International comparison of
fossil power efficiency and
CO2 intensity - Update 2014
FINAL REPORT
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
International comparison of fossil power
efficiency and CO
2
intensity
– Update 2014
FINAL REPORT
By: Charlotte Hussy, Erik Klaassen, Joris Koornneef and Fabian Wigand Date: 5 September 2014
Project number: CESNL15173
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the energy efficiency and CO2-intensity of fossil-fired power generation for Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland (aggregated), and the United States. This is done by calculating separate benchmark indicators for the energy efficiency of gas-, oil- and coal-fired power generation. Additionally, an overall benchmark for fossil-fired power generation is determined. The benchmark indicators are based on deviations from average energy efficiencies. For the comparison of CO2 intensity, Canada and Italy are added as additional countries.
Trends in power generation
The countries included in the study (excluding Italy and Canada) generated 68% of public fossil-fired power generation worldwide in 2011. In the period 1990 - 2011 the share of fossil power used in the public power production mix has increased from 64% to 68%. Total power generation is largest in the China with roughly 4,640 TWh, closely followed by the United States with 4,162 TWh. Japan is the country ranked third with 899 TWh. From the fossil fuels, coal is most frequently used in most countries. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of public power generation per country.
Figure 1 Fuel mix for public power generation by source in 2011. Note that gas use in the Nordic countries is underestimated as Norwegian power production from natural gas is confidential.
Total coal-fired power generation in all countries combined (excluding Canada and Italy) increased from 3,036 to 7,158 TWh (+136%) by the period 1990 – 2011, with China being the strongest grower, increasing from 442 to 3,697 TWh, fuelled by fast-growing domestic energy demand.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551 to 1,879 TWh (+241%) in 1990 -2011. The United States, driven by relative low natural gas prices from 2009 onwards driven by shale gas development, shows the strongest absolute growth from 319 to 954 TWh.
Oil-fired power generation played a marginal role by 2011 with only 172 TWh. In 2011, Japan and the United States were the largest oil-fired power producers and generated 86% of all oil-fired power production in the countries of interest. The general trend is that power production from oil has been declining over 1990 – 2011, although some temporarily peaks can still be observed (e.g. Japan in 2011 doubled power production from oil compared to 2010 – mostly likely due to the need for deploying reserve capacity due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants after the Fukushima accident).
Generating efficiency
Figure 2 shows the energy efficiency per country and fuel source. Because the uncertainty in the efficiency for a single year can be high we show the average efficiencies for the last three years available, 2009 – 2011:
Coal-fired power efficiencies range from 27% (India) to 43% (France).
Gas-fired power efficiencies range from 34% (France) to 53% (United Kingdom and Ireland).
Oil-fired power generation efficiencies range from 20% (India) to 46% (South Korea).
Fossil-fired power efficiencies range from 29% (India) to 45% (United Kingdom and Ireland). The weighted average generating efficiency for all countries together in 2011 is 35% for coal, 48% for natural gas, 40% for oil-fired power generation and 38% for fossil power in general.Figure 2 Energy efficiency per fuel source (average 2009 - 2011).
The weighted average efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a strong increase from 39% to 48% for the considered countries (see Figure 3), caused by a strong increase in modern gas-based capacity: gas-based production more than tripled.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% E ff ici en cy [ %]
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Coal-fired power generation however, doubled in the period 1990 - 2011, while the weighted average efficiency remained constant at about 34% - 35%. The reason for this is that a large part of the growth in coal-fired power generation takes place in China and India, in which generating efficiencies of coal remained relatively low (despite a significant increase of +7%pts in 1990 – 2011 in China). The majority of coal-fired power plants in China is based on sub-critical steam systems (although this is changing as China is currently the main market in the world for advanced coal-fired power plants). The efficiency that can be achieved by sub-critical units is around 39%. The efficiency that can be achieved by applying best available technology (super-critical units) is as high as 47%. This means that coal-fired power efficiency in China could have been much higher if best practice technology had been used. For India the situation is the same; a large share of coal-fired capacity is built after 1990, of which the majority is based on sub-critical steam systems.
Figure 3 Weighted average energy efficiency for included countries.
Figure 4 shows the benchmark for the weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation. Countries with benchmark indicators above 100% perform better than average and countries below 100% perform worse than the average. As can be seen, in order of performance, the Nordic countries, United Kingdom and Ireland, Japan, Germany, South Korea and the United States all perform better than the benchmark fossil-fired generating efficiency.
25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Coal Gas Oil Fossil
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Figure 4 Benchmark for weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (100% is average).
CO2-intensity and reduction potential
Figure 5 shows the CO2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation for the years 2009 - 2011 per country. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation ranges from 547 g/kWh for Italy to 1,174 g/kWh for India on average. This is a difference in emissions of more than 100% per unit of fossil-fired power generated. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation depends largely on the share of coal in fossil power generation and on the energy efficiency of power production.
Figure 5 CO2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation.
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% Per fo rma n ce rel at iv e to b en ch ma rk
Coal Gas Oil Fossil Weighted benchmark
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 CO 2 in ten si ty [ g /k W h ] 2009 2010 2011 Average
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and was responsible for approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (UNFCCC, 2008). If the best available technologies1 would have been applied for all fossil power generation in the countries of this study (including Canada and Italy) in 2010, absolute emissions would have been, on average, 23% lower. Figure 6 shows how much lower CO2 emissions would be for all individual countries as a share of emissions from fossil-fired power generation. The CO2 emission reduction potential per country, as a percentage of emissions from public power generation, ranges from 16% for Japan to 43% for India.
Figure 6 Relative CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by
replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.
1 I.e. Installations operating according to the present highest existing conversion efficiencies.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% CO 2 red u ct io n p o ten ti al [ %]
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Figure 7 shows the emission reduction potential in absolute amounts. China, United States and India show very high absolute emission reduction potentials of 812, 500 and 338 Mtonne, respectively. This is due to large amounts of coal-fired power generation at relatively low efficiency.
Figure 7 Absolute CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by
replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 CO 2 red u ct io n p o ten ti al [ M t C O2 ]
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Power generation by fossil-fuel sources 1
2 Methodology 8
2.1 Energy efficiency of power generation 8
2.2 Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency 9
2.3 CO2 intensity power generation 12
2.4 Share of renewable and nuclear power generation 13
3 Results 14
3.1 Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation 14
3.2 Benchmark based on non-weighted average efficiency 22
3.3 Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency 25
3.4 CO2-intensities 29
3.5 Emission reduction potential 32
3.6 Renewable and nuclear power production 35
4 Conclusions 54
5 Discussion of uncertainties & recommendations for follow-up work 56
6 References 58
Appendix I: Comparison national statistics 61
Appendix II: Input data 70
1
Introduction
This study is an update of the analysis “International comparison of fossil power generation and CO2 intensity” (Ecofys, 2013). This analysis aims to compare fossil-fired power generation efficiency and CO2-intensity (coal, oil and gas) for Australia, China (excluding Hong Kong), France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States. This selection of countries and regions is based on discussions with the client. United Kingdom and Ireland, and the Nordic countries are aggregated, because of the interconnection between their electricity grids. Although the electricity grids in Europe are highly interconnected, there are a number of markets that operate fairly independently. These are the Nordic market (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway), the Iberian market (Spain and Portugal), Central (Eastern European countries) and United Kingdom and Ireland.
The analysis is based on the methodologies described in Phylipsen et al. (1998) and applied in Phylipsen et al. (2003). Only public power plants are taken into account, including public CHP plants. For the latter a correction for the (district) heat supply has been applied.
This chapter gives an overview of the fuel mix for power generation for the included countries and of the amount of fossil-fired power generation. The methodology for this study is described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the efficiency of fossil-fired power generation by fuel source and addresses the development of the share of renewables in public power generation over time. Chapter 4 gives the conclusions.
1.1
Power generation by fossil-fuel sources
Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fired power generation accounted for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (UNFCCC, 2008). The countries included in the study generate 68% of public fossil-fired power generation worldwide in 2011 (IEA, 2013).
Figure 8 Absolute (top) and relative (bottom) public power generation by source in 2011. Note that for the Nordic countries there is a small underestimation of power production from natural gas as power produced from natural gas in Norway is confidential.
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 E le ctr ici tr y p ro d u cti on ( TWh)
Other renewables Hydro Nuclear Oil Natural gas Coal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In 2011, the total power generation (incl. renewables and nuclear power) was largest in China with roughly 4,640 TWh, exceeding the United States (4,162 TWh) for the first time in history. Japan generated 899 TWh, which is 7% lower than in 2010. The share of fossil fuels in the overall fuel mix for electricity generation was almost 70% on average. France, which has a large share of nuclear power (79%) and the Nordic countries with a large share of hydropower (54%) in 2011 are exceptions.
When comparing the sources of power generation for Japan, Figure 8 it clearly shows the shutdown of Japan’s nuclear power plants following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In 2010 nuclear power made up 30% of all public power generation (Ecofys, 2013), which declined to 11% in 2011.
From the fossil fuels, coal is most frequently used in most countries, except for Japan and the United Kingdom and Ireland, in which natural gas is more abundantly used than coal. Australia and China show a very high share of coal in their overall fuel mix for power generation of about four fifths, followed by India with a share of 66% in 2011. The share of oil-fired power generation is typically limited; only Japan and the United States have larger amounts, in absolute sense. Figure 9 - Figure 12 show the amount of coal-, gas-, oil- and total fossil-fired power generation respectively in the period 1990 - 2011, from public power plants and public CHP plants together.
Figure 9 shows that the total coal-fired power generation in all countries increased from 3,036 to 7,158 (+136%) during the period 1990 - 2011. China shows the strongest absolute growth from 442 to 3,697 TWh. The US saw its share of coal-fired power production shrink to the lowest relative level since 1995, mainly driven by national or regional legislation and regulations promoting gas and renewable technologies at the expense of coal-fired generation. The drop in 2009 is caused by a significant drop in natural gas prices due to development of shale gas.
Figure 9 Coal-fired power generation.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E lect ri ci ty g en er at io n ( T W h ) Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 10 indicates that gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551 to 1,879 in 1990 – 2011 (+241%). The United States shows the strongest absolute growth from 319 to 954 TWh. Between 2009 and 2011, the growth was fuelled by shale gas. In Japan, Gas-fired power generation experienced a very steep increase in 2011 (+25% increase in a single year). The UK and Ireland saw a drop in gas-fired power generation because of the relative low prices of coal and CO2 prices of around 15 Euro per tonne CO2 under Europe’s emission trading scheme (EU ETS).
Figure 10 Gas-fired power generation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E lect ri ci ty g en er at io n ( T W h ) Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 11 shows that oil-fired power generation plays a limited role and its importance has further diminished in the past two decades, especially in the case of the three leading oil-fired power producing countries (USA, Japan and China), although in Japan oil-fired power production doubled again in 2011 post-Fukushima.
Figure 11 Oil-fired power production.
0 50 100 150 200 250 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E lect ri ci ty g en er at io n ( T W h ) Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 12 indicates that the total fossil-fired power generation increased from 4,027 to 9,209 TWh (+129%) in 1990 - 2011. China, US, India and Japan show the strongest absolute growth in this period.
Figure 12 Fossil-fired power production.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E lect ri ci ty g en er at io n ( T W h ) Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
2
Methodology
This chapter discusses the methodology used to derive the energy efficiency indicators as well as the input data used to determine the indicators.
This study is based on data from IEA Energy Balances edition 2013 (IEA, 2013). The advantage of using IEA Energy Balances is its consistency on a number of points:
Energy inputs for power plants are based on net calorific value (NCV)2;
The output of the electricity plants is measured as gross production of electricity and heat. This is defined as the “electricity production including the auxiliary electricity consumption and losses in transformers at the power station”;
A distinction is made between electricity production from industrial power plants and public power plants and public combined heat and power (CHP) plants.
In this study we take into account public power plants and public CHP plants. We distinguish three types of fossil fuel sources: (1) coal and coal products, (2) crude oil and petroleum products and (3) natural gas. In the remainder of this report, we will refer to these fuel sources as coal, oil and gas, respectively. For a more extensive definition of public power production and these fuel types, refer to Appendix IV.
As a check, IEA statistics on the United States and India are compared to available national statistics (see Appendix I). In some cases energy efficiencies based on IEA are replaced by energy efficiencies calculated from national statistics. This is done when the efficiencies based on national statistics appeared to be more reliable in earlier versions (prior to 2012) of this report.
2.1
Energy efficiency of power generation
The formula for calculating the energy efficiency of power generation is: E = (P + H*s) / I.
Where:
E Energy efficiency of power generation
P Power production from public power plants and public CHP plants H Heat output from public CHP plants
s Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted
2 The Net Calorific Value (NCV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) refers to the quantity of heat liberated by the complete combustion of
I Fuel input for public power plants and public CHP plants
Heat extraction causes the energy efficiency of electricity generation to decrease although the overall efficiency for heat and electricity production is higher than when the two are generated separately. Therefore, a correction for heat extraction is applied. This correction reflects the amount of electricity production lost per unit of heat extracted from the electricity plant(s). For district heating systems, the substitution factors vary between 0.15 and 0.2. In our analysis we have used a value of 0.175. It must be noted that when heat is delivered at higher temperatures (e.g. to industrial processes), the substitution factor can be higher. However, at the moment, the amount of high-temperature heat delivered to industry by public utilities is small in most countries. We estimate that the effect on the average efficiency is not more than an increase of 0.5 percent point3.
No corrections are applied for air temperature and cooling method. The efficiency of power plants is influenced by the temperature of the air or cooling water. In general surface water-cooling leads to higher plant efficiency than the use of cooling towers. The cooling methods that can be applied depend on local circumstances, like the availability of abundant surface water and existing regulations. The effect of cooling method on efficiency may be up to 1-2 percent point. Furthermore the efficiency of the power plant is affected by the temperature of the cooling medium. The sensitivity to temperature can be in the order of 0.1-0.2 percent point per degree. [Phylipsen et al, 1998]
In order to determine the efficiency for power production for a region, we calculate the weighted average efficiency of the countries included in the region.
2.2
Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency
In this analysis we compare the efficiency of fossil-fired power generation across countries and regions. Instead of simply aggregating the efficiencies for different fuel types to a single efficiency indicator, we determine separate benchmark indicators per fuel source. This is because the energy efficiency for natural gas-fired power generation is generally higher than the energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation. In general, choices for fuel types are often outside the realm of the industry and therefore a structural factor. Choices for fuel diversification have in the past often been made at the government level for strategic purposes, e.g. fuel diversification and fuel costs.
The most widely used power plants for coal-fired power generation are conventional boiler plants based on the Rankine cycle. Fuel is combusted in a boiler and with the generated heat, pressurized water is heated to steam. The steam drives a turbine and generates electricity. In principle any fuel can be used in this kind of plant.
An alternative for the steam cycle is the gas turbine, where combusted gas expands through a turbine and drives a generator. The hot exit gas from the turbine still has significant amounts of energy which can be used to raise steam to drive a steam-turbine and another generator. This combination of gas and steam cycle is called ‘combined cycle gas turbine’ (CCGT) plant. A CCGT plant is generally fired with natural gas. Also coal firing and biomass firing however is possible by gasification; e.g. in integrated coal gasification combined cycle plants (IGCC). These technologies are not widely used yet. The energy efficiency of a single steam cycle is at most 47%, while the energy efficiency of a combined cycle can be up to 61% (Siemens. 2012).
Several possible indicators exist for benchmarking energy efficiency of power generation. One possible indicator is the comparison of individual countries’ efficiencies to predefined best practice efficiency. The difficulty in this method is the definition of best practice efficiency. Best practice efficiency could e.g. be based on:
The best performing country in the world or in a region; The best performing plant in the world or in a region;
The best practical efficiency possible, by best available technology (BAT).
The best practice efficiency differs yearly, which means that back-casting is required to determine best practice efficiencies for historic years.
A different method for benchmarking energy efficiency is the comparison of countries’ efficiencies against average efficiencies. An advantage of this method is the visibility of a countries’ performance against average efficiency. In this study we choose to use this indicator. We compare the efficiency of countries and regions to the average efficiency of the selected countries.
The average efficiency is calculated per fuel source and per year and can be either weighted or non-weighted. In the first case the weighted-average efficiency represents the overall energy efficiency of the included countries. A disadvantage of this method is that countries with a large installed generating capacity heavily influence the average efficiency while small countries have hardly any influence at all on the average efficiency. On the other hand, when applying non-weighted benchmark indicators, one efficient power plant in a country could influence the average efficiency if absolute power generation in the country is small. In this research we included both methods, to see if this leads to different results.
The formula for the non-weighted average efficiency for coal (BC1) is given below as an example. The formulas for oil and gas are similar.
BC1 = ECi / n Where:
BC1 Benchmark efficiency coal (1). This is the average efficiency of coal-fired power generation for the selected countries.
ECi Efficiency coal for country or region i (i = 1,…n) n The number of countries and regions
The formula for the weighted average efficiency for coal (BC2) is given below as an example: BC2 = (PCi + HCi *s)/ ICi
Where:
BC2 Benchmark efficiency coal (2). This is the weighted average efficiency of coal-fired power generation for the selected countries.
PCi Coal-fired power production for country or region i (i = 1,…n) HCi Heat output for country or region i (i = 1,…n)
s Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted
ICi Fuel input for coal-fired power plants for country or region i (i = 1,…n)
To determine the performance of a country relative to the benchmark efficiency we divide the efficiency of a country for a certain year by the benchmark efficiency in the same year. The formula of the indicator for the efficiency of coal-fired power is given below as an example: BCi = ECi / BC1 or BCi = ECi / BC2
Where:
BCi Benchmark indicator of the energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation for country or region i
Countries that perform better than average for a certain year show numbers above 100% and vice versa.
To come to an overall comparison for fossil-fired power efficiency we calculate the output-weighted average of the three indicators, as is shown in the formula below:
BFi = (BCi * PCi + BGi * PGi + BOi * POi) / (PCi + PGi + POi) Where:
BFi, BCi, BGi and BOi Benchmark indicator for the energy efficiency of fossil-fired, coal-fired, gas-fired and oil-fired power generation for country or region i
PCi, PGi and POi Coal-fired, gas-fired and oil-fired power production for country or region i
2.3
CO
2intensity power generation
In this study we calculate CO2 emissions intensities per country for the year 2008: Per fossil fuel source (coal, oil, gas);
For total fossil power generation and For total power generation.
There are several ways of calculating CO2-intensities (g CO2/kWh) for power generation, depending on the way combined heat and power generation is taken into account. In this study we use the same method as for calculating energy efficiency and correct for heat generation by the correction factor of 0.175 (see Section 2.1).
The formula for calculating CO2 intensity is:
CO2-intensity = ∑(1/Ei * Ci * Pi ) / ∑ Pi
Where:
i Fuel source 1 ... n
Ei Energy efficiency power generation per fuel source (see Section 2.1) Ci CO2 emission factor per fuel source (see table below) (tonne CO2/TJ) Pi Power production from public power and CHP plants per fuel source (MWh)
In the comparison of CO2-intensities, Canada and Italy are included as additional countries. The data input for calculating the energy-efficiencies for Canada and Italy are taken from IEA (2011). The table below gives the CO2 emission factors per fuel source.
Table 1 Fossil CO2 emission factor (IEA, 2005)
Fuel type Tonne CO2/TJncv
Hard coal 94.6
Lignite 101.2
Natural gas 56.1
Oil 74.1
2.4
Share of renewable and nuclear power generation
This report also gives an insight into the development of the share of renewable and nuclear power production in total public power production. For the period 2000 - 2011, annual developments for all geographical regions as stated above (excluding Canada and Italy) are included.
The IEA classifies a number of different energy sources that are used for power production as renewable (see Table 2). Ecofys has mapped (i.e. aggregated) these into various different categories: Bio; Geothermal; Hydro; Solar; Ocean; Waste; Wind.
Table 2 Mapping of different renewable energy categories of IEA
Renewable energy sources as defined by IEA Ecofys mapping
Industrial waste Waste
Municipal waste (renewable) Waste
Primary solid biofuels Bio
Biogases Bio
Bio-gasoline Bio
Biodiesels Bio
Other liquid biofuels Bio
Non-specified primary biofuels and waste Bio
Charcoal Bio
Hydro Hydro
Geothermal Geothermal
Solar photovoltaics Solar
Solar thermal Solar
Tide, wave and ocean Ocean
Wind Wind
Data input for calculating the shares originates from IEA (2013). To be consistent with the rest of this study, only the share in public power production is considered.
3 Results
Table 3 gives an overview of the content of the different sections of Chapter 3. Table 3 What can be found in which section in this chapter
Section Content
3.1
Energy efficiencies for coal,- gas- and oil-fired power production, including a simple aggregation of fossil-fired power efficiency3.2
Results of the benchmark analysis based on non-weighted average efficiencies 3.3
Results of the benchmark analysis, based on weighted average efficiencies 3.4 CO2 intensities per fuel source and for total power generation per country 3.5 CO2 abatement potentials per country when replacing current installed basedby best available technology
3.6 Development of the share of renewable and nuclear power production over the last decade
The underlying data for the figures in this chapter can be found in in Appendix II. This section provides, amongst other data, energy efficiency and input data for the analysis in terms of power generation, fuel input, heat output and the resulting benchmark efficiencies.
3.1
Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation
Figure 13 - Figure 15 show the efficiency trend for coal-, gas- and oil-fired power production, respectively, for the period 1990 - 2011. Figure 16 shows the energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation by the weighted-average efficiency of gas, oil- and coal-fired power generation.
Figure 13 Average efficiency of coal-fired power production.
The energy efficiencies for coal-fired power generation range from 26% for India to 43% in the case of France in 2011. Note that over the past two decades, especially China and South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany and Japan, have gradually improved the efficiency of their coal-fired power generation, whereas other regions have experienced very limited up to zero (e.g. United States) improvement.
20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 14 Average efficiency of gas-fired power production.
In contrast to other fuels, the efficiency gas-fired power generation has improved substantially over the last two decades. Efficiencies range from 34% for France to 53% for the UK and Ireland in 2011.
Indian efficiencies appear to have a statistical flaw as average efficiencies of around 60% represent BAT and are thus are considered unrealistic for a country as a whole. The sudden peak for Australia in 2003 and 2004 is also considered unreliable.
The largest efficiency improvements in 1990 - 2011 are observed for USA, India4, South Korea and Germany. Surprisingly, the Chinese efficiency has remained constant over time at an invariable 38.9%. This gives the impression that power production or fuel consumption have been calculated rather than based on actual data collection.
For some countries (India and France) efficiencies fluctuate heavily over time. This may be explained by gas-fired power plants significantly varying operating hours from year to year. Four-fifths of the French public power originates from nuclear plants, with natural gas only responsible for a marginal 4% in 2011. Natural gas capacity does not include high efficiency NGCC plants (pre-2012) and is deployed as a peak load capacity together with oil fired capacity. This provides explanation for the fluctuating and relative low efficiencies.
4 Although the figures for India are deemed unreliable with efficiencies approaching the current BAT efficiency of 61% in 2008
already. 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 20022004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 15 Average efficiency of oil-fired power production.
For oil-fired power generation the efficiencies range from 20% for India to 46% for South Korea in 2011. The graph shows large fluctuations in efficiency for oil-fired power generation. This is likely to be the result of fluctuating operating hours5 or data uncertainty (in the case of unrealistically large changes). Please note that oil-fired power generation is very small (below 6 TWh, or roughly 1 GW generating capacity) compared to other fossil fuels in all countries but Japan and the USA and to a lesser extent India and South Korea. The data for countries with low amount of oil-based power are therefore considered to be unreliable (e.g. France peaks above BAT efficiencies), but have limited impact on the overall fossil efficiency.
5 Running at significantly lower operating hours typically lowers efficiencies.
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 16 Average efficiency of fossil-fired power production.
For overall fossil-fired power generation, the efficiencies range from 29% for India to 45% for UK and Ireland in 2011.
Below is a discussion of the results organised by country. Note that all data refers to the year 2011, unless stated otherwise.
Australia
Total fossil-fired power generation in Australia is 173 TWh, of which 74% is generated from coal, of this 39% is lignite. Total coal-fired capacity was 27 GW in 2005 (Platts, 2006).
The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation decreased in the period 1990 - 2011, from 36% to 33%.
The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation in Australia is 40%. Gas-fired power generation in Australia was limited at 38 TWh.
Oil-fired power generation in Australia is very limited, at less than 1 TWh.
20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
China
China is the largest fossil-fired power generator and generates 3,784 TWh and almost entirely relies on coal (for fossil power production).
The average energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation is 36%. It has increased steadily in the period 1990 - 2011 coming from 29%. Coal-based electricity production increased substantially from 442 TWh in 1990 to 3,698 TWh in 2011, corresponding to a more than eight-fold increase. The average efficiency of coal-fired power generation is expected to continue to increase, as China has become “the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems” according to the IEA (New York Times, 2009). For instance, Yuhuan, one of China’s most advanced plants, boasts an efficiency of 45% (Siemens, 2008).
Gas-fired power generation increased from 3 TWh in 1995 to 84 TWh. Since 2003, gas-based power generation increased by at least 20% annually. Figure 14 shows that over the period of 1990 - 2011 the efficiency gas-fired power generation has remained constant.
Oil-fired power generation makes up only 3 TWh. France
Fossil-fired power generation in France is relatively small at only 41 TWh. Besides the dominant contribution of nuclear capacity France relies on both coal and gas-fired power generation. The energy efficiency for coal-fired power plants in France is 43%. Coal-fired power generation in France shows strong fluctuations year by year ranging from about 10 to 30 TWh in the past two decades, and may depend on power production by hydro and nuclear plants. In France electricity demand peaks in winter due to electric heating, and fossil power generation is used to absorb the peak in demand. This means that the capacity factor of coal-fired power plants can vary strongly which generally reduces energy efficiency. Based on Platts (2006) the operational capacity for coal-fired power plants is 8200 MW in 2005. This implies that, on average, full load hours range from 1,800 – 3,700 hours per year.
Gas-fired power generation increased rapidly especially since 2000 (before practically no gas was used). In 2011, 22 TWh was generated. The energy efficiency was constant in 2000 - 2006 at 46-50% but plummeted very low to 32% in 2010. The operational capacity for public gas-fired power generation increased from practically zero in 1990 to roughly 2000 MW in 2005. The first NGCCs were commissioned in 2012 (and is not included in the results). The largest share of the capacity went into operation after 1998.
Germany
Fossil-fired power generation in Germany is 318 TWh in 2011, of which 80% is produced by coal (thereof 58% lignite).
After the reunification of West and East Germany several inefficient lignite power plants were closed. This led to a higher efficiency of coal-fired power generation. The efficiency of coal-fired power generation increased from 35% in 1990 to 38% .
In the mid '90s the natural gas market was liberalized in Germany, leading to more competition and lower gas prices. This resulted in more gas use and a large increase of CHP capacity. This led to a strong increase of efficiency of gas-based power generation from 33% in 1990 to efficiencies up to 50% (e.g. 2006), as shown in Figure 14. Gas-fired power generation increased from 25 TWh in 1990 to 63 TWh.
India
Fossil-fired power generation in India is 708 TWh, of which 84% is produced from coal.
The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation is constantly very low with 26-28% over the whole period of 1990 - 2010. Some reasons for this may be (IEA, 2003b):
The coal is unwashed;
Indian coal has a high ash content of 30% to 55%;
Coal-fired capacity is used for peak load power generation as well as base load power generation.
The energy efficiency for gas-fired power generation increased from 23% in 1990 to 51%, suggesting that India would be among the most efficient countries with regard to gas-fired power production. Note however, that the efficiency is highly fluctuating (e.g. 59% in 2008 in 2010 43%). Although efficiencies in India have significantly improved because of the installation of modern combined cycle plants (IEA, 2003b), statistics are not deemed reliable as the efficiency seem unrealistically high. Gas-fired power plants in India are fairly new and most are built in the last 15 years. Gas-fired power generation increased from 8 TWh to 92 TWh in the period 1990 - 2011.
Oil-fired power generation is 3 TWh in 2010 at a very low efficiency of 20%. Japan
Japan is the fourth largest fossil-fired power producer with 717 TWh.
Figure 9 shows an increase of coal-fired power generation in Japan from 94 TWh in 1990 to 237 TWh in 2010. The energy efficiency in this period remained constant in the range of 40-41%. Gas-based electricity generation increased in this period from 165 TWh to 360 TWh, as shown in Figure 10. In 2011, a 25% increase was observed to compensate for the decline in nuclear power generation.
Figure 14 shows an increase of gas-fired generating efficiency in Japan from 43% in 1990 to 48%.
The Japanese Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) mentions the followings reason for the large share of conventional steam turbines in gas-fired power plants in Japan:
Japanese general electric utilities started to implement gas-fired power plants ahead of time in response to the oil crises of the 1970s. In those times gas turbines were not yet implemented on a large scale. As a result, utilities implemented conventional steam turbines based on active electricity demand, as they remain now. In the 1990s however, utilities implemented combined cycle power plants. Furthermore, utilities will implement More Advanced Combined Cycle (MACC) with 59% (LHV) thermal efficiency, among the world’s highest. The first MACC began its commercial operation in June 2007.
Oil-fired power generation in Japan decreased from 206 TWh in 1990 to 60 TWh in 2010, which almost doubled in 2011 (119 TWh) likely because of the shutdown of nuclear power plants following the Fukushima accident.
Nordic countries
Total fossil-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 45 TWh. Sweden and Norway both have a very limited fossil power capacity; Finland and Denmark have a comparable production. Coal-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 31 TWh. The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation in the Nordic countries has been between 37% and 42% in 1990 – 2011.
Gas-fired power generation (with a large share consisting of CHP plants) in the Nordic countries is 14 TWh, generated at an efficiency of 47%.
South Korea
Total fossil-fired power generation in South Korea is 329 TWh, of which 204 TWh is generated by coal and 113 TWh by gas.
The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation increased strongly from 26% in 1990 to 36% on average on 2009 - 2011. Coal-fired power generation increased in this period from 12 TWh to current levels. The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation increased from 40% to 52% in the period 1990 – 2011.
United Kingdom and Ireland
Total fossil-fired power generation in the United Kingdom and Ireland is 251 TWh, of which 112 TWh is generated from coal and 138 TWh from gas.
Due to the liberalization of the electricity market in the early '90s several less efficient coal-fired power plants were closed in the UK, leading to a higher average efficiency of coal-coal-fired power plants. In the following years (1996 - 1997), lower production of coal-based electricity was seen by reducing the load factor of coal-fired power plants, resulting in a decrease of the average efficiency of coal-fired power plants.
The energy efficiency for coal-fired power plants has not changed over the past 20 years and is 38% in 2011 due to no new renewal of the coal-based stock.
As gas prices decreased, gas-fired power generation capacity increased significantly from 1992 onwards. The large addition of new capacity has resulted in a strong increase of the average efficiency of gas-fired power plants, from 40% in 1990 to 53%.
Gas-fired power generation increased from a minor 4 TWh in 1990 to 138 TWh in 1999 - 2011, although a drop is observed in the year 2011 compare to 2010.
United States
The United States is the second largest fossil-fired power generating country in the world (China overtook the US in 2009) generating 2,805 TWh, of which 1,821 TWh is generated by coal.
The energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation remained to a high degree constant in the period 1990 - 2011, at 33%.
The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation increased from 38% in 1990 to 49% in 2011. Electricity generation by gas-fired power plants increased strongly in this period from 319 TWh to 954 TWh driven by the availability and relative low prices of natural gas.
In 1990-2011, the cumulative installed capacity of coal-fired power plants remained very stable in the range of 307 to 319 GWe, while the cumulative installed capacity of gas-fired plants increased from 78 to 413 GWe. Due to the limited replacements, the average age of the fleet of coal fired power plants increased in the past decades (EIA, 2014).
Oil-fired power generation is 30 TWh and is generated at an efficiency of 39%, making the US the second largest producer behind Japan.
3.2
Benchmark based on non-weighted average efficiency
In this section, a benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation efficiency is calculated. This is done by comparing the efficiency of countries and regions to the average efficiency of the selected countries. Separate benchmark indicators for coal, oil, gas and fossil-fired power generation are calculated to compare the efficiencies. The formula for calculating the benchmark indicators can be found in Chapter 2. The benchmark indicator is based on the country efficiency per fuel source divided by the average efficiency per fuel source. The separate benchmark indicators are weighted by power generation to get to an overall indicator for fossil-fired power generation.
Figure 17 shows the average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this study. Because these efficiencies are not weighted, they do not represent the total overall energy efficiency of power production in the included countries.
Figure 17 Average non-weighted efficiencies
With regard to average non-weighted efficiencies, the efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a strong increase from 38% in 1990 to 46% in 2011 (average annual improvement of 1.0%). The reason for this improvement is mainly the large amount of new generating capacity; gas-fired power generation increased by +241% over the period 1990 - 2011.
Coal-fired power generation increased by +136% over the period 1990 - 2011. However, remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen from 34% to 37% (average annual improvement of 0.3%). 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Coal Gas Oil Fossil
Figure 18 shows the energy efficiencies of the countries divided by the non-weighted average of efficiency. The data is averaged over the period 2009 – 2011 as uncertainty in the data of an individual year can be high. A benchmark indicator of 110% for gas means that the efficiency for gas-fired power generation in a country is 10% higher than the average (non-weighted) efficiency of the considered countries. The fossil benchmark indicator is based on the average benchmark indicators for coal, gas and oil, and is weighted by power generation output.
Figure 18 Average 2009 – 2011 performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective weighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the non-weighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation.
As can be seen, the UK & Ireland and Japan perform best in terms of fossil-fired power generating efficiency with 17% and 15% above average efficiency respectively closely followed by the Nordic countries, South Korea and Germany with 10%, 5% and 4% respectively above average. India is the most prominent underperformer with fossil efficiency of 27% below the benchmark.
Figure 19 shows the time development of the benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation.
Note that a decrease of the benchmark indicator for a country might mean that the efficiency of the country has decreased or that the non-weighted average efficiency has increased.
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% Per fo rma n ce rel at iv e to b en ch ma rk
Figure 19 Output-weighted average benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on non-weighted average efficiencies).
3.3
Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency
In this section, we calculate a second benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation efficiency. This is done by comparing the efficiency of countries and regions to the weighted average efficiencies of the selected countries. The formula for calculating the benchmark indicators can be found in Section 2.2. The benchmark indicator is based on the country efficiency per fuel source divided by the weighted average efficiency per fuel source. The separate benchmark indicators are weighted by power generation to get to an overall indicator for fossil-fired power generation.
70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Per fo rma n ce rel at iv e to f o ssil b en ch ma rk Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
Figure 20 shows the weighted average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this study. This corresponds to the efficiency of all countries and regions together.
Figure 20 Average weighted efficiencies of all countries and regions at the scope of this study (%).
For the weighted average efficiencies, the efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a strong increase from 39% in 1990 to 48% in 2011 (average annual improvement of 1.1%). The reason for this improvement is mainly the large amount of (more efficient) new generating capacity; gas-fired power generation increased by +241% over the period 1990 - 2011. The efficiency for oil fired generation increased also in the period 2006-2011. The increase in efficiency between 2010 and 2011 can perhaps be explained by the relative large increase in generation in Japan with relative high efficiency.
Coal-fired power generation increased by +136% over the period 1990 - 2011. However remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen of 34% to 35% (average annual improvement of 0.1%). The reason for this is that a large part of the growth in coal-fired power generation took place in China and India, for which generating efficiency by coal increased only slightly (+7 % pts in China) or remained the same (India).
The differences with the non-weighted average approach (Figure 17) are limited. In general they can be explained by the fact that the impact of countries with large power production output is diminished by the non-weighted approach whereas the impact of small countries is magnified. For instance, the largest producers from gas-fired power are Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom and Ireland and they are also among the most efficient. Hence, in the non-weighted average approach their impact on the average is lower (than in the non-weighted average approach) resulting in a lower overall average efficiency for all countries combined.
25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 E ff ici en cy [ %] Coal Gas Oil Fossil
Figure 25 shows the energy efficiencies of the countries divided by the weighted average efficiency. Again, the data is based on the average over the period 2009 – 2011 as uncertainty in the data for an individual year can be high. A benchmark indicator of 110% for gas means that the efficiency for gas-fired power generation in a country is 10% higher than the weighted average efficiency of the considered countries. The fossil benchmark indicator is based on the average benchmark indicators for coal, gas and oil, and is weighted by power generation output.
Figure 21 Average 2009 – 2011 performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective weighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the weighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation.
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% Per fo rma n ce rel at iv e to b en ch ma rk
Figure 22 shows the development in time of the benchmark indicators for fossil-fired power generation. On average in the period 2008-2011, the Nordic countries had a 10% higher weighted fossil efficiency, followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland, Japan, Germany and South Korea (all in the range of +5% to +9%), the United States (+3%) and China (+1%). France and Australia perform within -7 to -8% under the benchmark, while the most severe underperformer is India with -21%.
Figure 22 Output-weighted benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on weighted average efficiencies).
Although the exact numbers for the two benchmark approaches; (1) non-weighted and (2) weighted average efficiency, differ, the results in terms of which countries are most efficient, are more or less the same. The ranking in relative performance relative to the fossil benchmark for the three most recent years remains unchanged for the six countries ranked lowest. The four highest ranked countries - which performed comparably in the weighted and non-weighted approach in terms of fossil efficiencies – (Figure 19), is reordered.
70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Per fo rma n ce rel at iv e to f o ssil b en ch ma rk Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States
3.4
CO
2-intensities
In this section we compare the CO2-intensity per country for the different fuel sources (coal, oil, gas), for fossil-fired power generation and for total power generation. The average CO2 intensities for the period 2009 - 2011 and the corresponding individual years are included. Canada and Italy are included as additional countries. The underlying data for the figures can be found in Appendix II.
On average over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for coal-fired power generation range from 833 g/kWh for France to 1,297 g/kWh for India (Figure 23). This means that CO2 emissions from coal-fired power generation are more than 50% higher in India per unit of power than in Japan. When excluding India, specific emissions for all other countries are at most +23% higher than in Japan.
Figure 23 CO2-intensity for coal-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in
2009 - 2011. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 CO 2 in ten si ty [ g /k W h ] 2009 2010 2011 Average
On average over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for gas-fired power generation ranges from 386 g/kWh for the United Kingdom and Ireland to 605 g/kWh for France (Figure 24). This is a difference of +57% in emissions per unit of power generation.
Figure 24 CO2-intensity for gas-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in
2009 - 2011.
On average over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for oil-fired power generation ranges from 641 g/kWh for Japan to 1,462 g/kWh for India (Figure 25). This is a difference in emissions of +128 % per unit of oil-fired power generated.
Figure 25 CO2-intensity for oil-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in
2009 - 2011. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 CO 2 in tensi ty [ g /k Wh ] 2009 2010 2011 Average 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 CO 2 in ten si ty [ g /k W h ] 2009 2010 2011 Average
On average, over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for fossil-fired power generation ranges from 547 g/kWh for Italy to 1,174 g/kWh for India (Figure 26). This is a difference in emissions of 115% per unit of fossil-fired power generation. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation depends largely on the share of coal in fossil power generation and on the efficiency of the coal fired power plants.
Figure 26 CO2-intensity for fossil fuel-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2
-intensity in 2009 - 2011.
On average, over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for total power generation ranges from 61 g/kWh for France to 921 g/kWh for India (Figure 27). The CO2-intensity for total power generation depends mostly on the share of decarbonised electricity in the mix. In France, about four-fifths of electricity is generated by nuclear power and in the Nordic Countries 75% comes from hydro (two-thirds) and nuclear power (one-third). Meanwhile, in China, Australia and India two-thirds of public power originates from coal. At present, nuclear and hydropower generally remain the dominant sources of decarbonised power, although the share of renewables other than hydropower has experienced a very fast uptake in the past decade.
For Japan, the higher CO2 intensity in 2011 as compared to the earlier years reflects the impact of the shutdown of the Japanese nuclear power plants following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The development of renewables and nuclear power production over time is addressed in more detail in Chapter 3.6. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 CO 2 in ten si ty [ g /k W h ] 2009 2010 2011 Average
Figure 27 CO2-intensity for total (i.e. including fossil and renewable) power generation. Countries are sorted
based on average CO2-intensity in 2009 - 2011.
3.5
Emission reduction potential
A large potential for emission reduction is present by improving the energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation.
The figures below show the specific (g CO2/kWh), absolute (Mtonne CO2) and relative (%) emission abatement potential per country that would occur if the best available technologies (BAT) for the respective fuels was applied for all power produced. Hence, it is assessed how much CO2 emissions would be avoided if all power producing installations would be replaced by an installation that that operates according to the best available conversion efficiency corresponding to the fuel combusted. Note that, as such, CO2 emissions reductions from fuel switch are not incorporated in this analysis. A large abatement potential reflects the deployment of inefficient power generation. However, this potential is larger or smaller depending on the fuels combusted. This means that, for example, equally inefficient power production in a country with only gas use versus a country with only coal use would result in a larger CO2 reduction potential for the coal-based country.
The efficiencies used for BAT are 47% for coal, 61% for natural gas and 47% for oil-fired power generation6. No changes are assumed for the fuel mix for fossil-fired power generation per country. The average reduction potential is determined based on the years 2009 - 2011.
6 These values originating from the European Commission (2006), Siemens/TÜV (2012) and VGB (2004) respectively and refer to
operational efficiencies based on gross power output and net calorific value for fuel input. Note that BAT efficiencies given by the relevant Best Reference document for Large Combustion Plants (European Commission, 2013) are lower. This can be explained the fact that BREF documents do not always show the most up-to-date values as there is a time delay in adopting such values.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 CO 2 in ten si ty [ g /k W h ] 2009 2010 2011 Average
Note that the chart with specific potential (Figure 28) gives an indication for the GHG in-efficiency of public power production, or the amount of specific GHG emissions above the BAT level. The chart with absolute potential (Figure 29) indicates the absolute amount of reduction possible thus taking into account the total amount of power production occurring in a country. Finally, the chart with relative potential (Figure 30) illustrates how large the absolute potential is in comparison with the total emissions.
India, Australia and China have the largest specific abatement potentials as these have, relatively, the highest shares of coal and the lowest conversion efficiencies. The United States is, with regard to coal-based power production, among the least efficient countries. This is offset by the fact that for the past twenty years, the declining share of coal-based power was mostly replaced by power production from gas-fired power plants which are at present among the most efficient.
Figure 28 Specific CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public
power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.
China, United States and India show very high absolute emission reduction potentials of 812, 500 and 338 Mt per year, respectively. The absolute abatement potential is very much dictated by the total amount of power produced in the country and the extent to which this occurs by making use of inefficient technologies combusting CO2-intensive fuels. That explains why large countries with relatively inefficient power production, often predominantly from coal, have the largest absolute CO2 abatement potentials. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CO 2 red u ct io n p o ten ti al [ g /K W h ]
Figure 29 Absolute CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public
power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.
Relative CO2 emission reduction potentials range from 16% for the Nordic Countries and Japan to 43% for India. On average the emission reduction potential is 23% for the included countries.
Figure 30 Relative CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public
power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 CO 2 red u ct io n p o ten ti al [ M t C O2 ] 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% CO 2 red u ct io n p o ten ti al [ %]
3.6
Renewable and nuclear power production
In this section for each of the regions at the scope of this study, the development in the share of renewable and nuclear power production is graphically depicted. In addition, observations of the main trend(s) and an interpretation from a renewable energy expert - aiming at explaining the underlying reasons - are provided.
Note that for an accurate interpretation of the development of the share of nuclear or renewable power production this always has to be considered in relation with the overall developments in total power production. Therefore, the development of total public power production, relative to the year 1990, is also provided in the charts.
The methodology for determination of the results given in this section can be found in Section 2.4.
Australia
Despite its significant uranium deposits, there are no nuclear power facilities in Australia. Hydro power has remained the main renewable power source in the period 2000 – 2011. The share of hydropower has been constant between 5 and 8%. The share of wind energy especially since 2005 increased strongly while the use of bioenergy (mainly primary solid biofuels – sugar cane residue and wood waste - and biogas) after a steady growth between 2000 and 2008, decreased in recent years. The Clean Energy Future plan of 2012 reaffirmed the commitment to 20% renewable electricity production by 2020 and provided support which should increase renewable production in future. However, there have been a number of policy changes with South Australia reducing its rates for existing renewable power projects and eliminating support for new projects. Recently the Australian government has also been considering to “grandfathering” the scheme to allow only existing investments to continue, but to halt the support for new renewable energy projects. These developments need to be continuously watched and could have serious consequences for renewable power in the country.
Figure 31 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 – 2011 in Australia.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 D ev el o p men t o f to ta l p u b lic p o w er p ro d u ct io n r el at iv e to t h e year 2 0 0 0 Sh ar e in t o ta l pu bl ic po w er pr o du ct io n ( %) Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear
Figure 32 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in Australia.
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sh a re i n to ta l p u b lic p o w e r p ro d u c ti o n (% ) Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind
China
The share of power production from non-fossil sources has been constant in China for the period of interest. The share of public power production from hydropower and nuclear power fluctuated between 15% and 19% and 1% and 2% respectively. However, in absolute terms public power production increased by a factor 3 in a decade and the steady share of non-fossil production implies an equivalent increase in hydro and nuclear capacity.
Deployment of renewable energy forms a strong element in the overall energy and industrial policy. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006 - 2010), during which the 2006 Renewable Energy Law was made effective, resulted in the establishment of renewable energy markets, the completion of renewable resource evaluations, and construction of many renewable projects. The 12th Five-Year Plan (2011 - 2015) aims for 11.4% of non-fossil resources in primary energy consumption by 2015 (and 15% by 2020). Indicative cumulative capacity growth figures are given in the table below. The policy support consists among others of feed-in tariffs and preferential taxes and access to cheap credit. Projects approved by government are granted access to grid in the Renewable Energy Law. Priority dispatch is guaranteed by law, but often not applied in practice. Another point of attention is that not all installed capacity can be connected to the grid (only 75% of wind capacity was connected in 2011). The Renewable Energy Law has therefore been amended in 2009 to improve grid access, however not all changes have already taken effect. For PV, China has recently amended its feed-in tariff to introduce regional differentiation of tariffs and also introduced further value-added tax rebates.
Table 4 Power generation capacities (2011) from IEA ETP (2014) and indicative capacity targets in the 12th
FYP of China (GW) 2011 2015 2020 Coal 739 960 Gas 39 56 Nuclear 12 40 Hydropower 213 290 420 Wind (grid-connected) 62 100 (o.w. 5 offshore) 200 (o.w. 30 offshore) Solar (PV and CSP) 3 21 (o.w. 1 CSP) 50 (o.w. 1 CSP) Biomass 10 13 30 Geothermal 0 100 Ocean 0 50 Total 1078 1490
Figure 33 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in China.
Figure 34 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in China.
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 D ev el o p men t o f to ta l p u b lic p o w er p ro d u ct io n r el at iv e to t h e year 2 0 0 0 Sh ar e in t o ta l pu bl ic po w er pr o du ct io n ( %) Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear
= total public power production relative to year 2000
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sh a re i n to ta l p u b lic p o w e r p ro d u c ti o n (% ) Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind