederikshavn are not expected to be able
to refuel with biogasoline in other locations in Denmark. Besides, the
exchange of electricity across the project boundary from one hour to another
may occur, and biogas from the natural gas network may be used. However, on
an annual basis, the amount of fuels for vehicles, electricity, and heat pro-
ductions based on 100% renewable energy should meet the exact demands of
Frederikshavn by the year 2015.
In 2030, the target is to implement a solution in which the amount of
biomass resources and the exchange of electricity and fuels will comply with a
strategy according to which Denmark as a whole is converted into a 100%
renewable energy system. Again, the target is not to entirely avoid exchange.
However, it would not be acceptable for Frederikshavn to merely export any
imbalances in, e.g., electricity to the areas outside the town, as this would
compromise the possibilities of conversion to 100% renewable energy in these
areas. Exchange should thus be limited to an appropriate level and should
consider the fact that some parts of Denmark may utilize more wind power
than others, whereas other parts may utilize more biomass resources. More-
over, Scandinavia may explore the mutual benefits of exchanging, e.g., wind
power in Denmark with hydropower in Norway.

THE PRESENT SITUATION: YEAR 2007, APPROXIMATELY
20% RENEWABLE ENERGY
The existing energy supply in Frederikshavn is shown in Fig. 7.1. Most houses
and apartments are connected to the public district heating network, but the
area also covers a small share of individually heated homes. In addition to this
is the energy consumption of industry and transport.
The energy demand consists of the following:

l An electricity demand of 164 GWh/year supplied by the public grid.
l A district heating demand of 190 GWh/year distributed into two separate
systems of 175 and 15 GWh. Including grid losses of 52 GWh/year, the
annual production in 2007 added up to 242 GWh/year.