International comparison of
fossil power efficiency and
CO2 intensity - Update 2014
FINAL REPORT
International comparison of fossil power
efficiency and CO2 intensity
– Update 2014
FINAL REPORT
By: Charlotte Hussy, Erik Klaassen, Joris Koornneef and Fabian Wigand
Date: 5 September 2014
Project number: CESNL15173
© Ecofys 2014 by order of: Mitsubishi Research Institute, Japan
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the energy efficiency and CO 2-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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other renewables
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
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.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
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.
60%
Efficiency [%]
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Coal
Gas
Oil
Fossil
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.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
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.
50%
45%
Efficiency [%]
Coal
40%
Gas
Oil
35%
Fossil
30%
25%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Performance relative to benchmark
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Coal
Gas
Oil
Fossil
Weighted benchmark
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 fossilfired 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.
1,400
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2009
2010
2011
Average
Figure 5 CO2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
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.
CO2 reduction potential [%]
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
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.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
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.
CO2 reduction potential [Mt CO2]
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
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.
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
Table of contents
1
2
3
Introduction
1
1.1
1
Power generation by fossil-fuel sources
Methodology
8
2.1
Energy efficiency of power generation
8
2.2
Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency
2.3
CO2 intensity power generation
12
2.4
Share of renewable and nuclear power generation
13
Results
9
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
Appendix III: IEA Definitions
84
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
Chamber of Commerce 30161191
1
Introduction
This study is an update of the analysis “International comparison of fossil power generation and CO 2
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 fossilfired power generation worldwide in 2011 (IEA, 2013).
1
5,000
4,500
Electricitry production (TWh)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Other renewables
Hydro
Nuclear
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other renewables
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4000
Australia
3500
Electricity generation (TWh)
China
3000
France
2500
Germany
2000
India
Japan
1500
Korea
1000
Nordic countries
500
UK + Ireland
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 9 Coal-fired power generation.
4
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, Gasfired 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).
1200
Australia
Electricity generation (TWh)
1000
China
France
800
Germany
India
600
Japan
400
Korea
Nordic countries
200
UK + Ireland
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 10 Gas-fired power generation
5
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.
250
Australia
China
Electricity generation (TWh)
200
France
Germany
150
India
Japan
100
Korea
50
Nordic countries
UK + Ireland
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 11 Oil-fired power production.
6
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.
4000
Australia
3500
Electricity generation (TWh)
China
3000
France
2500
Germany
2000
India
Japan
1500
Korea
1000
Nordic countries
500
UK + Ireland
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 12 Fossil-fired power production.
7
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
a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a vapour and the heat is not recovered.
8
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.
3
A change of 1 percent point in efficiency here means a change of e.g. 40% to 41%.
9
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 nonweighted 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.
10
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 outputweighted 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, coalfired, gas-fired and oil-fired power generation for country or region i
11
PCi, PGi and POi
Coal-fired, gas-fired and oil-fired power production for country or
region i
2.3
CO2 intensity 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
Other fuels (biomass, nuclear, etc.)
0
12
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.
13
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
3.1

Content
Energy efficiencies for coal,- gas- and oil-fired power production, including a
simple aggregation of fossil-fired power efficiency
3.2

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
3.5
3.6
CO2 intensities per fuel source and for total power generation per country
CO2 abatement potentials per country when replacing current installed based
by best available technology
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.
14
45%
Australia
China
40%
Efficiency [%]
France
Germany
35%
India
30%
Japan
Korea
25%
Nordic countries
20%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
UK + Ireland
United States
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 coalfired power generation, whereas other regions have experienced very limited up to zero (e.g.
United States) improvement.
15
65%
Australia
60%
China
55%
France
Efficiency [%]
50%
Germany
45%
India
40%
Japan
35%
Korea
30%
Nordic countries
25%
20%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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.
16
60%
Australia
China
50%
Efficiency [%]
France
Germany
40%
India
30%
Japan
Korea
20%
Nordic countries
10%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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 hours 5 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.
17
50%
Australia
China
45%
France
Efficiency [%]
40%
Germany
35%
India
Japan
30%
Korea
25%
Nordic countries
20%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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.
18
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 eightfold 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 gasfired 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% .
19
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:
20

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 coalfired 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 coalfired power plants were closed in the UK, leading to a higher average efficiency of 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%.
21
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.
22
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.
50%
Efficiency [%]
45%
Coal
40%
Gas
Oil
35%
Fossil
30%
25%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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%).
23
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
Performance relative to benchmark
benchmark indicators for coal, gas and oil, and is weighted by power generation output.
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Coal
Gas
Oil
Fossil
Non-weighted benchmark
Figure 18 Average 2009 – 2011 performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective nonweighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the nonweighted 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.
24
Australia
Performance relative to fossil benchmark
120%
China
France
110%
Germany
100%
India
Japan
90%
Korea
80%
Nordic countries
UK + Ireland
70%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
United States
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.
25
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.
50%
45%
Efficiency [%]
Coal
40%
Gas
Oil
35%
Fossil
30%
25%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
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 nonweighted average approach their impact on the average is lower (than in the weighted average
approach) resulting in a lower overall average efficiency for all countries combined.
26
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
Performance relative to benchmark
output.
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Coal
Gas
Oil
Fossil
Weighted benchmark
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.
27
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%.
Performance relative to fossil benchmark
Australia
120%
China
France
110%
Germany
100%
India
Japan
90%
Korea
80%
Nordic countries
UK + Ireland
70%
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
United States
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.
28
3.4
CO2-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.
1,400
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2009
2010
2011
Average
Figure 23 CO2-intensity for coal-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in
2009 - 2011.
29
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.
700
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2009
2010
2011
Average
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.
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2009
2010
2011
Average
Figure 25 CO2-intensity for oil-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in
2009 - 2011.
30
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.
1,400
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2009
2010
2011
Average
Figure 26 CO2-intensity for fossil fuel-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2intensity 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.
31
1,000
CO2 intensity [g/kWh]
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
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 fossilfired 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.
32
Note that the chart with specific potential (Figure 28) gives an indication for the GHG inefficiency 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.
CO2 reduction potential [g/KWh]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
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.
33
CO2 reduction potential [Mt CO2]
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
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.
CO2 reduction potential [%]
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
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.
34
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.
35
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.
120%
10%
100%
8%
80%
6%
4%
2%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 31 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 – 2011 in Australia.
36
power production relative to the year 2000
140%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
12%
3.5%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
3.0%
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
2.5%
Bio
Wind
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 32 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in Australia.
37
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 12 th FiveYear 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
Coal
739
960
Gas
39
56
Nuclear
Hydropower
Wind
(grid-
connected)
Solar
(PV and CSP)
2020
12
40
213
290
420
100
200
(o.w. 5 offshore)
(o.w. 30 offshore)
21
50
62
3
(o.w. 1 CSP)
(o.w. 1 CSP)
10
13
30
Geothermal
0
100
Ocean
0
50
Total
1078
1490
Biomass
38
350%
20%
300%
250%
15%
10%
5%
200%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
150%
100%
50%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 33 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in China.
1.6%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
1.4%
Geothermal
Ocean
1.2%
Solar
Bio
1.0%
Wind
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 34 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in China.
39
power production relative to the year 2000
400%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
25%
France
France traditionally has an extremely high share of nuclear power of about 80%. This,
combined with the share of 9% to 14% of hydropower, makes power from fossil fuels only
marginal and suggests little room for the deployment of renewable power production
technologies if nuclear and hydropower production remain equally dominant in the future.
However, since 2004 there has been an increase in wind power production from almost nonexistent to ~2.1% in 2011 due to the feed-in tariff provided by the Government.
France is the only country within the scope of this study that generates any notable (albeit still
very limited with 0.1%) amounts of electricity by means of tidal energy. One of the largest
facilities is the Rance Tidal Power station that has been operating for more than 40 years.
The National Renewable Energy Action Plan has a binding target of 23% renewable energy in
gross final energy consumption in 2020 (EU target). Feed-in tariffs are used for most renewable
energy sources and tender schemes are applied to offshore wind, solar PV (>100 kW),
bioenergy (>12 MW) and hydropower. France also introduced the Nitrogen Autonomy Plan in
2013 with the aim to commission 1000 biogas plants until 2020. The amount of PV projects
tenders has also been increased.
90%
100%
80%
70%
80%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 35 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in France.
40
power production relative to the year 2000
120%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
100%
3.0%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
Geothermal
2.5%
Ocean
Solar
Bio
2.0%
Wind
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 36 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in France.
41
Germany
Germany has a relatively diverse portfolio of renewable power production technologies deployed
that steadily increased from 6.6% in 2000 up to 21.8% in 2011. In 2011, large quantities of
wind power (8.9%), hydropower (3.1%), bioenergy (5.3%) and solar power (3.5%) were
generated. This increase has been brought about by strong support from Government policies
such as the feed-in tariff and several finance programmes of the KfW bank. Due to the large
and fast deployment of PV (17.5 GW in 2010, 25 GW in 2011, 33 GW in 2012) a cap for PV was
introduced in 2012 (52 GW). In addition further measures for accelerated grid expansion were
implemented. Installment of offshore wind has partially been slowed by inadequate grid
connection.
In 2014 the amendment of the renewable energy act (EEG) was passed that introduced a fixed
pathway for renewable power, e.g. a cap of 2.5 GW newly installed capacity per year for
onshore wind). Furthermore a pilot auction scheme was indtroduced for ground-mounted PV
plants and the aim to introduce auction schemes to other renewable power technologies by
2017 was presented. There is also an obligation for direct marketing of renewable power in
order to increase the market integration of renewable power plants.
The deployment of nuclear power facilities has slowly declined from 32% to 25%. In 2011, after
the Fukushima accident, the decision was taken to phase out nuclear power stations by 2022
and the eight oldest of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants have already been permanently
shut down.
40%
100%
35%
30%
80%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 37 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in Germany.
42
power production relative to the year 2000
120%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
45%
20.0%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
18.0%
16.0%
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
14.0%
Bio
Wind
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 38 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in Germany.
43
Japan
Japan’s share of nuclear power production fluctuated between 26% and 35% between 2000 and
2010. Following the Fukushima accident in 2011 the share more than halved to 11.3%. Hydropower
has the highest share of renewable energy production in Japan. In the past it fluctuated between
7% and 10%, showing a slightly declining trend.
A constant 0.3% of the total public power production originates from geothermal sources. Until 2004
this was, apart from industrial and (renewable) municipal waste combustion, practically the only
source of renewable power production. In 2005, a single year increase of primary solid biofuels is
observed (from 0 to 0.3%), which remained constant until 2010 due to a lack of policy incentives. In
2011 it counted for 1.0% of the public power production. The Renewable Energy Act of August 2011
and the feed-in tariff scheme introduced in 2012 should have the effect of increasing renewable
power production in future. It obliges electricity utilities to purchase power from renewable energy
sources at fixed prices. The government has set the target to increase the renewable energy share
to 25% by 2020. The post-Fukushima policies are expected to result in huge increases in installed
capacity of PV (e.g. from 5 GW in 2011 to >20 GW in 2015). For wind, grid integration may result in
constraints. Japan has however strongly increased its feed-in tariff for offshore wind. At the same
time Japan reduced its PV tariff by 10% in 2013 and by 11% in 2014.
45%
100%
40%
35%
80%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 39 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 20011 in Japan.
44
power production relative to the year 2000
120%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
50%
1.6%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
1.4%
Geothermal
Ocean
1.2%
Solar
Bio
1.0%
Wind
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 40 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 – 2011 in Japan.
45
Nordic countries (interconnected grid of the Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland)
The region traditionally has a low dependence on fossil fuels. During 2000 - 2011, renewable
energy generation fluctuated between 51% and 64% of the total public power supply. The main
source of electricity is hydropower (Norway, Sweden, Finland), which is generally responsible
for more than half of the total public power production, followed by nuclear power (Sweden).
However, the deployment of new wind farms and the use of primary solid biofuels have
increased gradually in the past decade to a combined 8.5% for each. Interestingly power
production portfolio differs significantly among the different countries of the region:
•
Norway is almost completely hydro-powered. In the last decade the share of hydropower
has marginally decreased as wind power produced 1% of the public power in 2011. Since
Norway has a joint Tradable Green Certificates Scheme with Sweden, the renewables
support policy can be found below.
•
Denmark became a very large wind (increase from 13% to 30%) and biomass energy
producer (1 to 10%) in 2000 - 2011. Denmark has a diversified support system for
renewable power and has been successful in integrating a high share of wind in the
electricity grid. The long term policy goal for Denmark is to be fully independent of fossil
fuels by 2050 and this is supported by the Energy Agreement reached in March 2012.
Denmark is ahead of its schedule to meet the 30% RES target for 2020. In 2011 already
22.2% of total final energy consumption was renewable. Renewable power installations are
supported through feed-in premiums with the exception of auctions for offshore wind.
Recentily the premiums for biogas have been increased and loan guarantees and invesmtnet
grants for small renewables power installations are in place.
•
Finland has about one-third nuclear power, one-fifth hydropower, and in 2011 about 8%
power from biogenic sources. Power from bioenergy shows the largest increase and is a
focus for future development. Finland introduced the Second Progress Report with further
support policies such as higher wind power tariffs. A feed-in premium is in place for wind,
solid biomass and biogas. In terms of wind deployment, Finland is however behind its target
which might be caused by lengthy planning and permitting procedures.
•
In the past decade, Swedish power has been nuclear and hydro-based (together responsible
for more than 88% every year from 2000 – 2011). The past decade, there has been a rapid
uptake of the share of power from bio energy and wind of up to 3.1% and 4.2%
respectively. There is a mix of instruments to promote renewable energy including a
technology-neutral tradable green certificates scheme. Since the beginning of 2012, this has
expanded to create a common market with Norway for these certificates. In 2013 quota
levels have been increased and tax exemptions have been introduced for wind energy.
46
90%
100%
80%
70%
80%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
power production relative to the year 2000
120%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
100%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 41 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the Nordic Countries.
10.0%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
9.0%
8.0%
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
7.0%
Bio
Wind
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 42 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the Nordic
Countries.
47
India
On average, India had a share of 15% hydropower and 3% nuclear power respectively. The
share of nuclear power is decreasing, but this is mainly due to the increase in power production
in India, i.e. in absolute terms nuclear power production has increased significantly. Public
power production increased by 84% from 2000 to 2011. There has also been a steady increase
in wind power en bio energy generation of up to 2.5% and 3% respectively. However, the
development of electricity transmission infrastructure has been relatively slow and in August
2012 there were wide-scale black outs. This could become an issue for further development of
some renewables although there are opportunities for local power provision.
Renewable energy policies have been unstable in all states in the last period. By the end of
2017/2018 (the end of the 12th Five Year Plan period) 9% of the power should be non-hydro
renewable, and 12% large hydropower. A renewable portfolio obligation level is set at state
level based on a national goal of 15% renewable power by 2020. The government also pledget
to increase its renewable power capacity from 25GW in 2012 to 55GW in 2017. Feed-in tariffs
are used at state level for different technologies. There is also a renewable power purchase
obligation for utilities that can be fulfilled through renewable energy certificates. However, the
certificates market has been highly unstable and crashed in summer 2013. There has recently
been pressure by the state government of Gujarat to reduce the feed-in tariff rates, but the
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission decided to retain rates. In gernerall, all renewable
sources except for biomass plants above 10 MW have dispatch priority.
Table 5 Power generation capacity targets under the Five-Year Plans of India (GW)
11th Plan 2007-2012
11th Plan 2007-2012
12th Plan 2012-2017
Targeted additions
Achieved additions
Targeted additions
59.6
48.5
72.3
3.3
0.8
5.3
15.6
5.5
10.8
Wind
9.0
10.2
15.0
Solar
0.1
0.9
10.0
Other renewables
3.1
3.5
5.0
90.9
69.5
118.5
Thermal (coal and gas)
Nuclear
Large hydropower
Total
48
180%
20%
160%
140%
15%
10%
5%
120%
100%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 43 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in India.
6.0%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
Geothermal
5.0%
Ocean
Solar
Bio
4.0%
Wind
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 44 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in India.
49
power production relative to the year 2000
200%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
25%
United States
The share of nuclear (20% to 22%) and hydropower (5% to 7%) production remained very
constant (in absolute terms there have been small increases) over 2000 - 2011. The renewable
power generation technologies deployed mostly use intermittent sources such as wind (3%)
and next to those, geothermal reservoirs (0.4%) and biofuels (0.5%). Over the period 2000 2011, the fastest growth in renewable energy is in wind power. The energy mix and energy
prices in the US have been affected significantly in recent years by the availability of relatively
cheap shale gas. The incentives for renewable energy depend on the state, as well as the
national government.
Although there is no federal target, 29 out of the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) have
a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in place. Recently Renewable Portfolio Standards have
however been revised in serveral states, altering standards for different technologies or
including small-scale installations.The main federal support for renewable power is through
fiscal measures (accelerated depreciation schemes, investment and production tax credits).
30%
100%
25%
80%
20%
15%
10%
5%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 45 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the United States.
50
power production relative to the year 2000
120%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
35%
4.5%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
4.0%
Geothermal
Ocean
3.5%
Solar
Bio
3.0%
Wind
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 46 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the United
States.
51
United Kingdom and Ireland (interconnected grid of the United Kingdom and Ireland)
Less than 10% of the total power generation (including fossil power) is produced in Ireland. All
nuclear power facilities are located in the UK. These are responsible for about 20% of the total
public power produced. In 2011, the share of total renewable power production was 8% with
about half from wind turbines. New electricity market reforms announced in 2011, aim to
increase the proportion of non-fossil fired power generation. The uncertainty about the details
of the reform resulted in lower deployment rates and higher costs of capital for renewables.
Currently there is a technology-specific quota scheme with tradable green certificates as well as
a feed-in tariff scheme for small installations. In 2014 the United Kingdom has introduced a socalled Contract for Differences that includes key elements of a feed-in premium scheme.
In Ireland a technology-specific feed-in tariff and tax relief for corporate equity investments are
the main policy instruments. Although support levels are comparatively low, onshore wind is
the dominant technology being applied. This is due to the high electricity market price and the
good wind sites with low generation costs.
The share of nuclear power production shows a drop in 2008 and increase in the subsequent
year. Recently the UK has decided to build several new nuclear plants that will be financed
120%
25%
100%
20%
80%
15%
10%
5%
60%
Waste
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
Bio
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
40%
20%
0%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
= total public power production relative to year 2000
Figure 47 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the UK and Ireland.
52
power production relative to the year 2000
30%
Development of total public
Share in total public power production (%)
through the Contract for Difference scheme.
7.0%
Share in total public power production (%)
Waste
6.0%
Geothermal
Ocean
Solar
5.0%
Bio
Wind
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 48 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the UK and
Ireland.
53
4
Conclusions
Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and is
responsible for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The main purpose of this study is to compare fossil-fired power generation efficiency for several
countries over the period 1990 – 2011. A distinction is made between different energy carriers
(coal, oil, gas and fossil in general) and the countries taken into account comprise: Australia,
China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries7, South Korea, United Kingdom and
Ireland, and the United States. In total, the abovementioned regions and countries were
responsible for 68% of the public worldwide fossil-fired power generation in 2011.
Secondly, the CO2 intensity and CO2 reduction potential of public power production is determined
for these countries and Canada and Italy.
Finally, the development of the share of renewables in the public power mix in 2000-2011,
distinguishing the different renewable energy sources, has also been investigated.
In this study two approaches are applied for benchmarking energy efficiency: (1) by using nonweighted average efficiencies and (2) by using weighted average efficiencies by countries’
electricity generation. Although the exact numbers for the two approaches differ, the general
results, in terms of which countries are most efficient, are roughly the same.
On average in the period 2009-2011, the benchmark for fossil power based on weighted average
efficiencies shows that the Nordic countries had a 10% higher weighted fossil efficiency, followed
by the United Kingdom and Ireland (+9%), Japan, Germany, South Korea (all in the range of
+9% to +7%) and the United States (+3%). China, Australia and France all perform within +1%
to -6% compared to the benchmark, while India has the lowest performance (-21%).
For the period 1990-2011 the following can be concluded when considering the weighted average
efficiencies for the studied countries:

Gas-fired power: the efficiency shows a strong increase from 39% 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%.

Coal-fired power: only a very minor increase in efficiency is observed 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 takes place in China and India, where efficiencies
of coal plants remained relatively low by 2011 (despite a significant increase of +7%pts
over 1990 – 2011 in the case of China). Power generation increased by +136%.
7
Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated
54

Oil-fired power: The use of oil for power production has declined drastically over the
course of 1990 - 2011. As a result, oil-fired power played only a marginal role in the total
fossil public power in 2011.
 Fossil-fired power: the efficiency increased from 35% to 38% which corresponds to an
annual average improvement of 0.3%. The limited improvement in energy efficiency is
caused by the large installed base that is being replaced slowly and the dominance of
coal as fuel for public power production.
It is found that if all plants currently operating in these countries were replaced by plants
operating according to best available technology (BAT) efficiencies, CO2 emissions related to
fossil power production would be 23% lower on average due to the improved energy efficiency
(not taking into account fuel switch).
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 power generation and the extent to which this occurs by making use of inefficient
technologies combusting CO2-intensive fuels.
In most countries assessed, the share of nuclear and hydropower production typically remained
constant in the past decade (2000 - 2011), although in Japan and Germany the share of nuclear
power notably declined in 2011 following the shutdown of nuclear power plants.
By the year 2000, production from renewable sources other than hydropower did not exceed 1%
of the generated power in the public mix with only very few exceptions (Germany, Nordic
Countries). However, from 2000 up to 2011, in most countries a significant uptake of the use of
renewable power generation technologies can be observed. The strongest average growth in the
share of renewables in the public mix in 2000-2011 occurred in Germany, the Nordic Countries
and the United Kingdom and Ireland. The share of power generation from wind and biogenic
sources experienced the largest increases.
55
5
Discussion of uncertainties &
recommendations for follow-up work
In this chapter a few points of uncertainty are discussed and recommendations for improvement
are given (in bold).
1.
Currently the scope of this study is public power generation only. The reason for this is
that the IEA historically distinguishes between private and public power generation (e.g.
heavy industry with autonomous power supply vs. public power plants). However, the
boundaries between public and private power production have slowly faded within the
past decade(s). This trend is expected to continue. A relevant example is the use of
decentralized power generation by individual households (e.g. by means of solar panels).
As a consequence, the classical statistical distinction between public and private power
generation is slowly becoming less applicable for studying public power production.
In future work, the scope could be expanded by not only taking into account public, but
total (i.e. including private) public power production.
2.
Uncertainties in the analysis arise in the first place from the input data regarding power
generation, heat output and fuel input. This uncertainty is reduced by comparing IEA
statistics to national statistics. However it was found that it is often difficult to compare
national statistics to IEA statistics due to a different method of representing statistics
(e.g. net versus gross power generation, fuel input based on net or gross calorific value,
different method for combined-heat and power plants). In a number of cases no
sufficiently detailed statistics were available to calculate efficiencies per fossil fuel source.
Therefore IEA statistics remain the main data source for this analysis, with a few changes
based on national statistics (for the United States only data from EIA (2012) has been
used). For a number of countries efficiencies based on IEA show sharp increases or
decreases for individual years that cannot be explained, especially in the most recent
year available. Therefore we show, in some cases, results as average efficiencies for the
three most recent years (2009 - 2011) to reduce this uncertainty.
For follow-up research checks can be made with assistance of national statistical
experts to determine structural errors and inconsistencies in statistics.
56
3.
In the CO2-intensity analysis, uncertainties arise mainly from the CO 2 emission factor
used per fuel source. We based the analysis on average CO2 emission factors per fuel
category (hard coal, lignite, natural gas and oil).
However, the emissions factor for specific fuel type used in a country can be different
(e.g. different type of hard coal or oil). The resulting uncertainty is estimated to be lower
than 10%, which is possibly a substantial influence.
We recommend improving this study by using national emission factors in calculating
the total emissions and the CO2 reduction potential. In addition, national calorific
values would allow us to calculate efficiencies based on those national statistics that
only give fuel input in units of weight (and not in units of energy). This is the case for
e.g. China, the largest generator of fossil-fired power in 2009.
4.
Another source of uncertainty is the assumed energy efficiency 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 efficiency is not more than an increase of 0.5 percent-point.
We recommend carrying out an assessment of the validity of the 0.175-factor.
5.
Also uncertainty arises from some structural factors that are not taken into account in the
analysis. For instance, a higher ambient temperature leads to a slightly lower efficiency
(0.1-0.2%/°C). Surface water cooling leads to slightly higher efficiencies than the use of
cooling towers. The effect of cooling method on efficiency may be up to 1-2 percent
point.
We do not recommend further work on this point.
57
6

References
ABARE (2011). Table F 08 Australian energy consumption, by industry and fuel.
http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energyUPDATE09/htm/data.htm
Electricity generation per fuel source: Australian energy: national and state projections to
2029-30.

http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energy_dec06/excel/ELEC06_aus.xls
ABARE (2011b). Andrew Schultz and Rebecca Petchey. June 20118 p.3.

Borkent, B.M. (2010). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity.
Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Ecofys (2013). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity. Ecofys
–Update of with IEA data for the year 2009. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

EIA (2013). Annual Energy Review 2011. Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2010). October, 2011.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). US Department of Energy (DOE). Washington
D.C., United States. Table 8.2b, 8.3b and 8.4b.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

EIA (2014). Annual Energy Review. able 8.11a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All
Sectors), 1949-2011. Available online:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0811a

European Commission (EC), 2006. Reference document on best available techniques for
large combustion plants.

European Commission (2003). European energy and transport – Trends to 2030. Brussels,
Belgium.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030/1_pref_en.pdf

European Commission (2006). European Directive: Integration Pollution, Prevention and
Control, Best Available Techniques.

Graus, W. (2009). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity.
Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

IEA (2004). Energy balances of OECD countries 1960 - 2002. International Energy Agency
(IEA). Paris, France.

IEA (2005a). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. International Energy Agency (IEA).
Paris, France.

IEA (2013). Energy balances of OECD countries 1960 - 2011 and Energy balances of nonOECD countries 1971-2011. International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France.

IEA (2005b). Personal communication with Antonio Di Cecca on 22-07-05 and Yuichiro
Torikata on 13-07-05. International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France.
8
http://bree.gov.au/documents/data/ausenergystats/EnergyUpdate_2011_REPORT.docx
58

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 (2014). Energy Technology Perspectives. Available online:
http://www.iea.org/etp/etp2014/restrictedaccessarea/

LBNL (2004). China Energy Databook. Version 6.0. June 2004. China Energy Group,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Berkeley, United States.

MOSPI (2013). Energy Statistics 2012, Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Government of India.
http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/site/home.aspx
 Energy Statistics 2013  Sections 3 and 6.

New York Times (2009). China outpaces the U.S. in cleaner coal-fired plants. Online
available: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=0

Phylipsen, G.J.M., W.H.J. Graus, K. Blok, Y. Hofman, M. Voogt (2003). International
Comparisons of Energy Efficiency - Results For Iron & Steel, Cement And Electricity
Generation, Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Phylipsen, G.J.M. (2000). International Comparisons & National Commitments, Analysing
energy and technology differences in the climate debate, PhD thesis, April 2000, Utrecht
University. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Phylipsen, G.J.M. K. Blok and E. Worrell (1998). “Benchmarking the energy efficiency of
the Dutch energy-intensive industry”, A preliminary assessment of the effect on energy
consumption and CO2 emissions, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht
University. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Platts
(2006).
World
Electric
Power
Plant
Database
(WEPP).
United
States.
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?products_id=85

Siemens (2008). Olympic efficiencies. Available online:
http://www.siemens.com/innovation/pool/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_2
008/energy/coal_china/pof108_energie_coalchina_en.pdf

Siemens/TÜV (2012). Award for world’s most efficient gas turbine power plant, press
release: Erlangen, February 12, 2012

Statistics Finland (2011). Production of electricity and heat by production mode and fuel
type; Table 01. Electricity and heat production by production mode and fuel in 2008.

UNFCCC (2008). Greenhouse gas inventory data.
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php

VGB (2004). Anlage 1: Jahresnutzungsgrade (netto) von fossil befeuerten
Kraftwerksanlagen gemäß den „besten verfügbaren Kraftwerkstechniken“.

German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. The
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009.
http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdf
59

Worldwatch Institute. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010 – 2011.
http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FIN
AL.pdf
60
Appendix I: Comparison national statistics
In this section, energy-efficiencies based on IEA Energy Balances 20139 are compared to
energy efficiencies calculated by available national statistics. This is done by using data on fuel
input, power generation and heat output and calculating efficiencies as explained in section 2.1.
We only mention differences between statistics if they are larger than 1%, since the uncertainty
range of IEA statistics is considered to be 1% to 2%, equivalent to 0.5-1 %pts.
India
For India energy statistics are available from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation (MOSPI, 2013) for the years 1990 - 201010. Thermal power generation in
MOSPI is split into fuel consumption by fuel source. However, power production is not
differentiated by fossil fuel source and thus only a total fossil power production figures is
available. Furthermore, the data series is incomplete for the period of 1990 - 2010: annual data
is only available for 2005 - 2010 and for some historic years.
After comparing fuel input for coal-based power in MOSPI statistics to IEA, we noticed that coal
consumption for power generation is 10-13% lower in MOSPI statistics for all years considered.
We found that the reason for this is the use of different energy contents for coal. In IEA
statistics an energy content of 18.7 GJ/tonne coal is used for 2004 (Graus, 2009), while MOSPI
uses an energy content fluctuating between 16.0-17.8 GJ/tonne coal (GCV) for coal
corresponding to 15.5-17.3 GJ/tonne (NCV) assuming a conversion factor of 0.97.
In contrast to earlier versions of this report, coal input data from IEA (2012) is used in this
year’s report. The higher calorific value used by the IEA could no longer be confirmed in the
public domain. The impact is a coal generation efficiency of 1-4 %pts lower than if MOSPI
statistics would be used for coal input. Note that this has a comparable impact on the overall
energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation as coal is the fuel in use predominantly for
power production in India. The fuel consumption for gas is found to be same as in IEA statistics
2012. For oil we observe an unexplained discrepancy with IEA statistics. However, as less than
2% of the total power production originates from oil, the impact of this difference becomes
negligible on the overall fossil fuel efficiency.
9
An updates in IEA Energy Balances does not only add a subsequent year to the dataset but often also includes updates of data for
earlier years. Therefore, for these years energy efficiencies in this report can differ compared to Graus (2009) and updates.
10
In the Indian statistics book years are used. I.e. 1990 refers to 1990/1991.
61
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
IEA
2004
2006
2008
2010
MOSPI
Figure 49 Energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation (%).
United States
For the United States, energy efficiencies are calculated from the Annual Energy Review 2013
(EIA, 2013). The US report power generation GCV (or HHV) basis and concerns net electricity
generation. To be consistent with this study the EIA data is multiplied by the factors shown
below to yield NCVs and gross electricity generation11.
Table 6 Conversion factors
Energy
Net calorific
Gross electricity
carrier
value
production
Coal
0.97
1.06
Oil
0.93
1.03
Natural gas
0.90
1.05
Figure 50 shows energy efficiency by coal-fired power generation, calculated by both sources.
11
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.
Auxiliary consumption is in general higher for coal-fired power plants than for gas-fired power plants. In this study we use 6% for
coal-fired power generation, 3% for gas-fired power generation and 5% for oil-fired power generation. These values result in figures
that are most consistent with the gross electricity generation figures from IEA.
62
Energy efficiency [%]
38%
36%
34%
32%
30%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
IEA
2004
2006
2008
2010
EIA
Figure 50 Energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation.
The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation in both sources differs significantly. The
energy efficiency based on EIA seems more reliable because it is more consistent. We therefore
replace IEA data by EIA data for all years and fuels.
Figure 51 shows energy efficiency by oil-fired power generation, calculated by both sources. As
can be seen, there are large differences in the efficiency of oil-fired power generation for the
years 2000, 2001 and 2002. IEA efficiencies in 2000 and 2001 are suggested to be above BAT
efficiencies. We replace IEA data with EIA data for oil-fired power generation because the EIA
data set shows a more consistent and realistic trend.
Energy efficiency [%]
58%
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%
30%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
IEA
2004
2006
2008
2010
EIA
Figure 51 Energy efficiency of oil-fired power generation (%).
Figure 52 shows the energy efficiency by gas-fired power generation, calculated by both
sources.
63
Energy efficiency [%]
54%
50%
46%
42%
38%
34%
30%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
IEA
2004
2006
2008
2010
EIA
Figure 52 Energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation (%).
The chart shows a discrepancy which is in the range of 0.3-3.5 %pts. On the basis of the result
of the comparison for oil and coal, in which EIA statistics appear to be more reliable, for
reasons of consistency we also use EIA data statistics for gas.
When comparing the overall difference between the fossil efficiency based on IEA and EIA
statistics, EIA statistics prove more consistent.
Energy efficiency [%]
42%
40%
38%
36%
34%
32%
30%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
IEA
2000
2002
2004
2006
EIA
Figure 53 Energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation in the United States (%).
64
2008
2010
Resulting energy-efficiencies
The tables below show energy efficiencies for coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired and fossil-fired
power generation. Unless otherwise specified the numbers are based on IEA (2013). Some
corrections are made, based on the comparison of IEA data to national statistics in Appendix I.
This is indicated by footnotes.
In Table 10 differences between the efficiency of fossil power generation between this report
and last year’s report (Ecofys, 2013) is shown. Differences are the result of changes in
historical data of the IEA (2013) database compared the IEA (2012) database and differences in
national statistics updates for the US (EIA, 2013) and India (MOSPI, 2013). Table 11 provides
explanations for the differences found.
65
Table 7 Efficiency of coal-fired power generation (%)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.6
37.3
36.8
36.7
36.8
35.4
35.0
35.7
35.7
31.9
33.0
32.7
32.9
32.9
33.0
32.9
31.7
33.1
33.3
CH
28.9
29.4
30.1
29.8
30.8
29.7
28.4
31.3
30.5
31.6
32.1
32.0
31.6
31.5
31.5
32.1
32.6
34.3
34.1
34.4
35.4
35.7
FR
39.5
41.7
42.9
38.2
39.3
38.5
38.9
35.8
38.2
37.1
37.2
38.3
38.8
39.6
39.4
39.5
39.1
38.7
36.0
38.2
41.6
43.2
DE
34.4
35.1
35.1
35.6
35.8
36.3
36.2
36.5
37.6
37.9
38.6
37.3
37.8
39.7
38.0
39.8
38.2
38.2
39.1
37.5
38.8
38.5
IN
28.2
28.1
27.7
27.5
27.6
27.1
26.1
26.5
26.3
26.2
26.4
26.5
27.5
27.4
26.6
26.0
26.2
25.8
25.9
26.1
25.8
27.1
JP
39.7
39.9
40.4
40.1
40.4
40.4
40.5
40.9
41.0
41.0
41.0
40.9
41.3
41.3
41.1
41.0
40.9
40.8
40.8
40.7
40.8
40.5
KR
25.8
23.4
25.9
30.0
34.4
36.5
33.2
35.1
37.3
36.5
34.3
36.8
39.1
37.5
35.3
35.5
35.4
39.0
38.6
36.6
36.5
35.5
DK+FI+SE
39.5
39.6
39.6
40.7
41.4
41.6
41.0
40.7
40.4
41.7
41.2
41.5
41.5
41.2
40.0
39.7
40.3
40.4
39.8
40.3
40.7
40.4
UK+IE
37.3
38.1
36.9
38.3
38.2
39.2
39.1
37.6
37.3
37.6
38.1
37.5
38.1
38.4
37.9
37.6
37.7
37.6
38.0
37.9
37.6
37.7
US
36.1
36.1
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.1
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.1
36.0
36.0
36.1
36.2
36.1
36.0
36.1
36.0
36.0
35.8
35.8
35.8
Table 8 Efficiency of gas-fired power generation (%)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
36.7
36.9
36.8
37.6
34.5
37.1
36.1
35.5
36.3
37.4
37.6
37.0
36.7
55.5
52.9
39.6
39.1
39.0
40.1
37.4
41.9
39.6
CH
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9
FR
41.3
41.0
41.0
43.7
43.0
50.6
46.4
40.6
40.1
39.7
49.5
46.0
47.5
47.6
49.2
48.9
48.2
47.6
45.7
34.6
31.7
34.0
DE
32.6
31.3
30.0
30.7
29.1
35.2
33.6
34.7
37.2
36.3
39.0
38.5
38.1
42.8
41.9
41.5
41.9
43.8
44.8
44.1
45.5
47.1
IN
23.2
24.9
28.2
32.0
36.7
37.8
40.4
44.1
49.2
57.7
56.9
53.1
52.1
52.4
52.8
53.2
55.7
60.2
59.0
46.9
43.1
50.6
JP
43.2
43.4
43.4
43.1
43.5
43.8
44.3
44.9
45.1
45.8
46.1
46.3
46.6
46.6
46.5
46.4
46.5
46.5
47.1
47.6
47.8
47.5
KR
40.5
40.6
40.3
42.3
42.3
42.2
44.8
45.2
49.3
47.1
45.2
41.9
50.1
50.6
50.4
50.6
51.6
50.9
51.0
51.0
51.1
51.6
DK+FI+SE
44.5
44.8
43.9
43.7
42.4
39.5
42.7
40.7
43.8
45.3
45.4
45.8
45.2
46.2
47.1
47.0
47.4
46.9
47.2
46.4
47.9
47.2
UK+IE
40.4
41.9
35.1
40.6
45.6
47.3
47.1
49.4
49.3
50.0
50.1
50.4
51.5
51.1
51.4
51.1
50.0
51.5
51.9
51.5
52.2
53.2
US
37.9
38.1
38.9
39.6
39.7
39.7
40.3
39.8
39.4
39.6
40.1
41.6
43.7
45.0
47.9
48.1
48.0
48.2
48.7
49.3
49.1
49.2
66
Table 9 Efficiency of oil-fired power generation (%)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
21.8
26.6
27.1
24.1
33.0
30.8
33.7
41.5
19.6
15.6
29.2
29.9
30.7
30.5
31.0
32.0
38.5
33.9
33.9
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
35.8
36.3
36.2
37.0
35.4
33.5
72.3
54.6
57.0
51.1
45.3
35.6
33.7
35.8
32.9
25.7
29.4
30.3
26.4
26.3
28.3
30.4
30.4
31.4
31.8
22.9
26.9
42.6
45.5
36.3
40.9
33.5
33.7
37.2
36.8
37.1
36.8
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
17.2
17.9
17.4
17.5
17.9
18.6
18.4
10.8
14.8
13.9
23.5
20.0
41.7
41.6
40.7
41.4
41.1
41.1
40.7
40.5
40.7
40.6
39.8
40.9
41.1
40.8
40.9
40.5
41.8
41.5
41.3
41.5
41.4
35.9
37.1
38.7
40.5
43.1
38.4
42.6
35.8
38.0
33.8
32.1
33.3
33.0
34.6
33.5
32.6
32.2
37.2
37.2
37.7
38.4
45.8
DK+FI+SE
38.5
37.5
40.0
39.5
41.9
41.1
40.4
41.4
36.6
39.1
39.2
37.9
39.9
44.6
36.1
36.9
37.9
37.2
38.8
33.4
37.3
35.9
UK+IE
40.6
38.2
38.9
37.6
31.6
34.0
36.0
36.5
40.7
46.8
44.2
42.7
49.5
33.9
33.6
35.0
38.8
39.9
38.7
34.2
33.5
29.8
US
35.9
36.3
36.0
36.3
36.1
35.7
35.8
36.6
36.1
35.6
35.5
36.0
36.3
36.6
36.9
36.7
36.4
36.5
35.9
36.4
36.3
39.4
Table 10 Efficiency of fossil-fired power generation (%)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
AU
29.6
30.5
23.5
25.1
25.7
CH
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
33.6
FR
37.9
38.3
38.4
37.1
DE
27.8
30.0
29.6
IN
22.0
22.0
JP
41.9
KR
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
36.3
36.2
36.2
36.6
37.0
36.8
36.6
36.6
35.4
35.2
35.8
35.7
32.5
34.3
33.8
33.4
33.3
33.5
33.6
32.4
34.3
34.3
CH
29.3
29.7
30.3
30.1
30.9
29.9
28.7
31.4
30.7
31.7
32.1
32.1
31.7
31.6
31.6
32.2
32.6
34.3
34.2
34.4
35.5
35.7
FR
39.2
40.8
42.1
38.2
39.0
38.3
38.6
36.0
37.7
36.8
41.5
41.6
42.4
42.7
42.6
41.0
40.5
40.5
38.1
35.4
35.4
36.6
DE
34.0
34.5
34.4
34.8
34.8
36.0
35.8
36.2
37.5
37.6
38.5
37.3
37.9
40.2
38.5
40.1
38.7
39.0
40.2
38.7
40.1
40.0
IN
27.6
27.7
27.5
27.5
27.9
27.6
26.8
27.4
27.6
28.0
27.7
27.6
28.6
28.7
28.0
27.5
27.8
27.6
27.5
27.9
27.4
28.8
JP
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.5
41.9
41.9
42.2
42.5
42.7
43.0
43.1
43.2
43.5
43.4
43.3
42.9
43.1
43.2
43.5
43.9
43.9
43.9
KR
33.0
33.3
35.2
36.9
39.5
38.4
38.6
37.4
39.8
38.4
35.7
37.1
40.2
39.4
38.4
38.5
38.9
42.0
41.7
39.5
40.3
40.2
DK+FI+SE
39.9
39.9
40.1
40.9
41.6
41.2
41.2
40.8
40.7
42.3
42.3
42.4
42.4
42.6
41.7
41.9
42.0
41.8
41.9
41.7
42.6
42.2
UK+IE
37.7
38.1
37.0
38.6
39.1
40.6
41.2
42.0
42.0
43.7
43.5
42.9
44.1
43.6
43.6
43.1
42.4
43.8
44.7
44.8
45.1
44.8
US
36.4
36.4
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.8
36.7
36.7
36.6
36.7
36.7
37.0
37.7
37.8
38.3
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.8
39.3
39.2
39.5
67
Table 11 Difference fossil efficiencies in this report and the previous version of this report (Ecofys, 2013) in percentage points. Difference larger than 2.0 %pts are
marked red. Differences between 2.0 and 0.3%pts are marked yellow.
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
AU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.2%
-1.6%
-1.6%
-1.5%
-1.5%
-2.6%
-0.7%
CH
0.0%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.4%
-0.1%
FR
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.1%
DE
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.5%
-0.3%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.6%
-0.6%
-0.7%
-0.7%
-0.8%
-0.8%
0.0%
IN
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
-0.5%
-0.6%
JP
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.5%
KR
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.1%
DK+FI+SE
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UK+IE
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
US
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
68
Table 12 Explanation for differences in fossil efficiencies in this report and the previous version of this report (Ecofys, 2013)
Region
Australia
Years of
S: 2004
In the 2013 edition, data for Australia were revised back to 2003 due to the adoption of the National Greenhouse and Energy
L: 2003; 2005-2009
Reporting (NGER) as the main energy consumption data source for the Australian Energy Statistics.
S: 1994-2002, 2005China
Explanation
deviation
2008; 2010
As a result of the change in China’s national energy balance in 2012, revisions in the IEA 2013 edition may lead to breaks in series
between 2009 and 2010 (especially for coal and gas).
M: 2009
France
S: 2000; 2010
L: 2009
S:1997-2000
Germany
M:1995-1996;
2004-2009
Gas: improvements in data collection lead to some breaks in series between 2008 and 2009.
Source
a
b
a
Natural Gas: There is a break in series between 2009 and 2010 due to a new, more comprehensive legal framework that
resulted in methodological changes for production and new calorific values for natural gas.
In the 2013 edition, heat production from natural gas was estimated based on the revisions of natural gas inputs by the German
a
administration for 1995-2000 and 2003-2006 for autoproducer CHP, main activity CHP, and main activity heat
S: 2005
India
M: 2006-2007;
2009-2010
Japan
Data was updated by the IEA, but no explanation was provided with regard to the changes made
M: 2010
-
-
UK + Ireland
S. 2009
Legend
S: Small differences (≤ 0.2 ppts). For these differences no explanation is provided.
M: Medium differences are 0.3-1.0 ppts
L: Large differences are > 1.0 ppts
-
Sources
a = IEA (2013). Energy Balances Of OECD Countries: Beyond 2020 Documentation (2013 Edition)
b = IEA (2012): Energy Statistics Of Non-OECD Countries: Beyond 2020 Documentation (2013 Edition)
69
Appendix II: Input data
Table 13 Public power generation absolute by source (TWh) in 2011
1,497
Other
renewables
505
13,148
320
179
4,162
86
699
70
4,640
119
102
66
15
899
92
4
33
131
51
923
254
63
2
108
17
109
552
16
22
2
442
44
14
541
South Korea
204
113
11
155
5
2
490
UK + Ireland
112
138
1
69
5
22
347
31
14
1
84
194
35
358
173
38
0
0
17
7
235
Hydro
Coal
Natural gas
Oil
Nuclear
Hydro
Total
7,191
1,880
175
1,901
United States
1,854
955
32
821
China
3,697
84
2
Japan
237
360
India
612
Germany
France
Nordic countries
Australia
Table 14 Public power generation relative by source in 2011
Coal
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
United States
45%
23%
1%
20%
8%
Other
renewables
4%
People's republic of China
80%
2%
0%
2%
15%
2%
Japan
26%
40%
13%
11%
7%
2%
India
66%
10%
0%
4%
14%
6%
Germany
46%
11%
0%
20%
3%
20%
3%
4%
0%
82%
8%
3%
South Korea
42%
23%
2%
32%
1%
1%
UK + Ireland
32%
40%
0%
20%
2%
6%
9%
4%
0%
23%
54%
10%
74%
16%
0%
0%
7%
3%
France
Nordic countries
Australia
70
Total
Power generation
Table 15 Coal-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
119
123
127
129
133
136
143
149
162
167
173
186
175
170
177
181
185
187
184
185
180
173
CN
442
498
564
617
694
741
817
865
879
958
1056
1124
1277
1510
1706
1958
2285
2639
2725
2921
3227
3697
FR
22
30
27
15
15
18
22
17
28
31
28
22
25
27
25
29
23
24
25
23
25
16
DE
263
262
254
254
256
256
270
260
270
261
280
281
290
301
284
288
282
286
270
246
254
254
IN
172
191
205
227
237
267
278
290
299
324
347
362
381
398
415
428
454
488
510
541
560
612
JP
94
101
108
116
129
140
147
157
156
174
192
205
222
236
244
259
251
264
248
237
252
237
KR
12
11
13
21
32
39
47
59
70
74
98
110
118
120
127
134
139
155
173
193
200
204
DK+FI+SE
37
49
40
45
54
45
64
49
38
36
31
37
40
55
43
28
49
42
32
34
40
31
209
214
199
174
164
160
149
124
127
110
126
136
130
142
135
139
153
140
128
106
110
112
1666
1663
1694
1765
1766
1787
1878
1930
1961
1970
2060
1996
2025
2070
2075
2112
2088
2118
2087
1846
1937
1821
UK+IE
US
Table 16 Gas-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
13
9
10
11
11
13
11
9
9
11
11
11
22
19
20
16
15
21
24
29
35
38
CN
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
8
6
5
6
5
4
5
7
12
14
31
31
51
69
84
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
8
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
17
21
22
DE
25
23
19
20
22
24
29
32
36
37
36
40
39
45
47
52
55
59
69
60
65
63
IN
8
11
13
15
18
25
27
34
41
49
48
47
53
58
62
61
64
70
72
96
98
92
JP
165
177
175
175
188
192
203
213
220
238
246
245
248
257
245
228
252
276
273
275
287
360
KR
10
10
12
14
18
20
27
32
27
30
28
31
39
40
56
59
69
80
79
68
101
113
4
5
5
6
7
9
11
11
14
15
16
17
18
20
20
17
19
15
16
15
19
14
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
4
4
9
32
50
62
80
106
111
134
134
132
142
139
146
139
129
155
168
160
170
138
319
327
344
352
397
432
390
412
463
487
534
572
626
584
646
704
756
839
826
866
928
954
71
Table 17 Oil-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
0
CN
38
37
33
47
35
42
35
33
39
35
32
33
36
41
56
43
36
22
14
8
5
2
FR
5
10
5
2
2
3
3
3
5
3
5
3
4
5
4
6
5
5
4
3
4
2
DE
6
9
8
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
IN
7
7
7
6
6
7
12
12
12
12
13
12
12
12
11
9
9
2
7
3
5
4
JP
206
193
197
157
192
158
146
118
101
100
88
60
81
84
74
89
69
116
95
52
59
119
KR
19
27
35
35
40
42
41
41
15
14
22
24
21
22
19
18
17
18
10
14
13
11
2
2
3
3
6
6
11
8
7
6
5
5
6
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
31
25
27
21
15
14
14
9
9
9
7
8
6
5
5
6
7
5
6
5
3
1
125
118
97
111
104
72
79
91
128
117
110
125
94
119
120
122
63
64
45
38
36
30
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
Table 18 Fossil-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
134
134
137
140
144
150
155
158
171
178
184
198
199
190
198
199
202
210
211
216
216
212
CN
483
537
600
667
732
786
855
905
924
999
1,093
1,162
1,317
1,556
1,769
2,013
2,336
2,692
2,769
2,979
3,301
3,784
FR
28
40
33
17
17
22
26
20
34
35
38
33
38
42
41
46
39
40
40
43
50
41
DE
294
294
282
279
282
283
302
295
308
301
317
323
332
349
334
344
340
347
342
309
323
318
IN
187
209
225
248
262
299
317
336
353
385
407
421
446
468
487
498
528
560
588
640
663
708
JP
465
471
481
447
509
490
496
488
477
512
525
510
551
577
562
576
572
656
616
563
599
717
KR
40
48
61
71
91
101
116
132
112
118
148
166
178
182
202
211
225
252
263
276
314
329
DK+FI+SE
43
56
48
54
67
60
86
68
58
57
51
60
64
80
65
47
70
59
49
51
60
45
244
244
235
226
229
236
244
238
246
253
267
276
277
286
287
285
289
300
302
270
283
251
2,110
2,109
2,135
2,229
2,267
2,291
2,347
2,432
2,552
2,574
2,704
2,692
2,745
2,774
2,841
2,938
2,907
3,022
2,958
2,749
2,902
2,805
UK+IE
US
72
Fuel input
Table 19 Fuel consumption of coal-fired power plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
1183
1225
1258
1267
1284
1333
1406
1460
1640
1714
1740
1877
1977
1862
1948
1980
2020
2038
2014
2106
1961
1871
CN
5504
6094
6743
7451
8116
8989
10341
9950
10382
10913
11858
12643
14523
17259
19481
21944
25236
27738
28758
30588
32834
37306
FR
203
259
229
137
135
171
206
172
267
304
276
205
232
250
232
262
211
227
253
217
218
136
DE
2894
2804
2723
2674
2665
2621
2775
2662
2668
2573
2681
2762
2804
2788
2764
2673
2724
2764
2552
2424
2426
2439
IN
2191
2441
2663
2976
3096
3552
3823
3933
4096
4441
4723
4929
4982
5222
5608
5921
6250
6815
7100
7451
7810
8141
JP
855
913
965
1044
1152
1249
1305
1384
1370
1525
1683
1804
1937
2061
2134
2274
2211
2324
2191
2094
2228
2108
KR
164
166
182
256
337
388
513
606
675
731
1024
1079
1087
1153
1296
1353
1415
1426
1617
1900
1972
2068
DK+FI+SE
383
498
414
455
521
444
621
487
388
351
308
367
397
532
443
297
485
423
338
354
398
316
2021
2025
1944
1634
1543
1473
1375
1185
1226
1048
1185
1308
1228
1333
1288
1337
1460
1336
1215
1007
1056
1066
16615
16603
16815
17561
17618
17824
18805
19296
19610
19664
20625
20007
20195
20608
20690
21132
20854
21208
20909
18559
19489
18316
UK+IE
US
Table 20 Fuel consumption of gas-fired power plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
127
90
99
104
112
131
110
86
87
101
102
110
220
123
139
144
138
192
219
282
300
348
CN
26
22
23
29
29
28
26
75
56
44
53
46
39
46
67
110
132
283
287
470
639
778
FR
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
42
72
92
92
97
95
92
95
104
196
281
276
DE
331
330
296
297
356
287
360
364
391
409
363
432
432
465
473
532
552
553
618
551
579
532
IN
126
165
172
166
181
237
240
281
302
306
305
319
364
398
419
412
415
417
437
740
817
655
JP
1378
1469
1455
1458
1553
1575
1651
1710
1760
1870
1919
1908
1915
1982
1893
1773
1950
2136
2085
2078
2166
2731
KR
85
88
109
123
163
174
226
263
205
237
241
281
293
296
414
434
494
578
577
498
730
811
DK+FI+SE
43
47
55
65
81
102
117
124
138
145
154
168
174
188
179
158
169
139
144
145
173
132
UK+IE
US
34
39
95
281
395
469
616
770
808
963
966
945
993
981
1024
982
930
1084
1164
1116
1172
933
3070
3130
3235
3253
3656
3968
3542
3781
4292
4502
4862
5023
5243
4756
4946
5358
5749
6344
6187
6392
6877
7058
73
Table 21 Fuel consumption of oil-fired power plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
18
20
9
10
8
10
8
8
8
8
9
11
13
13
20
20
22
24
33
12
9
4
CN
409
396
357
504
374
444
368
351
416
379
341
351
382
442
598
463
389
237
145
81
52
25
FR
48
96
51
19
15
32
32
25
52
35
27
28
26
39
40
68
63
51
47
48
53
27
DE
108
138
127
105
91
75
74
57
52
47
41
47
28
30
37
39
37
27
28
35
29
18
IN
112
108
108
100
106
114
203
199
194
197
266
239
255
243
229
182
180
67
158
78
84
63
JP
1767
1662
1711
1384
1665
1381
1275
1040
897
885
777
541
715
740
652
784
617
1000
823
451
515
1036
KR
189
264
329
310
337
396
351
413
138
150
245
265
231
231
210
203
192
179
100
138
126
91
21
28
34
36
59
59
106
71
75
65
51
53
60
46
31
25
29
21
18
22
25
11
274
238
247
196
172
148
140
86
75
71
57
64
41
49
54
64
60
44
58
50
30
15
1257
1177
972
1100
1036
729
794
900
1281
1189
1124
1255
937
1177
1179
1204
623
639
455
375
364
273
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
Table 22 Fuel consumption of fossil-fired power plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
AU
1328
1335
1366
1380
1404
1474
1525
1555
1735
1824
1850
1997
2209
1998
2107
2144
2179
2255
2266
2400
2270
2223
CN
5939
6513
7123
7984
8519
9461
10736
10376
10854
11337
12252
13040
14944
17747
20146
22517
25756
28257
29191
31139
33525
38109
FR
252
357
282
157
153
205
240
200
323
340
345
305
350
381
369
425
366
373
404
462
552
439
DE
3332
3272
3146
3075
3112
2984
3209
3084
3112
3030
3084
3240
3264
3282
3273
3244
3314
3344
3198
3010
3034
2989
IN
2429
2715
2943
3242
3383
3903
4266
4413
4592
4943
5294
5487
5600
5863
6256
6515
6844
7299
7695
8270
8711
8859
JP
4000
4045
4130
3885
4371
4205
4232
4134
4027
4280
4379
4252
4567
4783
4679
4831
4778
5460
5099
4623
4909
5875
KR
438
518
620
689
837
959
1090
1283
1019
1118
1510
1625
1611
1680
1920
1990
2101
2183
2294
2537
2828
2971
DK+FI+SE
446
573
504
556
661
606
844
681
600
560
512
588
631
766
653
480
683
583
499
520
596
459
2329
2302
2286
2111
2110
2089
2131
2042
2109
2082
2208
2317
2262
2364
2366
2383
2451
2463
2437
2172
2259
2015
20942
20910
21023
21914
22311
22521
23142
23977
25184
25355
26611
26286
26375
26541
26815
27694
27227
28191
27552
25326
26729
25647
UK+IE
US
74
Heat output
Table 23 Heat output from coal-fired public CHP plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
7
DE
289
245
220
210
190
181
198
199
183
188
165
111
108
132
162
158
145
140
143
140
149
136
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
127
122
128
120
122
133
123
110
104
97
109
110
114
116
105
114
110
104
106
114
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
22
29
31
39
43
45
42
46
55
56
54
42
40
41
42
40
40
39
40
40
39
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
Table 24 Heat output from oil-fired public CHP plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
12
12
13
14
12
11
5
8
9
7
DE
38
58
57
54
36
41
54
42
42
40
20
14
13
16
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KR
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
3
2
6
6
6
5
9
4
5
5
3
10
13
15
16
20
19
22
12
20
13
7
11
16
15
14
12
13
8
7
8
11
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
6
6
8
9
14
12
12
7
7
7
6
4
8
9
8
7
8
7
7
6
6
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
75
Table 25 Heat output from gas-fired public CHP plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
33
42
42
42
42
38
39
44
48
73
75
DE
98
109
108
120
147
93
88
74
95
83
67
131
131
202
145
186
192
173
172
157
161
145
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KR
0
0
0
0
15
20
23
26
20
27
37
37
32
41
40
43
39
46
51
50
57
62
20
23
30
35
42
49
56
63
68
70
76
81
84
81
80
76
71
66
69
73
86
67
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
87
108
113
126
124
128
139
150
154
167
173
226
211
253
253
218
224
215
201
197
208
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Table 26 Heat output from fossil-fired public CHP plants in PJ
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
AU
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
52
57
57
56
56
52
51
55
57
82
82
DE
424
411
385
383
372
314
340
315
320
310
252
257
252
350
339
347
339
315
316
299
312
282
IN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KR
0
0
0
0
15
20
24
26
20
28
40
41
34
47
46
49
44
55
55
56
62
66
142
163
167
179
183
190
211
198
198
186
180
200
210
210
210
192
198
184
180
187
211
173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116
115
143
152
174
181
186
193
202
216
230
234
272
259
302
303
266
272
262
249
244
253
DK+FI+SE
UK+IE
US
76
Benchmark indicators
Table 27 Benchmark indicators for coal (by non-weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
105%
104%
103%
104%
103%
102%
103%
103%
98%
97%
99%
98%
88%
90%
91%
92%
92%
91%
91%
88%
91%
90%
CN
84%
85%
86%
84%
85%
82%
80%
88%
85%
88%
89%
88%
87%
86%
88%
89%
91%
94%
94%
96%
97%
97%
FR
114%
120%
122%
108%
109%
106%
109%
100%
106%
103%
103%
106%
107%
108%
110%
110%
109%
106%
100%
106%
114%
118%
DE
100%
101%
100%
101%
99%
100%
102%
102%
105%
105%
107%
103%
104%
109%
106%
111%
106%
105%
108%
105%
106%
105%
IN
82%
81%
79%
78%
76%
75%
73%
74%
73%
73%
73%
73%
76%
75%
74%
72%
73%
71%
72%
73%
71%
74%
JP
115%
115%
115%
114%
112%
112%
114%
114%
114%
114%
114%
113%
113%
113%
115%
114%
114%
112%
113%
113%
111%
110%
KR
75%
67%
74%
85%
95%
101%
93%
98%
104%
101%
95%
102%
107%
103%
99%
99%
99%
107%
107%
102%
100%
97%
DK+FI+SE
114%
114%
113%
115%
115%
115%
115%
114%
112%
116%
114%
114%
114%
113%
111%
110%
112%
111%
110%
112%
111%
110%
UK+IE
108%
109%
105%
109%
106%
108%
110%
105%
104%
104%
106%
104%
105%
105%
106%
104%
105%
103%
105%
105%
103%
103%
US
104%
104%
103%
103%
100%
100%
101%
101%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
101%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
98%
97%
2002
2003
2009
2010
2011
Table 28 Benchmark indicators for oil (by non-weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
AU
86%
88%
69%
74%
CN
98%
97%
98%
99%
FR
110%
111%
112%
109%
DE
81%
87%
87%
IN
64%
64%
JP
122%
KR
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2004
2005
76%
65%
77%
80%
71%
94%
84%
95%
106%
100%
102%
98%
98%
99%
96%
91%
94%
86%
55%
47%
86%
94%
102%
99%
106%
109%
105%
109%
104%
96%
196%
153%
146%
143%
137%
105%
78%
78%
85%
88%
89%
93%
91%
62%
75%
109%
127%
110%
64%
65%
65%
66%
64%
65%
65%
63%
47%
50%
44%
49%
121%
121%
120%
123%
124%
119%
119%
120%
116%
110%
112%
105%
105%
108%
113%
120%
128%
116%
123%
105%
112%
97%
87%
93%
DK+FI+SE
112%
109%
117%
117%
124%
123%
117%
121%
108%
112%
106%
UK+IE
118%
111%
114%
111%
94%
102%
US
104%
105%
105%
107%
107%
107%
104%
107%
120%
134%
104%
107%
107%
102%
77
2006
2007
2008
89%
91%
90%
96%
93%
110%
100%
100%
99%
104%
98%
96%
101%
106%
96%
79%
86%
86%
120%
100%
100%
109%
114%
108%
105%
54%
55%
55%
32%
43%
43%
69%
57%
115%
124%
120%
121%
124%
122%
128%
121%
118%
84%
97%
102%
96%
96%
110%
109%
116%
112%
130%
106%
102%
124%
110%
108%
113%
110%
114%
103%
109%
102%
120%
120%
126%
95%
102%
103%
116%
118%
113%
106%
98%
85%
96%
101%
93%
102%
112%
108%
109%
108%
105%
112%
106%
112%
Table 29 Benchmark indicators for gas (by non-weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
97%
97%
98%
96%
87%
90%
87%
86%
85%
85%
84%
84%
81%
116%
110%
85%
84%
82%
85%
84%
93%
86%
CN
103%
102%
103%
99%
98%
94%
94%
94%
91%
89%
87%
89%
86%
82%
81%
84%
83%
82%
82%
87%
87%
85%
FR
109%
107%
109%
112%
109%
123%
112%
98%
94%
91%
110%
105%
105%
100%
103%
105%
103%
101%
96%
77%
71%
74%
DE
86%
82%
80%
78%
73%
85%
81%
84%
87%
83%
87%
88%
85%
90%
87%
89%
90%
92%
94%
99%
101%
103%
IN
61%
65%
75%
82%
93%
92%
97%
106%
115%
132%
127%
121%
116%
110%
110%
114%
119%
127%
124%
105%
96%
110%
JP
114%
114%
115%
110%
110%
106%
107%
108%
105%
105%
103%
105%
104%
98%
97%
100%
99%
98%
99%
106%
106%
104%
KR
107%
106%
107%
108%
107%
103%
108%
109%
115%
108%
101%
95%
111%
106%
105%
109%
111%
108%
108%
114%
114%
112%
DK+FI+SE
117%
117%
117%
111%
107%
96%
103%
98%
102%
103%
101%
104%
100%
97%
98%
101%
101%
99%
100%
104%
107%
103%
UK+IE
106%
110%
93%
103%
115%
115%
114%
119%
115%
114%
112%
115%
114%
107%
107%
110%
107%
109%
109%
115%
116%
116%
US
100%
100%
103%
101%
100%
96%
97%
96%
92%
90%
89%
95%
97%
94%
100%
103%
103%
102%
103%
110%
109%
107%
Table 30 Benchmark indicators for fossil (by non-weighted average)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
102%
1990
101%
1991
100%
1992
101%
1993
101%
1994
100%
1995
100%
1996
100%
1997
96%
94%
95%
95%
85%
89%
89%
88%
88%
87%
87%
86%
89%
89%
CN
82%
83%
84%
83%
84%
81%
78%
86%
83%
85%
85%
85%
83%
82%
83%
85%
86%
89%
89%
91%
92%
93%
FR
110%
114%
116%
105%
106%
104%
105%
98%
102%
98%
110%
110%
111%
111%
112%
108%
107%
105%
99%
94%
92%
95%
DE
96%
96%
95%
96%
94%
98%
98%
99%
101%
101%
102%
99%
100%
105%
101%
106%
103%
102%
105%
103%
104%
104%
IN
78%
77%
76%
76%
76%
75%
73%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
75%
75%
74%
73%
73%
72%
72%
74%
71%
75%
JP
118%
117%
116%
115%
114%
114%
115%
116%
115%
115%
114%
115%
114%
113%
114%
113%
114%
112%
113%
116%
114%
114%
KR
93%
93%
97%
102%
107%
104%
105%
102%
107%
103%
95%
98%
106%
103%
101%
102%
103%
109%
108%
105%
105%
104%
DK+FI+SE
112%
111%
111%
113%
113%
112%
112%
111%
110%
113%
112%
112%
111%
111%
110%
111%
111%
109%
109%
110%
111%
109%
UK+IE
106%
106%
103%
107%
106%
111%
112%
114%
113%
117%
116%
114%
116%
113%
115%
114%
112%
114%
116%
118%
118%
116%
US
102%
102%
101%
102%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
98%
97%
98%
99%
98%
101%
101%
102%
101%
101%
104%
102%
102%
78
Table 31 Benchmark indicators for coal (by weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
106%
105%
105%
107%
108%
108%
110%
107%
104%
102%
104%
104%
93%
96%
97%
97%
97%
96%
96%
93%
95%
95%
CN
84%
85%
87%
87%
89%
87%
85%
91%
89%
92%
93%
93%
92%
92%
93%
95%
96%
99%
99%
100%
102%
102%
FR
115%
121%
124%
111%
114%
113%
116%
104%
112%
108%
108%
112%
113%
116%
116%
116%
115%
112%
105%
111%
119%
124%
DE
100%
102%
102%
104%
104%
106%
108%
107%
110%
110%
112%
109%
111%
116%
112%
117%
113%
111%
114%
110%
112%
110%
IN
82%
82%
80%
80%
80%
79%
78%
77%
77%
77%
77%
77%
80%
80%
79%
77%
77%
75%
75%
76%
74%
77%
JP
116%
116%
117%
117%
117%
118%
121%
119%
120%
120%
119%
119%
121%
121%
122%
121%
120%
118%
119%
119%
117%
116%
KR
75%
68%
75%
87%
100%
107%
99%
102%
110%
107%
100%
107%
114%
110%
105%
105%
104%
113%
112%
107%
105%
101%
DK+FI+SE
115%
115%
115%
118%
120%
122%
122%
119%
118%
122%
120%
121%
121%
120%
118%
117%
119%
117%
116%
118%
117%
115%
UK+IE
109%
110%
107%
112%
111%
115%
117%
110%
109%
110%
111%
109%
111%
112%
112%
111%
111%
109%
110%
111%
108%
108%
US
105%
105%
105%
106%
105%
106%
107%
105%
106%
105%
105%
105%
106%
106%
107%
106%
106%
104%
105%
105%
103%
102%
Table 32 Benchmark indicators for gas (by weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
95%
95%
94%
94%
86%
91%
87%
85%
86%
87%
87%
85%
81%
119%
110%
83%
82%
81%
83%
78%
88%
82%
CN
101%
100%
99%
97%
97%
95%
94%
93%
92%
91%
90%
89%
86%
84%
81%
81%
81%
81%
80%
81%
81%
81%
FR
107%
106%
105%
110%
107%
124%
111%
97%
95%
93%
115%
105%
105%
102%
103%
102%
101%
99%
94%
72%
66%
71%
DE
84%
81%
77%
77%
72%
86%
81%
83%
88%
85%
90%
88%
84%
92%
87%
87%
88%
91%
92%
92%
95%
98%
IN
60%
64%
72%
80%
91%
92%
97%
105%
117%
135%
132%
121%
115%
113%
110%
111%
116%
125%
121%
98%
90%
105%
JP
112%
112%
111%
108%
108%
107%
106%
107%
107%
107%
107%
106%
103%
100%
97%
97%
97%
97%
97%
99%
100%
99%
KR
105%
104%
103%
106%
105%
103%
108%
108%
117%
110%
105%
96%
111%
109%
105%
106%
108%
106%
105%
106%
107%
107%
DK+FI+SE
115%
115%
112%
110%
105%
96%
103%
97%
104%
106%
105%
105%
100%
99%
98%
98%
99%
97%
97%
97%
100%
98%
UK+IE
104%
108%
90%
102%
113%
116%
113%
118%
117%
117%
116%
115%
114%
110%
107%
107%
104%
107%
107%
107%
109%
110%
98%
98%
99%
99%
98%
97%
97%
95%
93%
92%
93%
95%
97%
97%
100%
101%
100%
100%
100%
103%
103%
102%
US
79
2003
2004
Table 33 Benchmark indicators for oil (by weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
AU
78%
81%
62%
67%
68%
58%
71%
74%
67%
91%
88%
97%
CN
89%
89%
88%
90%
88%
91%
90%
92%
93%
93%
96%
96%
FR
100%
101%
101%
99%
94%
97%
96%
101%
98%
93%
206%
DE
73%
79%
78%
71%
69%
76%
81%
83%
87%
88%
IN
58%
58%
58%
59%
58%
59%
59%
60%
61%
JP
111%
110%
109%
109%
109%
110%
110%
111%
KR
95%
98%
102%
108%
113%
103%
113%
DK+FI+SE
101%
99%
105%
106%
110%
110%
UK+IE
107%
101%
102%
101%
83%
95%
96%
95%
97%
95%
US
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
116%
55%
44%
81%
85%
81%
84%
86%
86%
96%
94%
94%
95%
94%
96%
89%
92%
93%
90%
84%
157%
160%
143%
128%
99%
96%
95%
90%
71%
79%
76%
65%
77%
120%
127%
103%
114%
95%
89%
102%
102%
100%
92%
61%
49%
51%
49%
49%
51%
52%
52%
29%
41%
38%
63%
50%
112%
113%
116%
114%
115%
115%
116%
114%
115%
111%
114%
114%
111%
104%
98%
105%
94%
92%
96%
92%
97%
95%
91%
92%
98%
102%
104%
103%
115%
108%
113%
101%
108%
112%
109%
112%
124%
102%
103%
108%
98%
107%
92%
100%
90%
91%
96%
100%
112%
130%
126%
123%
139%
95%
95%
97%
110%
106%
106%
95%
90%
75%
95%
96%
100%
100%
99%
101%
103%
102%
102%
104%
102%
104%
97%
99%
101%
97%
99%
Table 34 Benchmark indicators for fossil (by weighted average)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AU
104%
104%
104%
105%
106%
106%
108%
106%
103%
101%
103%
103%
92%
98%
98%
96%
96%
94%
94%
91%
94%
93%
CN
85%
86%
88%
87%
89%
87%
85%
91%
90%
92%
93%
93%
92%
92%
93%
95%
96%
99%
99%
100%
101%
101%
FR
112%
116%
120%
110%
112%
111%
114%
104%
110%
107%
121%
115%
115%
116%
114%
111%
109%
106%
100%
93%
94%
92%
DE
98%
100%
99%
101%
101%
104%
105%
104%
108%
107%
110%
106%
107%
113%
109%
113%
108%
107%
109%
106%
108%
107%
IN
80%
80%
79%
80%
80%
80%
79%
80%
81%
83%
82%
81%
84%
83%
82%
80%
81%
81%
80%
79%
76%
81%
JP
112%
112%
112%
111%
111%
111%
112%
112%
112%
112%
113%
112%
112%
111%
110%
110%
110%
108%
108%
109%
108%
105%
KR
91%
93%
96%
102%
107%
105%
106%
102%
111%
106%
100%
103%
111%
108%
104%
104%
105%
110%
110%
107%
105%
104%
DK+FI+SE
114%
114%
114%
117%
117%
117%
118%
115%
113%
116%
115%
115%
114%
115%
112%
110%
113%
111%
110%
111%
111%
110%
UK+IE
108%
109%
106%
109%
109%
114%
114%
113%
113%
114%
114%
113%
113%
111%
109%
109%
108%
108%
108%
108%
109%
109%
US
103%
103%
104%
104%
103%
104%
105%
103%
103%
103%
102%
103%
103%
104%
105%
105%
105%
103%
103%
104%
103%
102%
80
CO 2 -intensity
Table 35 CO2-intensity coal-fired power (g/kWh)
2009
2010
2011
Average
1,100
1,055
1,051
1,069
China
991
962
954
969
France
892
819
787
833
Germany
944
912
920
925
India
1,307
1,323
1,261
1,297
Japan
837
835
840
837
South Korea
930
934
959
941
Nordic countries
846
837
843
842
United Kingdom + Ireland
899
906
903
903
United States
953
954
954
954
Canada
870
938
933
903
Italy
916
902
890
903
Australia
Table 36 CO2-intensity oil-fired power (g/kWh)
2009
2010
2011
Average
Australia
861
834
693
796
China
794
794
794
794
France
1,039
906
882
942
Germany
724
718
724
722
India
1,919
1,134
1,334
1,462
Japan
645
643
645
644
South Korea
707
694
582
661
Nordic countries
798
716
743
753
United Kingdom + Ireland
779
796
896
824
United States
732
734
677
714
Canada
700
890
903
831
Italy
681
798
731
737
81
Table 37 CO2-intensity gas-fired power (g/kWh)
2009
2010
2011
Average
Australia
539
482
511
511
China
519
519
519
519
France
583
637
594
605
Germany
458
444
428
443
India
431
469
399
433
Japan
424
423
425
424
South Korea
396
395
392
394
Nordic countries
435
422
428
428
United Kingdom + Ireland
392
387
380
386
United States
409
411
411
410
Canada
448
481
474
467
Italy
396
400
398
398
Table 38 CO2-intensity fossil-fired power (g/kWh)
2009
2010
2011
Average
1,023
962
953
979
China
982
953
945
960
France
783
749
686
739
Germany
848
815
823
828
India
1,178
1,195
1,149
1,174
Japan
618
618
599
612
South Korea
787
751
751
763
Nordic countries
723
703
714
713
United Kingdom + Ireland
598
593
616
602
United States
779
777
766
774
Canada
750
778
756
761
Italy
540
548
553
547
Australia
Table 39 CO2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (g/kWh)
2009
2010
2011
Average
Australia
337
285
284
302
China
265
237
229
243
France
222
202
185
203
Germany
177
149
153
160
India
511
528
474
505
Japan
99
97
98
98
South Korea
167
159
167
164
Nordic countries
119
106
113
113
United Kingdom + Ireland
108
106
107
107
United States
178
179
175
177
97
107
100
101
131
175
178
161
Italy
Canada
82
Table 40 CO2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (Mtonne)
2009
2010
2011
Average
73
62
60
65
China
788
782
866
812
France
9
10
8
9
55
48
49
51
India
327
350
336
338
Japan
56
58
70
61
South Korea
46
50
55
50
6
6
5
6
Australia
Germany
Nordic countries
United Kingdom + Ireland
29
30
27
29
491
519
491
500
Italy
19
21
19
20
Canada
17
22
23
21
United States
Table 41 CO2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (%)
2009
2010
2011
Average
Australia
33%
30%
30%
31%
China
27%
25%
24%
25%
France
28%
27%
27%
27%
Germany
21%
18%
19%
19%
India
43%
44%
41%
43%
Japan
16%
16%
16%
16%
South Korea
21%
21%
22%
22%
Nordic countries
17%
15%
16%
16%
United Kingdom + Ireland
18%
18%
17%
18%
United States
23%
23%
23%
23%
Italy
18%
19%
18%
18%
Canada
17%
23%
24%
21%
83
Appendix III: IEA Definitions
Coal
Coal includes all coal, both primary (including hard coal and lignite/brown coal) and derived fuels
(including patent fuel, coke oven coke, gas coke, BKB, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas). Peat
and gas works gas are also included in this category.
Oil
Crude oil comprises crude oil, natural gas liquids, refinery feed stocks, and additives as well as other
hydrocarbons (including emulsified oils, synthetic crude oil, mineral oils extracted from bituminous
minerals such as oil shale, bituminous sand, etc., and oils from coal liquefaction).
Petroleum products are also included. These comprise refinery gas, ethane, LPG, aviation gasoline,
motor gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene, gas/diesel oil, heavy fuel oil, naphtha, white spirit, lubricants,
bitumen, paraffin waxes, petroleum coke and other petroleum products.
Gas
Gas includes natural gas (excluding natural gas liquids). The latter appears as a positive figure in the
"gas works" row but is not part of production.
Public power supply
The IEA makes a distinction between auto-producers and main activity producers of heat and power:

Main activity undertakings generate electricity and/or heat for sale to third parties, as their
primary activity.

Auto-producing undertakings generate electricity and/or heat, wholly or partly for their own
use as an activity which supports their primary activity.
In this study only public power (and heat) supply - i.e. production from main activity producers - is
taken into account. Both installations producing only power and combined heat and power (CHP)
installations are taken into included in the assessment.
84
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E info@ecofys.com | I www.ecofys.com
ECOFYS Netherlands B.V.
Kanaalweg 15G
3526 KL Utrecht
T: +31 (0) 30 662-3300
F: +31 (0) 30 662-3301
E: info@ecofys.com
I: www.ecofys.com