The use of coal for energy production in Serbia is not in sight before 2050.

In addition to the adopted key strategic documents, the dynamics of the implementation of the projects they carry are still not clear energy transition in Serbia, and production planning based on uglju there is no end in sight before 2050, and maybe not even then.

The use of coal is not expedient when there are technically and economically better options in the form of renewable energy sources, Dr. Ilija Batas Bjelic from the Institute of Technical Sciences SANU writes for the Klima 101 portal.

Renewable energy sources (wind, solar) they are not technically complicated, they are neither expensive, nor risky for the stability of the system, which is often attributed to them in the colloquial sense.

Systems thinking about nuclear power plants further reduces the available professional potential, and diverts the focus from renewable energy sources.

EPS currently does not have the capacity to build e.g. large photovoltaic power plants within the time frame in which private investors can do it, does not have the capacity to develop more demanding international projects such as the Đerdap 3 hydroelectric power plant, nor to initiate a project to build photovoltaic systems for households such as Solari 5000+ in Montenegro.

The exploitation of lignite reserves is increasingly complex

The general impression is that electric power companies must strengthen professional capacities to overcome accumulated short-term and especially long-term problems.

U Serbia the share of lignite in the production mix is ​​higher than in most countries of the region, and far above the average of the European Union. Serbia has the highest CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour in Europe, and a far greater sensitivity to failures of old equipment in the thermal energy sector.

The exploitation of lignite reserves is increasingly complex, so due to less availability, the need to import lignite (from Republika Srpska, Montenegro and overseas countries).

The share of renewable sources, which ranges between 34% and 38% in the last three years, looks satisfactory on paper, but this share is mainly from large hydropower plants, while modern wind and solar power plants are just gaining momentum, and do not yet have the weight they do in, for example, Greece or Romania.

In the circumstances of delaying the transition, the basic question about the energy sector in the middle of this, the 21st century is being re-opened: what will the region and the Republic of Serbia replace coal with?

Serbia adopts plans to abandon coal, but the key steps have not been defined

Serbia recently adopted two documents that should offer potential answers to this question: the Integrated National Climate and Energy Plan (INEKP) and the Energy Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia until 2040 with projections until 2050.

The Plan and Strategy have clear declarative effects in terms of "reforming" the energy sector based on nuclear energy as a decarbonization option. It is a scenario according to which Serbia would have 1 GW of installed power in nuclear energy after 2040.

However, in addition to the declarative effect, these documents lack financial realism in terms of implementation. Practically, these documents are more concerned with the question of what the future should look like, but without a clear and solid financial basis on how to implement it.

In them, there is not enough consideration of the costs of future scenarios, which would give more realistic views in the direction that is the least burdensome path in terms of costs. Of course, the issue of strategy is not only economic, so costs should be viewed only as a basis for making long-term optimal decisions.

Neither the Plan nor the Strategy recognize the dangers of delaying the energy transition, and dependence on fossil fuels in the full sense. This especially applies to the period to come, when cross-border taxes on CO2 emissions will be introduced, thereby losing the opportunity to export electricity from lignite.

In these documents, renewable energy sources (wind, solar and hydropower) are not sufficiently recognized as part of the solution - rather they are recognized as more expensive than they are, more technically complicated than they are, and more risky for the stability of the system than they are.

Despite the planned construction of significant capacities from renewable energy sources that are mentioned in the documents, in addition to the expected increase in the share of consumption from renewable energy, there is still no clear dynamics of the implementation of projects that would carry the energy transition in Serbia.

Serbia still does not have any large photovoltaic (solar) power plants (10+ MW) connected to the transmission system, which puts us in an inferior position in the region.

On the other hand, the planning of coal-based production does not see an end before 2050, and maybe not even then, and the further use of coal is neither guaranteed nor expedient when there are technically and economically better options in the form of renewable energy sources.

Capacity development is needed for planning and implementing the transition

The problems in the implementation of the energy transition are not only due to a lack of ambition and perspective, but also to a lack of capacity.

Namely, EPS does not have the capacity to build e.g. large photovoltaic power plants within the period in which private investors can do it, nor to start the project of building photovoltaic systems for households like Elektroprivreda Crne Gore (EPCG) and the Solari 5000+ project.

EPS has almost no capacity for the development of more demanding international projects such as the Đerdap 3 hydroelectric plant (with Romania).

The general impression is that electric power companies (EPS, EMS, EDS) must strengthen their professional capacities to overcome accumulated short-term and especially long-term problems, and a possible way to overcome these problems is to engage the scientific and professional public in full capacity.

EPS does not have enough research capacity

Namely, EPS does not have enough research capacity, and faculties, institutes and professional associations such as the Association of Energy Engineers are not fully involved in proposing optimal development solutions (eg strategies, forecasting models of future trends...).

At the same time, the systemic reflection on nuclear power plants, the use of which was rejected for a long time for clear reasons, further reduces the available professional potential and redirects the focus from renewable energy sources. The problem is that, even in overly optimistic scenarios, they will have to wait years (and decades) for their start-up, when most of the existing thermal power plants will have reached the end of their useful life. And yet even that is better than unsystematic and forced decisions.

This October, "Vreme" celebrates and honors - as much as 35 percent discount for our 35th birthday! Valid for semi-annual and annual subscriptions. Subscribe now!