当前位置:首页 >> 五年级语文 >>

International comparison of energy efficiency of fossil power generation


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

International comparison of energy ef?ciency of fossil power generation
W.H.J. Graus?, M. Voogt, E. Worrell
Energy and Climate Strategies, Ecofys Netherlands BV, Kanaalweg 16-G, 3526 KL Utrecht, Netherlands Received 2 November 2006; accepted 16 January 2007 Available online 19 March 2007

Abstract The purpose of this study is to compare the energy ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation for Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland, and United States. Together these countries generate 65% of worldwide fossil power generation. Separate benchmark indicators are calculated for the energy ef?ciency of natural gas, oil and coal-?red power generation, based on weighted-average energy ef?ciencies. These indicators are aggregated to an overall benchmark for fossil-?red power generation. The weighted average ef?ciencies are 35% for coal, 45% for natural gas and 38% for oil-?red power generation. The Nordic countries, Japan and United Kingdom and Ireland are found to perform best in terms of fossil power generating ef?ciency and are, respectively 8%, 8% and 7% above average in 2003. South Korea and Germany are, respectively 6% and 4% above average and the United States and France are, respectively 2% and 4% below average. Australia, China and India perform 7%, 9% and 13%, respectively below average. The energy savings potential and CO2 emission reduction potential if all countries produce electricity at the highest ef?ciencies observed (42% for coal, 52% for natural gas and 45% for oil-?red power generation), corresponds to 10 EJ and 860 Mtonne CO2, respectively. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Benchmarking energy-ef?ciency; Ef?ciency fossil power generation

1. Introduction International comparisons of energy ef?ciency can provide a benchmark against which a country’s performance can be measured against that of other countries. The results can be used to determine potential energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy-ef?ciency analyses for power generation on a country level have been performed in the past, but few recent studies are available. Furthermore benchmarks for overall fossil-?red power generation are not available. This analysis aims to make a comparison of the ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation (coal, oil and natural gas). For this purpose, speci?c benchmark indicators are developed for natural gas, oil and coal-?red generation ef?ciencies. These indicators are aggregated to a benchmark for fossil-?red generation ef?ciency.
?Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 302808324; fax: +31 302808301.

The countries evaluated in this study are Australia, China,1 France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland, and United States. Together these countries generate 65% of worldwide fossil power generation. The energy ef?ciencies calculated in this analysis are based on IEA statistics. For all countries checks are made with available national statistics. The results of this are given in the Appendix. In some cases IEA statistics are replaced by national statistics. This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the used methodology. Section 3 gives the fuel mix for power generation in 2003 and the development of fossil power generation for the period 1990–2003. Section 4 shows the results of the study. First the ef?ciency of coal, natural gas and oil-?red power generation is given, followed by the benchmark indicators for fossil-?red power
1

E-mail address: w.graus@ecofys.nl (W.H.J. Graus). 0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.016

Including Hong Kong.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 3937

generation. Section 5 discusses uncertainties in this analysis and Section 6 gives the conclusions. 2. Methodology This section gives an overview of the methodology applied and discusses input data used for the study. The methodology used in this study to calculate the energy ef?ciency of power generation is based on the ‘‘Handbook of International Comparisons of Energy Ef?ciency in the Manufacturing Industry’’ (Phylipsen et al., 1998). Formula (1) gives the energy ef?ciency of power generation E ? ?P ? H ? s?=I, (1) where E is the energy ef?ciency of power generation, P the power production from public power plants and public CHP plants, H the heat output from public CHP plants, s ? 0.175, correction factor between heat and electricity, de?ned as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted and I the fuel input for public power plants and public CHP plants. The correction factor for heat extraction re?ects 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. Here 0.175 is used. To determine the ef?ciency for power production for a region, we calculate the weighted average ef?ciency of the countries included in the region. 2.1. Benchmark for fossil generation ef?ciency In this analysis we compare the ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation across countries and regions. Instead of simply aggregating the ef?ciencies for different fuel types to a single ef?ciency indicator, we determine separate benchmark indicators per fuel source. This is because the energy ef?ciency for natural gas-?red power generation is generally higher than the energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation, while the choices for fuel types are often outside the realm of the industry. Choices for fuel diversi?cation have in the past often been made at the government level for strategic purposes, e.g. fuel diversi?cation and fuel costs. A method for benchmarking energy ef?ciency is the comparison of countries’ ef?ciencies against average ef?ciencies. This method allows to estimate the difference to the overall average ef?ciency given a country’s speci?c fuel mix. The average ef?ciency is calculated per fuel source and per year and is weighted by power generation output. Formula (2) gives the weighted average ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation (BC) as an example: X X BC ? ?PCi ? HCi ? s?= ICi , (2) where BC is the benchmark ef?ciency of coal. This is the weighted average ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation for the selected countries, PCi the coal-?red power

production for country or region i?i ? 1; . . . ; n?, HCi the heat output for country or region i?i ? 1; . . . ; n?, s the correction factor between heat and electricity, de?ned as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted and ICi the fuel input for coal-?red power plants for country or region i?i ? 1; . . . ; n?. To determine the performance of a country relative to the benchmark ef?ciency we divide the ef?ciency of a country for a certain year by the benchmark ef?ciency in the same year. Formula (3) gives the indicator for the ef?ciency of coal-?red power as an example: ICi ? ECi =BC; (3) where ICi is the benchmark indicator of the energy-ef?ciency of coal-?red 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-?red power ef?ciency we calculate the output-weighted average of the three indicators, as is shown in formula (4) IFi ? ICi ? PCi ? IGi ? PGi ? IOi ? POi , PCi ? PGi ? POi (4)

where IFi, ICi, IGi and IOi, are respectively the benchmark indicator for the energy-ef?ciency of fossil-?red, coal-?red, gas-?red and oil-?red power generation for country or region i; PCi, PGi and POi, are respectively the coal-?red, gas-?red and oil-?red power production for country or region i. 2.2. Input data This analysis is based on data from IEA Energy Balances edition 2005. Data in IEA Energy Balances is given in net calori?c value (NCV).2 Please note that ef?ciencies based on gross calori?c value are lower. The difference is around 10% for natural gas, 3% for coal and 7% for oil. Power generation in IEA data is given as gross power generation. This refers to the electric output of the generator. Net electricity output refers to the electric output minus electrical power used in a plant’s auxiliary equipment such as pumps, motors and pollution control devices. This means the calculated energy ef?ciencies in this analysis do not refer to actual net electricity output. This especially in?uences the energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power plants. Power used for auxiliary equipment is around 6–8% for coal-?red power plants and 2–3% for natural gas-?red power plants. In this study, we take into account public power plants and public CHP plants. Power generation by autoproducers is not taken into account. Worldwide the power generation of autoproducers accounts for 6% of total power generation in 2003. Some countries have a relatively high share of power generation by autoproducers, such as Finland 21%, Japan 12%, India 11% and United Kingdom 10%.
2 The net calori?c value (NCV) or lower heating value (LHV) refers to the quantity of heat liberated by the complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a vapour and the heat is not recovered.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3938 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951

We distinguish three types of fuel sources: coal and coal products, crude oil and petroleum products and natural gas. We will refer to these fuel sources as coal, oil and gas, respectively. As a check, IEA statistics are compared to available national statistics. In some cases energy ef?ciencies based on IEA statistics are replaced by energy ef?ciencies calculated from national statistics. This is done when the ef?ciencies based on national statistics seem more reliable. Information about the statistics that are used for the analysis can be found in the Appendix.

exceptions are France, which has a large share of nuclear power (84%), and the Nordic countries, which use a lot of hydropower (50%). From the fossil fuels, coal is most frequently used. The share of oil-?red power generation is limited; only Japan and the United States have larger amounts, in absolute sense. Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the amount of coal, gas, oil and total fossil-?red power generation, respectively in the period 1990–2003, from public power plants and public CHP plants. Note that the scales of the ?gures are different.

3. Fuel mix and power generation Figs. 1 and 2 show the fuel mix for public electricity production in 2003 based on electricity output. The share of fossil fuels in the overall fuel mix for electricity generation is in general more than 50–60%. Two
4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

4. Results 4.1. Ef?ciency of coal, gas and oil-?red power generation Figs. 7, 8 and 9 show the ef?ciency trend for coal, gas and oil-?red power production, respectively, for the period

Hydro Nuclear Oil Gas Coal

nd

y

na

ce

es

es

n

a

a

an

pa

re

di

at

an

hi

In

la

Ja

un

Ko

m

er

Fr

Ire

St

G

te

K

ni

U

Fig. 1. Public power generation by source in 2003 in TWh (IEA, 2005b).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
y nd an pa nc re a es na di es at hi In tri la Fr a Ja Ko m Ire er un St co Au st C ra lia n a e

N

or

di

U

c

co

+

Au

d

st

C

d

G

te

K

+

ni

Fig. 2. Relative public power generation by source in 2003 (IEA, 2005b).

N

or di

U

U

c

ra

tri

lia

Hydro Nuclear Oil Gas Coal

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951
2500

3939

2000 Electricity generation (TWh)

1500

1000

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

500

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 3. Coal-?red power generation.

700

600

Electricity generation (TWh)

500

400

300

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

200

100

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fig. 4. Gas-?red power generation (natural gas-?red power generation capacity increased in the United States from 75 GW in 1999 to 210 GW in 2003 (US DOE, 2006).

1990–2003. Fig. 10 shows the energy ef?ciency of fossil?red power generation by the weighted-average ef?ciency of gas-, oil- and coal-?red power generation. The energy ef?ciencies for coal-?red power generation range from 30% for India to 42% for Japan in 2003. The average ef?ciency of the countries is 37% and the weighted average ef?ciency is 35% in 2003. For gas-?red power generation, the ef?ciencies range from 39% for Australia to 52% for India in 2003. The

average ef?ciency for gas is 46% and the weighted average ef?ciency is 45% in 2003. For oil-?red power generation, the ef?ciencies range from 30% for India to 45% for Japan in 2003. The average ef?ciency for oil is 37% and the weighted average ef?ciency is 38% in 2003. For overall fossil-?red generation, the ef?ciencies range from 32% for India to 43% for United Kingdom and Ireland and Japan in 2003. Below we discuss the results by country.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3940 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951

250

200 Electricity generation (TWh)
Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

150

100

50

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fig. 5. Oil-?red power production.

3000

2500 Electricity generation (TWh)

2000

1500

1000

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

500

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 6. Fossil-?red power production.

4.1.1. Australia Total fossil-?red power generation in Australia is 198 TWh in 2003, of which 90% is generated from coal. The energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation is fairly constant in the period 1990–2003, at 35%. The energy ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation shows a strong peak in 2000 of 52%, possibly due to data unreliability. The energy ef?ciency in 2003 is 39%. Gas?red power generation is 21 TWh in 2003.

Oil-?red power generation in Australia is very low, only 1 TWh in 2003.

4.1.2. China China is the second largest fossil-?red power generator of the included countries and generates 1588 TWh in 2003, of which 97% is generated by coal. The energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation increased from 31% in 1998 to 33% in 2002. Coal-based

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951
43% 41% 39% 37% Percentual efficiency 35% 33% 31% 29% 27% 25% 23% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

3941

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

Fig. 7. Ef?ciency of coal-?red power production.

55%

50%

45% Percentual efficiency
Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

40%

35%

30%

25%

20% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 8. Ef?ciency of gas-?red power production.

electricity production increases strongly from 898 TWh in 1998 to 1533 TWh in 2003. Fig. 8 shows an increase of ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation for China from 35% in the period 1990–1995 to 44% in 2003. This is a substantial increase in energy ef?ciency. Gas-?red power generation increased from 3 TWh in the period 1990–1995 to 13 TWh in 2003. In 1996, the ?rst units of a 2500 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant came online in Hong Kong,

all units of the plant were completed in 2004 (Power Technology, 2004). Oil-?red power generation is 41 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation is constant in the period 1990–2003, at 34%. 4.1.3. France Fossil-?red power generation in France is fairly small, only 31 TWh in 2003. This is mainly generated by coal.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3942 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951

50%

45%

Percentual efficiency

40%

35%

30%

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

25%

20% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fig. 9. Ef?ciency of oil-?red power production.

45% 43% 41% 39% 37% 35% 33% 31% 29% 27% 25% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fig. 10. Weighted average ef?ciency of fossil-?red power production.
Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

Percentual efficiency

There is no gas-?red power generation by public power plants in France, according to IEA statistics. Oil-?red power generation is only 4 TWh. The energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power plants in France ranges from 35% to 40%. Coal-?red power generation in France shows strong ?uctuations year by year ranging from 15 to 31 TWh. This means that the capacity factor of coal-?red power plants varies strongly which generally reduces energy ef?ciency.

4.1.4. Germany Fossil-?red power generation in Germany is 340 TWh in 2003, of which 87% is produced from coal. After the reuni?cation of West and East Germany several lignite power plants were closed. This led to a higher ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation, from 34% in 1990 to 39% in 2003. The IEA statistics show a 7% lower share of lignite-based power production in 1990 than in the year before. In the period 1990 to 2000, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 3943

production of lignite-based electricity decreased by 14%. Hard coal-based power production increased by 25% between 1989 and 2000. In the mid-1990s, the natural gas market was liberalised in Germany, leading to more competition and lower gas prices. This resulted in more gas use and a large increase of CHP capacity. This has resulted in a strong increase of ef?ciency of gas-based power generation from 29% in 1994 to 42% in 2003, as shown in Fig. 8. Gas-?red power generation increased from 22 TWh in 1994 to 42 TWh in 2003. Oil-?red power generation in Germany is very small, only 3 TWh in 2003. 4.1.5. India Fossil-?red power generation in India is 468 TWh in 2003, of which 84% is produced from coal. Total coal-?red capacity in India, excluding auto-producers, is 62 GW in 2002 (TERI, 2004). The energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation is low, 30%. Some reasons for this may be that the coal is unwashed, has a high ash content of 30–55%, and coal?red capacity is used for peak load power generation as well as base load power generation (IEA, 2003b). The energy ef?ciency for gas-?red power generation is high, 52% in 2003. Gas-?red capacity in India is about 11 GW in 2002 (TERI, 2004). Gas-?red power plants in India are fairly new and all built in the last 15 years. Gas?red power generation increased from 8 TWh in 1990 to 58 TWh in 2003. Many gas-?red power plants in India use CCGT technology (IEA, 2003b). 4.1.6. Japan Japan is the third largest fossil-?red power producer of the included countries with 578 TWh in 2003. Of this amount, 244 TWh is generated by gas, 243 TWh by coal and 91 TWh by oil. Fig. 3 shows an increase of coal-?red power generation in Japan from 97 TWh in 1990 to 243 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency increases in this period from 39% in 1990 to 42% in 2003. Fig. 8 shows an increase of gas-?red generating ef?ciency in Japan from 42% in 1990 to 44% in 2003. Gas-based electricity generation increased in this period from 161 to 244 TWh, as shown in Fig. 4. Out of a total natural gas capacity in 2000 of 56 GW, 20 GW uses CCGT. The remaining 35 GW capacity is based on conventional steam turbines. Of the latter, 12 GW is dual fuel turbines which use both gas and oil as fuel input (IEA, 2003a). The Japanese Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) mentions the followings reason for the share of conventional steam turbines in gas-?red power plants in Japan. Japanese general electric utilities started to implement gas-?red power plants in response to the oil crises of the 1970s. In those times gas turbines were not implemented yet on a large scale. As a result, utilities implemented conventional steam turbines. In the 1990s

however, utilities implemented combined cycle power plants. Furthermore, utilities will implement more advanced combined cycle (MACC) with 59% (LHV) thermal ef?ciency, among the world’s highest. The ?rst MACC is expected to be online by July 2007. Oil-?red power generation in Japan decreases from 208 TWh in 1990 to 91 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency increases in this period from 42% to 45%. 4.1.7. Nordic countries Total fossil-?red power generation in the Nordic countries is 80 TWh in 2003. Sweden and Norway both have limited fossil power capacity, and generate together only 7 TWh in 2003. Coal-?red power generation in Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway was respectively, 26, 25, 4 and 0.1 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation of Nordic countries ranges from 40% to 42% in the period 1990–2003. Gas-?red power generation is only signi?cant in Denmark and Finland, which produce respectively, 8 and 12 TWh in 2003. Norway has no gas-?red power generation and Sweden generates only 0.4 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation is 46% in 2003 for the Nordic countries. Oil-?red power generation is very small, only 2 TWh in Denmark and 2 TWh in Sweden in 2003. 4.1.8. South Korea Total fossil-?red power generation in South Korea is 182 TWh in 2003, of which 120 TWh is generated by coal, 40 TWh by gas and 22 TWh by oil. The energy-ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation increases strongly from 26% in 1990 to 38% in 2003. Coal-?red power generation increases 10-fold in this period from 12 to 120 TWh. The energy ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation increases from 41% to 51% in the period 1990–2003. Gas-?red power generation increases in this period from 10 to 40 TWh. The energy ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation increases from 38% in 1990 to 44% in 2003. Oil-?red power generation increases from 19 in 1990 to 42 TWh in 1995. After that oil-?red power generation decreases to 22 TWh in 2003. 4.1.9. United Kingdom and Ireland Total fossil-?red power generation in the United Kingdom and Ireland is 287 TWh in 2003, of which 142 TWh is generated from coal, 140 TWh from gas and 5 TWh from oil. Due to the liberalisation of the electricity market in the early 1990s, several less ef?cient coal-?red power plants were closed in the UK, leading to a higher average ef?ciency of coal-?red power plants. In the following years (1996–1997), lower production of coal-based electricity was achieved by reducing the load factor of coal-?red power

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3944 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951

plants, resulting in a decrease of the average ef?ciency of coal-?red power plants. The energy-ef?ciency for coal-?red power plants in UK and Ireland is 38% in 2003. As gas prices decreased, gas-?red power generation capacity increased signi?cantly from 1992 onwards. The large addition of new capacity has resulted in a strong increase of the average ef?ciency of gas-?red power plants, from 40% in 1990 to 51% in 2003. Gas-?red power generation increased from 4 TWh in 1990 to 140 TWh in 2003. Oil-?red power generation is very low, only 5 TWh in 2003.

Oil-?red power generation is 121 TWh in 2003. The energy ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation is 36%. 4.2. Benchmark based on weighted-average ef?ciency Table 1 shows the weighted average ef?ciencies for all countries and regions considered in this study. Figs. 11, 12 and 13 show the deviation of the energyef?ciencies for respectively coal-, gas- and oil-?red power production from the yearly weighted average ef?ciency, in terms of percentage. Note that a decrease of the benchmark indicator for a country might mean that the ef?ciency of the country has decreased or that the weighted average ef?ciency has increased. Fig. 14 shows the benchmark indicator for the energy ef?ciency of fossil-?red power production. 5. Discussion of uncertainties Uncertainties in the analysis arise in the ?rst place from the input data regarding power generation, heat output and fuel input. This uncertainty is reduced by checking IEA statistics with national statistics. Still problems can

4.1.10. United States The United States is the largest fossil-?red power generator of the included countries and generates 2764 TWh in 2003, of which 75% is generated by coal. The energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation remains fairly constant in the period 1990–2003, and is around 36%. The energy ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation increases from 37% in 1990 to 42% in 2003. Electricity generation by gas-?red power plants increases strongly in this period from 283 to 627 TWh.
Table 1 Weighted average ef?ciencies of all countries and regions considered (%) Weighted average ef?ciency Coal Gas Oil 1990 34.7 38.0 38.4 1991 34.9 38.4 38.5 1992 34.8 38.5 38.9 1993 34.8 39.0 38.4 1994 34.9 39.7 39.1

1995 34.6 40.5 38.6

1996 34.6 41.0 39.0

1997 34.3 41.5 38.5

1998 34.3 41.9 37.8

1999 34.8 42.6 38.1

2000 35.0 42.3 38.5

2001 34.9 43.1 37.9

2002 34.9 43.8 38.4

2003 35.2 44.6 38.3

Percentual deviation from weighted-average efficiency (=100%) - Coal

125%

115%

105%

95%

85%

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

75%

65% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 11. Coal-?red ef?ciency relative to weighted average ef?ciency.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951
Percent deviation from weighted-average efficiency (=100%) - Gas 130%

3945

120%

110%
Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 12. Gas-?red ef?ciency relative to weighted average ef?ciency.

Percent deviation from weighted-average efficiency (=100%) - Oil

120%

110%

100%

90%

80%

Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

70%

60% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 13. Oil-?red ef?ciency relative to weighted average ef?ciency.

occur both in national and IEA statistics, resulting e.g. from estimates made by bureaus of statistic to calculate e.g. fuel input from power plants. In some cases fuel inputs are back calculated from assumed energy ef?ciencies. For follow-up research checks can be made with assistance of national experts to determine structural errors and inconsistencies in statistics. A second source of uncertainty is the assumed energy ef?ciency loss resulting from heat generation. In this study, a factor of 0.175 is used. This may be different when heat is

delivered at high temperatures (e.g. to industrial processes). We estimate that the effect on the average ef?ciency is not more than an increase of 0.5 percent-point. A third source of uncertainty arises from structural factors that are not taken into account in the analysis. For instance, a higher ambient temperature leads to a slightly lower ef?ciency (0.1–0.2%/1C). Surface water cooling leads to slightly higher ef?ciencies than the use of cooling towers. The effect of cooling method on ef?ciency may be up to 1–2%.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3946
120% Percent deviation from weighted-average (=100%) - Fossil

W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951

110%
Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States

100%

90%

80% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fig. 14. Benchmark for energy-ef?ciency of fossil-?red power production (based on weighted average ef?ciencies).

4,000 3,500 Energy savings (PJ) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
es nd na an ra pa re di ce an Fr N or
Fig. 15. Energy savings potential with highest ef?ciencies included countries.

at

hi

In

la

Ja

Ko

m

Au

er

Ire

h

G

te

K

ut

So

ni

U

6. Conclusion The energy ef?ciency for fossil-?red power generation of the included companies shows a spread of 10% below to 12% above average ef?ciency. The results from the benchmark based on weighted average ef?ciencies shows that, the Nordic countries, United Kingdom and Ireland, and Japan, perform best in terms of fossil-?red generating ef?ciency and are respectively, 12%, 11% and 10% above average in 2003. South Korea and Germany are 9% and 8% above average ef?ciency in 2003 and the United States and France are 1% above and 1% below average,

respectively. Australia, China and India perform 3%, 6% and 10% below average in 2003. Figs. 15 and 16 show the energy savings potential and corresponding CO2 emission reduction potential if all countries produce electricity at the highest ef?ciencies observed for the included countries (42% for coal, 52% for gas and 45% for oil-?red power generation). These graphs show that there is a large potential for CO2 emission reduction in the power sector by energy ef?ciency improvement; in total 860 Mtonne CO2 for the included countries. These countries generate 65% of worldwide fossil power generation. The potential for emission

di

U

c

co

d

+

un

St

st

C

tri

es

lia

a

n

a

y

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 China United States India Australia Germany Japan UK + Ireland South Korea France Nordic countries

3947

CO2 emission reduction (Mtonne)

Fig. 16. CO2 savings potential with highest ef?ciencies included countries.

reduction is higher when looking at best practise ef?ciencies for new power plant that are 47% for conventional coal-?red power plants (ultra-supercritical units) and 60% for natural gas-?red combined cycle plants (Hendriks et al, 2004). When looking at these best practise ef?ciencies the emission reduction potential for these countries is in total 1400 Mtonne CO2. Acknowledgements

The ef?ciency for coal- and gas-?red power generation in 2003 by IEA (2005a) is found to be close to the ef?ciency from ABARE (2006) for 2003–2004. For oil-?red power generation, the ef?ciency was found to be different, 34.7% by IEA and 36.1% by ABARE. Oil-?red power generation is however very small; only 0.4% of total public power generation. We will use IEA data for the energy ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation. China

This analysis was funded by the Japanese Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI). We would like to thank CRIEPI and Kornelis Blok for reviewing an earlier draught of this paper. Despite all their efforts, any remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily re?ect those of CRIEPI. Appendix Below, energy ef?ciencies based on IEA Energy Balances 2005 are compared to energy ef?ciencies calculated by available national statistics. We only mention differences between statistics if they are larger than 1%. Australia For Australia, energy statistics are available from the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE, 2006).3 These statistics give details about the input and gross output for total fossil-?red power generation by source for the year 2003–2004.
Conversion factors used for converting from gross calori?c value (GCV) to net calori?c value (NCV) are 0.9 for natural gas, 0.93 for oil and 0.97 for coal.
3

For China, the energy ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation is checked by the China Energy Databook (LBNL, 2004) for the period 1990–2002. For the years 1997–2002, the energy ef?ciency is found to be the same as the energy ef?ciency calculated by IEA (2005a). When looking in detail at the statistics from LBNL, it is found that the data for fossil-?red electricity generation and fuel input is different for the period 1990–1996. IEA reports $3 percent point higher fossil?red electricity generation than LBNL (2004). For instance for 1996, the ef?ciency for fossil power generation based on IEA (2005a), is 32% while the ef?ciency based on LBNL (2004) is 29%. For 2002, the energy ef?ciency is 33% according to both sources. We decide to use IEA data for the whole period, because no data is available from LBNL (2004) on the electricity generation by fuel source. Only the total fossil-?red power generation is available. France Fossil-?red power generating capacity is very small in France. No detailed energy statistics could be found to calculate energy ef?ciency. Data on electricity production from fossil-fuel sources is available from INSEE (2005), but this data includes electricity generation from

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3948 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 Table 2 Energy ef?ciency fossil-?red power generation (%) 1990 IEA (2005b) Energiebilanz 2004a 33.6 35.8 1991 34.0 36.2 1992 34.5 36.5 1993 34.6 36.7 1994 34.7 36.7 1995 36.3 37.1 1996 35.2 37.8 1997 35.4 38.0 1998 37.9 38.6 1999 37.6 38.4 2000 38.6 38.9 2001 37.8 39.0 2002 37.0 38.8 2003 39.3 39.6

a The ef?ciency calculated by Energiebilanz is not corrected for heat generation because in these statistics fuel consumption for heat generation is not included in the fuel input data.

auto-producers. Total thermal power generation in 2002 is 50.3 TWh by INSEE in comparison to 27.6 TWh for public power generation given by IEA. A calculation based on European Commission (2003) gives an energy ef?ciency for fossil-?red power generation in France of 37.9% for 2000 in comparison to 37.1% by IEA (2005a). No other detailed energy statistics were available for France, for this study, to look further into this. Germany For Germany we looked at the Energiebilanz 2005 from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (2005). Table 2 shows the results for the energy ef?ciency for fossil-?red power generation calculated by IEA (2005a) and by the Energiebilanz 2005. The data from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen refer to total electricity generation, including electricity generation by auto-producers. The IEA data refer to public power generation. Public power generation is 93% of total power generation in Germany in 2003 (IEA, 2005b). The difference in energy ef?ciency may be caused by the fact that the fuel input data in Energiebilanz only includes fuel consumption for electricity generation and not for heat generation. Total fuel consumption of public CHP plants in Germany is 15% of total fuel consumption by fossil-?red public power plants in 2003 (IEA, 2005b). This could explain the fact that the energy ef?ciency found in the Energiebilanz is generally higher than the IEA values. Since no other detailed energy statistics are available for Germany for this study, we will use IEA (2005a) for Germany. India For India, energy statistics are available from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI, 2006). After comparing these statistics to IEA statistics we noticed that thermal power generation in both sources is the same. The oil input in thermal power plants was also found to be the same.4 For coal input a difference was found of 10–12% higher coal input in IEA statistics for
4 Calculation is based on 42.7 MJ/kg for diesel oil and 41 MJ/kg for heavy fuel oil.

the period 1990–2003. We found that the reason for this could be different conversion factors to convert from tonne coal to energy. IEA uses e.g. a conversion factor of 18 GJ/ tonne coal for India for 2003, while MOSPI uses a conversion factor of 16.6 GJ/tonne coal based on GCV for 2003 (16.1 GJ/tonne based on NCV, with 0.97 conversion from GCV to NCV). This explains the difference in higher coal input in IEA statistics. TERI (2004) gives even lower values for coal input for power generation than MOSPI (2006); 4.3 vs. 4.5 PJ in 2001. IEA gives 5.0 PJ for 2001. In this analysis we will use the fuel input data for coal (corrected to NCV) from MOSPI (2006) to calculate the energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation. Table 3 shows the energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation based on IEA and the energy-ef?ciency based on fuel input for coal from MOSPI (2006). For oil- and gas-?red power generation we just use the values from IEA statistics. Natural gas consumption for power generation is not available in MOSPI (2006). Japan For Japan, the ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation is calculated for the period 1990–2003 by METI (2004).5 Some slight differences are present between the calculations based on IEA (2005a) and METI (2004), but these differences are below 1%. When comparing energy ef?ciency by fuel source it was found that there are differences in power generation by fuel source between the two data sources coal-, gas- and oil?red power generation by METI (2004) in 2003 is respectively, 212, 273 and 84 TWh. IEA (2005a) gives 243, 244 and 91 TWh, respectively for 2003. A reason for this difference may be a difference in the methodology for distributing power generation in case of dual fuel power generation. METI (2004) provides data on electricity generation by plant. In IEA data, electricity generation is split up by fuel source. This can lead to different results if e.g. a gas-?red power plant or unit
5 Statistics are based on data for public power generation with the exception of speci?ed-scale electricity suppliers; named Power Producers and Suppliers (PPS). These PPS generate less than 1% of total public power generation. Data is converted from GCV to NCV by conversion factors from RIETI (2005).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 Table 3 Energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation (%) 1993 IEA (2005a) Fuel input coal from MOSPI (2006) 26.6 29.4 1994 26.6 29.4 1995 26.3 29.0 1996 25.3 27.6 1997 25.6 29.1 1998 25.6 28.8 1999 25.6 28.8 2000 25.7 28.8 2001 25.8 28.8 2002 26.8 30.3 2003 26.8 30.4 3949

consumes oil products or coal products (e.g. coke oven gas or blast furnace gas) as well as natural gas. The electricity generation can then be divided into coal-, gas- and oil-?red power generation or can be entirely included in natural gas?red power generation. A comparison of fuel input data from METI and IEA shows that for natural gas the fuel input data is nearly the same. For coal-?red power generation IEA reports a slightly higher value for fuel input (1–2%). This is compensated by a lower fuel input for oil-?red power generation ($2%). The difference in power generation leads to a difference in energy ef?ciency by fuel source. The energy ef?ciency of coal-, gas- and oil-?red power generation calculated by METI (2004) is around 40–41%, 46–47% and 39%, respectively, based on a plant level. The ef?ciencies based on IEA (2004) are respectively, 41.9%, 44.2% and 45.3% for the year 2002. Because overall fossil-?red power generation ef?ciency calculated by METI (2004) and IEA (2005a) is similar for all years, no changes are made to the data for Japan. In this way the data are most comparable to the data for the other countries, because they are based on the same methodology. Nordic countries For the Nordic countries we compared IEA statistics to national statistics for Denmark and Finland since these countries together generate 87% of the total fossil-?red power generation of the Nordic countries in 2002. For Sweden and Norway we will use IEA statistics. For Denmark, energy statistics are available from the Danish Energy Authority (2005). These statistics give details about total fossil-?red power generation for the period 1990–2004. The ef?ciency for fossil-?red power plants is for most years equal to the ef?ciency based on IEA (2005a). Some slight differences can be caused by the fact that biomass co-?ring is included in the Danish Energy Authority’s data. We decided therefore to use IEA data for Denmark for the whole period. For Finland, IEA statistics are compared to Energy Statistics 2003 (Statistics Finland, 2004). It is dif?cult to compare these two statistics because in Finnish statistics, fuel consumption for combined heat and power (CHP) plants is partly included in the category ‘‘fuel consumption for electricity generation from CHP plants’’ and partly in the category ‘‘fuel consumption for district heat and heat from combined heat and power plants.’’ No further split up

is available for the last category. Additionally heat generation in CHP plants is not available by fuel source and includes heat generated by biomass. Biomass consists for 13% of the fuel consumption for public CHP plants in 2002 (IEA, 2004). Lastly, Finnish energy statistics include autoproducers. Especially the ?rst point is a problem, since 35% of fossil-?red power generation in Finland in 2003 is generated in CHP plants (IEA, 2005b). In order to compare energy ef?ciencies, we back-calculated the energy consumption for heat generation by CHP plants6 and added this to the energy input for electricity generation. The results are shown in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, the differences in energy ef?ciency based on these assumptions are not so large, except for the period 1995–1999. Because of the mentioned differences in de?nitions in IEA statistics and Statistics Finland (2004), and the dif?culty comparing the two, no changes are made for Finland. South Korea For South Korea, energy statistics are available from the Korea National Statistical Of?ce (KOSIS, 2006) and from Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO, 2006).7 Table 5 shows energy ef?ciency by fossil-?red power generation, calculated by both sources. We will use the energy-ef?ciencies for fossil-?red power generation from KOSIS because these values are more consistent than the IEA values and because the number are more similar to the values found from KEPCO. Table 6 shows the energy ef?ciency of power generation by source, calculated by IEA and KEPCO. KOSIS does not provide data on power generation by fuel source. The table shows the energy-ef?ciency values that are used in this study. The ef?ciencies are mostly based on the data from KEPCO, because these values are more consistent than the IEA values.
6 This is based on 90% ef?ciency for alternative heat generation. The heat output from CHP plants is corrected for the input from biomass by subtracting the share of biomass input from total heat generation, in terms of percentage, for all years (IEA, 2005a). 7 Conversion factors used for converting from physical units to NCV are 26.6 MJ/tonne anthracite, 25.7 MJ/tonne bituminous coal, 41 MJ/kl heavy oil, 34.2 MJ/kl diesel and 49.5 MJ/tonne LNG (based on NCVs for South Korea from IEA and IPCC default values). Heat generation is not available and is taken from IEA (2005a) for natural gas and for total fossil-?red power generation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3950 W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 Table 4 Energy ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation in Finland (%) 1990 IEA (2005b) Statistics Finland (2004) 41.6 41.3 1991 41.2 41.0 1992 41.7 42.1 1993 41.2 41.7 1994 41.6 41.7 1995 38.5 42.0 1996 38.6 41.8 1997 37.2 42.3 1998 40.0 43.5 1999 43.2 44.1 2000 42.7 43.1 2001 42.9 42.0 2002 42.3 42.2 2003 40.7 41.3

Table 5 Energy ef?ciency of fossil-?red power generation (%) 1993 IEA KOSIS KEPCO 37.8 36.7 — 1994 40.3 38.2 — 1995 39.2 38.3 — 1996 39.2 38.6 — 1997 38.0 38.9 36.0 1998 40.1 39.3 40.1 1999 38.7 39.2 40.2 2000 37.8 39.4 40.1 2001 37.8 39.9 40.1 2002 42.8 40.3 — 2003 39.7 40.1 —

Table 6 Energy ef?ciency of power generation by source (%) Source Coal IEA KEPCO Used values IEA KEPCO Used values IEA KEPCO Used values Assumption. 1997 35.1 31.9 35.1 45.2 44.7 44.7 37.5 39.2 39.2 1998 37.3 37.4 37.4 49.3 47.3 47.3 40.1 46.3 40.1 1999 36.5 37.0 37.0 47.1 47.9 47.9 35.6 49.4 44.0a 2000 35.7 37.6 37.6 44.0 47.7 47.7 39.2 45.4 45.4 2001 37.0 37.8 37.8 41.7 49.4 49.4 36.3 44.3 44.3 2002 42.4 37.8a 50.1 50.1 34.8 44.0a 2003 37.6 37.6 50.6 50.6 36.4 44.0a

Table 7 Energy ef?ciency of coal-?red power generation (%)a 1990 IEA (2005a) EIA (2005) Ratio: IEA/EIA
a

1991 37.3 36.1 103

1992–1999 36 36 100

2000 36.5 35.9 101

2001 35.0 35.9 97

2002 35.9 36.1 99

2003 36.4 36.2 100

37.2 36.1 103

Gas

Data from IEA (2005b) is based on gross calori?c value. This is converted to net calori?c value by a factor of 0.97 for coal, 0.9 for natural gas and 0.93 for oil.

Oil

United States For the United States, energy ef?ciencies are calculated from the Annual Energy Review 2004 (EIA, 2005). A number of differences were found between EIA and IEA data. Some of these differences may be caused by the fact that EIA reports electricity data in terms of net electricity generation instead of gross electricity generation. The data from EIA are converted to gross electricity generation by a factor of 1.06 for coal, 1.03 for gas and 1.04 for oil.9 Table 7 shows energy ef?ciency by coal-?red power generation, calculated by both sources. The energy ef?ciency for coal-?red power generation differs for the years 1990, 1991, 2000 and 2001. The energy ef?ciency for these years, based on EIA, is more in line with the energy ef?ciency for the years 1992–1999 and 2002. Therefore we replace IEA data by EIA data for these years. Table 8 shows energy ef?ciency by gas-?red power generation, calculated by both sources.
9 Gross electricity generation refers to the electric output of the electrical generator. Net electricity output refers to the electric output minus the electrical power utilised in the plant by auxiliary equipment such as pumps, motors and pollution control devices. These auxiliaries typically utilize 3–6% of a plant’s gross output (FirstEnergy Corporation, 1999). Auxiliary consumption is in general higher for coal-?red power plants than for gas-?red power plants. In this study, we use 6% for coal-?red power generation, 3% for gas-?red power generation and 4% for oil-?red power generation. These values result in ?gures that are most consistent with the gross electricity generation ?gures from IEA (2005a).

a

United Kingdom and Ireland For the United Kingdom and Ireland, we only compared IEA statistics to national statistics for the United Kingdom, because they generate 92% of the total fossil-?red power generation of the United Kingdom and Ireland in 2003. For Ireland we use IEA statistics. Energy statistics for the United Kingdom from DTI (2006) give data for the years 1996–2004.8 The energy ef?ciency for gas-?red power generation, calculated by DTI (2006) and IEA (2005a), is found to be the same. For coal-?red power generation the energy ef?ciency is different for the year 2000; 37.4% by DTI in comparison to 40.3% by IEA. For 2001, 2002 and 2003 the deviation is less than 1%. We use 37.4% for 2000 because this value is more in line with the energy ef?ciencies for the other years (37.7% in 1999 and 37.3% in 2001).
8 Conversion factors used for converting from gross calori?c value (GCV) to net calori?c value (NCV) are 0.9 for natural gas, 0.93 for oil and 0.97 for coal. The gross calori?c values are taken from DTI Annex B Calori?c Values and Conversion Factors. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ inform/energy_prices/annex_b_mar04.shtmland

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.H.J. Graus et al. / Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3936–3951 Table 8 Energy ef?ciency of gas-?red power generation (%) 1992–1993 IEA (2005a) EIA (2005) Ratio: IEA/EIA 38 100 1994 39 100 1995 38.2 38.7 99 1996 38.3 39.1 98 1997 38.0 38.6 98 1998 37.5 38.3 98 1999 37.8 38.4 98 2000 39.6 39.0 102 2001 40.5 40.5 100 2002 41.9 42.1 99 2003 43.1 45.4 95 3951

Table 9 Energy ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation (%) 1993 IEA EIA Ratio: IEA/EIA 38.2 36.3 105 1994 37.9 36.1 105 1995 37.3 35.7 104 1996 36.9 35.9 103 1997 38.0 36.6 104 1998 37.9 36.1 105 1999 37.0 35.6 104 2000 52.4 35.5 148 2001 56.3 36.2 155 2002 40.7 36.3 112 2003 42.4 36.6 116

For gas-?red power generation the difference in energy ef?ciency between the two sources is less than 1% for the years before 1995. From the period 1995–2000 EIA’s energy ef?ciency is $2% higher. We will take EIA data for this period, because this data shows fewer ?uctuations. For 2003 we take IEA data. Table 9 shows energy ef?ciency by oil-?red power generation, calculated by both sources. As can be seen in Table 9, there are large differences in the ef?ciency of oil-?red power generation. We will replace IEA data with EIA data for oil-?red power generation because the EIA dataset seems more reliable, especially for the years 2000–2002, with fewer ?uctuations. References
ABARE, 2006. Electricity generation. Data from ABARE eReport 05.9 Australian energy: national and state projections to 2029–30. /http:// www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energy/excel/ELEC_05.xlsS. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen, 2005. Auswertungstabellen zur Energiebilanz fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1990 bis 2004. ¨ Berlin, Germany. /http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/S (Table 2. 10.1 and /http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten/str0205w1.pdfS, /http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten/vorengl.pdfS, /http://www. ag-energiebilanzen.de/daten/gesamt.pdfS). Danish Energy Authority, 2005. Annual Energy Statistics for 2004, Copenhagen, Denmark /http://www.ens.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_ Figures/Statistics/yearly_statistics/Homepage/sp_frameset.htmS. DTI, 2006. Energy Statistics. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). United Kingdom. /http://www.dti.gov.uk/?les/?le17421.xlsS (Table 5.6 Electricity fuel use, generation and supply. Data for major power producers). EIA, 2005. Annual Energy Review 2004. Report No. DOE/EIA0384(2004). Energy Information Administration (EIA). US Department of Energy (DOE). Washington, DC, United States. /http:// www.eia.doe.gov/aer/elect.htmlS (Table 8.7b Consumption of Combustible Fuels for Electricity Generation and Useful Thermal Output: Electric Power Sector. Table 8.2b Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector, 1949–2004. Table 8.3b Useful Thermal Output at Combined-Heat-and-Power Plants: Electric Power Sector, 1989–2004). European Commission, European Energy and Transport—Trends to 2030, 2003, Brussels, Belgium /http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/ energy_transport/?gures/trends_2030/1_pref_en.pdfS.

Firstenergy Corporation, 1999. Measurement of net versus gross power generation for the allocation of NOx emission allowances. Submitted by FirstEnergy Corp. 27 January 1999. /http://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/fednox/feb99/netvgrow.pdfS. Hendriks, C., Harmelink, M., Burges, K., Ramsel, K., 2004. Power and Heat Productions: Plant Developments and Grid Losses. Ecofys, Utrecht, The Netherlands. ? INSEE, 2005. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes ? Economiques (INSEE). /http://www.insee.fr/S. IEA, 2003a. World Energy Outlook 2002. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. IEA, 2003b. Electricity in India. Providing Power for the Millions. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. IEA, 2005a. Energy Balances of OECD Countries 1960–2003. Energy Balances of non-OECD Countries 1971–2003. nternational Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. IEA, 2005b. Personal Communication on 22-07-05 and 13-07-05. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France. KEPCO, 2006. Information Center. Statistics. Gross power generation. Fuel consumption for generation. /http://www.kepco.co.kr/kepco_ plaza/en/S. KOSIS, 2006. Fuel consumption for power generation. Gross power generation. /http://www.nso.go.kr/eng/index.htmlS. LBNL, 2004. China Energy Databook. Version 6.0. June 2004. China Energy Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, USA. METI, 2004. Overview of Electric Power Supply and Demand 2004. Agency of Natural Resource and Energy; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Tokyo, Japan. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2006. Energy Statistics 2004/2005, Government of India. /http://mospi.nic.in/ stat_act_t3_1.htmS. Phylipsen, G.J.M., Blok, K., Worrell, E., 1998. ‘‘Benchmarking the Energy Ef?ciency of the Dutch Energy-Intensive Industry’’. A Preliminary Assessment of the Effect on Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions. RIETI, 2005. Conversion factors from gross calori?c value to net calori?c value. Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI). Tokyo, Japan. /http://www.rieti.go.jp/users/kainou-kazunari/download/ pdf/taro11-x1031ebs_2.pdfS. Statistics Finland, 2004. Energy Statistics 2003. Helsinki, Finland. TERI, 2004. TERI Energy Data Directory Yearbook 2003/2004 (TEDDY). New Delhi, India. US DOE, 2006. Electricity Statistics. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, US. /http://www.energy.gov/energysources/ electricpower.htmS.


相关文章:
更多相关标签: