Energi- Forsynings- og Klimaudvalget 2017-18
EFK Alm.del Bilag 227
Offentligt
1885752_0001.png
FACTSHEET
Wintershall combines economic, environmental and social responsibility.
As one of the financial investors in the Nord Stream 2 Project, Wintershall
therefore initiated an eco-efficiency analysis that was conducted by BASF/TÜV.
Its major key results are presented in this spreadsheet.
Nord Stream 2:
Eco-Efficiency Analysis
Bovanenkovo
Eco-Efficiency Analysis (EEA)
created by BASF SE
+ TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH (Link
p
on EEA)
EEA evaluates:
Nord Stream 2
(basic route) from Bovanenkovo.
Russia via Baltic Sea
Onshore Alternative 1
(virtual) from Bovanenkovo,
Russia via Belarus and Poland and
Onshore Alternative 2
(virtual) from Bovanenkovo,
Russia via Ukraine to Western Europe
EEA compares (selection):
Construction, operation and
maintenance of evaluated pipelines for the transport of one
normalized m³ of natural gas to western European hubs;
assuming
state-of-the art design
and equipment at a maximum
operating pressure of
100 bar
for all onshore pipeline sections
N
d
or
S
am
tre
2
Greifswald
te
Al
Baumgarten
ECO-EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIO
EEA6: highest efficiency
Environmental impact (person minutes/FU)
Alt
rn
iv
at
er n
e
1
a ti
ve
2
Aggregated environmental and economic result
at a glance:
3
Nord Stream 2 and Alternative 1 imply
similar Eco-Efficiency results.
3
Nord Stream 2 and Alternative 1 are
significantly more eco-efficient than Alternative 2.
3
Alternative 2 is most expensive and has
the highest environmental impact.
A
person minute
describes the environmental or economic
impact caused by one EU-28 inhabitant in one minute.
FU – Functional Unit
refers to the transport of one Nm³ of
natural gas via evaluated pipelines from Bovanenkovo,
Russia to Western Europe.
0
1
2
■
Nord Stream 2
3
■
Alternative 1
■
Alternative 2
4
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
Economic impact (person minutes/FU)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Aggregated environmental results
Global warming potential, photochemical ozone formation
and acidification contribute most to the environmental impact
results. Alternative 2 performs visibly worse in all categories.
■
Resource depletion (mineral, fossil)
■
Eutrophication (fresh water)
■
Eutrophication (marine)
■
Acidification
Environmental Impact (person minutes/FU)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Nord Stream 2
4%
34%
■
Photochemical ozone formation
■
Climate Change
(Global Warming Potential)
■
Human toxicity
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
 EFK, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 227: Henvendelse af 25/4-18 fra Wintershall om Nord Stream 2
1885752_0002.png
kg CO
2
eq./FU
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Greenhouse gas emissions
mainly refer to CO
2
and methane emissions. These can be produced
when natural gas is combusted for gas transportation
and during operation.
The greenhouse emissions for Nord Stream 2 are the
lowest due to a reduction in the demand for fuel gas.
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Nord Stream 2
Alternative 1
5%
35%
■
Production onshore
■
Production offshore
■
Operating onshore
■
Operating offshore
■
Fuel gas onshore
■
Fuel gas offshore
Alternative 2
FOCUS: CO
2
EMISSIONS
Additional CO
2
emissions in a 50 year-period
∆ CO
2
-equivalent (m t)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
131.5
131 5
Nord Stream 2 saves up to 131.5 million tons of CO
2
emissions
compared to the two alternatives over a period of 50 years.
This equals roughly 1/7 of Germany’s annual emissions.
Comment:
Results would be even more clear-cut if detailed
real basic data on the (older) existing pipeline transport systems
had been used. As these systems operate with a pressure level
significantly less than 100 bar, the real additional CO
2
emissions
are several times higher (a
DBI publication
indicates a value that
is 3.8 times higher).
17.2
Benchmark
0
Nord Stream 2
Onshore
Alternative 1
Onshore
Alternative 2
FOCUS: FUEL GAS DEMAND + COST SAVINGS
Additional fuel gas demand in a 50 year-period
(lifetime cycle)
∆ Fuel Gas Consumption (bn m³)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
39.3
Operating with higher pressure, Nord Stream 2 saves up to
39 billion cubic meters of fuel gas during its 50-year lifespan.
The lower use of fuel gas could result in savings up to 11 billion
Euro. The assumed price is 164€/1,000 Nm³, adjusted to
50 years with an average yearly inflation rate of 2%.
The annual fuel savings by Nord Stream 2 are equivalent to the
annual energy consumption of about 70,000 average house-
holds when compared to Alternative 1 and even nearly 530,000
households when compared to Alternative 2.
5.1
Benchmark
Nord Stream 2
Onshore
Alternative 1
Onshore
Alternative 2
Energy savings for Nord Stream 2
originate from the far lower
specific fuel gas demand for the offshore section. The onshore
fuel gas consumption requires higher average transport
pressure as more compressor stations are essential to transit
gas onshore to Europe.
Nord Stream 2
can reduce CO
2
emissions by up to
131.5 million tons
in a 50-year period – in comparison to the two alternatives.
By reducing fuel gas by 39 billion cubic meters, up to
11 billion Euro
can be saved in the life span of the pipeline.
These figures reflect a baseline scenario based on the more conservative estimates, Link
p
cf. DBI publication.
Contact:
Wintershall Holding GmbH
www.wintershall.com
[email protected]
Phone: +49 561 301-3301