International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity ...

International comparison of

fossil power efficiency and

CO2 intensity - Update 2014

FINAL REPORT

ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com

Chamber of Commerce 30161191

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



Summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the energy efficiency and CO2-intensity of fossil-fired power

generation for Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland,

Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland (aggregated), and the

United States. This is done by calculating separate benchmark indicators for the energy efficiency of

gas-, oil- and coal-fired power generation. Additionally, an overall benchmark for fossil-fired power

generation is determined. The benchmark indicators are based on deviations from average energy

efficiencies. For the comparison of CO2 intensity, Canada and Italy are added as additional countries.

Trends in power generation

The countries included in the study (excluding Italy and Canada) generated 68% of public fossil-fired

power generation worldwide in 2011. In the period 1990 - 2011 the share of fossil power used in the

public power production mix has increased from 64% to 68%. Total power generation is largest in the

China with roughly 4,640 TWh, closely followed by the United States with 4,162 TWh. Japan is the

country ranked third with 899 TWh. From the fossil fuels, coal is most frequently used in most

countries. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of public power generation per country.

Figure 1 Fuel mix for public power generation by source in 2011. Note that gas use in the Nordic countries is

underestimated as Norwegian power production from natural gas is confidential.

Total coal-fired power generation in all countries combined (excluding Canada and Italy) increased

from 3,036 to 7,158 TWh (+136%) by the period 1990 – 2011, with China being the strongest

grower, increasing from 442 to 3,697 TWh, fuelled by fast-growing domestic energy demand.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other renewables Oil Natural gas Coal Nuclear Hydro



Gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551 to 1,879 TWh (+241%) in

1990 -2011. The United States, driven by relative low natural gas prices from 2009 onwards driven

by shale gas development, shows the strongest absolute growth from 319 to 954 TWh.

Oil-fired power generation played a marginal role by 2011 with only 172 TWh. In 2011, Japan and

the United States were the largest oil-fired power producers and generated 86% of all oil-fired power

production in the countries of interest. The general trend is that power production from oil has been

declining over 1990 – 2011, although some temporarily peaks can still be observed (e.g. Japan in

2011 doubled power production from oil compared to 2010 – mostly likely due to the need for

deploying reserve capacity due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants after the Fukushima

accident).

Generating efficiency

Figure 2 shows the energy efficiency per country and fuel source. Because the uncertainty in the

efficiency for a single year can be high we show the average efficiencies for the last three years

available, 2009 – 2011:

Coal-fired power efficiencies range from 27% (India) to 43% (France).

Gas-fired power efficiencies range from 34% (France) to 53% (United Kingdom and Ireland).

Oil-fired power generation efficiencies range from 20% (India) to 46% (South Korea).

Fossil-fired power efficiencies range from 29% (India) to 45% (United Kingdom and Ireland).

The weighted average generating efficiency for all countries together in 2011 is 35% for coal, 48%

for natural gas, 40% for oil-fired power generation and 38% for fossil power in general.

Figure 2 Energy efficiency per fuel source (average 2009 - 2011).

The weighted average efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a strong increase from 39% to

48% for the considered countries (see Figure 3), caused by a strong increase in modern gas-based

capacity: gas-based production more than tripled.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Coal Gas Oil Fossil



Coal-fired power generation however, doubled in the period 1990 - 2011, while the weighted average

efficiency remained constant at about 34% - 35%. The reason for this is that a large part of the

growth in coal-fired power generation takes place in China and India, in which generating efficiencies

of coal remained relatively low (despite a significant increase of +7%pts in 1990 – 2011 in China).

The majority of coal-fired power plants in China is based on sub-critical steam systems (although this

is changing as China is currently the main market in the world for advanced coal-fired power plants).

The efficiency that can be achieved by sub-critical units is around 39%. The efficiency that can be

achieved by applying best available technology (super-critical units) is as high as 47%. This means

that coal-fired power efficiency in China could have been much higher if best practice technology had

been used. For India the situation is the same; a large share of coal-fired capacity is built after 1990,

of which the majority is based on sub-critical steam systems.

Figure 3 Weighted average energy efficiency for included countries.

Figure 4 shows the benchmark for the weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation.

Countries with benchmark indicators above 100% perform better than average and countries below

100% perform worse than the average. As can be seen, in order of performance, the Nordic

countries, United Kingdom and Ireland, Japan, Germany, South Korea and the United States all

perform better than the benchmark fossil-fired generating efficiency.

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Coal

Gas

Oil

Fossil



Figure 4 Benchmark for weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (100% is average).

CO2-intensity and reduction potential

Figure 5 shows the CO2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation for the years 2009 - 2011 per

country. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation ranges from 547 g/kWh for Italy to 1,174

g/kWh for India on average. This is a difference in emissions of more than 100% per unit of fossil-

fired power generated. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation depends largely on the

share of coal in fossil power generation and on the energy efficiency of power production.

Figure 5 CO2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation.

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

Perf

orm

ance r

ela

tive t

o b

enchm

ark

Coal Gas Oil Fossil Weighted benchmark

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average



Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and was

responsible for approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (UNFCCC, 2008). If

the best available technologies1 would have been applied for all fossil power generation in the

countries of this study (including Canada and Italy) in 2010, absolute emissions would have been, on

average, 23% lower. Figure 6 shows how much lower CO2 emissions would be for all individual

countries as a share of emissions from fossil-fired power generation. The CO2 emission reduction

potential per country, as a percentage of emissions from public power generation, ranges from 16%

for Japan to 43% for India.

Figure 6 Relative CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by

replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.

1 I.e. Installations operating according to the present highest existing conversion efficiencies.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

CO

2re

duction p

ote

ntial [%

]



Figure 7 shows the emission reduction potential in absolute amounts. China, United States and India

show very high absolute emission reduction potentials of 812, 500 and 338 Mtonne, respectively. This

is due to large amounts of coal-fired power generation at relatively low efficiency.

Figure 7 Absolute CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by

replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

CO

2re

duction p

ote

ntial [M

t CO

2]



Table of contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Power generation by fossil-fuel sources 1

2 Methodology 8

2.1 Energy efficiency of power generation 8

2.2 Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency 9

2.3 CO2 intensity power generation 12

2.4 Share of renewable and nuclear power generation 13

3 Results 14

3.1 Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation 14

3.2 Benchmark based on non-weighted average efficiency 22

3.3 Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency 25

3.4 CO2-intensities 29

3.5 Emission reduction potential 32

3.6 Renewable and nuclear power production 35

4 Conclusions 54

5 Discussion of uncertainties & recommendations for follow-up work 56

6 References 58

Appendix I: Comparison national statistics 61

Appendix II: Input data 70

Appendix III: IEA Definitions 84

1

1 Introduction

This study is an update of the analysis “International comparison of fossil power generation and CO2

intensity” (Ecofys, 2013). This analysis aims to compare fossil-fired power generation efficiency and

CO2-intensity (coal, oil and gas) for Australia, China (excluding Hong Kong), France, Germany, India,

Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United

Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States. This selection of countries and regions is based on

discussions with the client. United Kingdom and Ireland, and the Nordic countries are aggregated,

because of the interconnection between their electricity grids. Although the electricity grids in Europe

are highly interconnected, there are a number of markets that operate fairly independently. These are

the Nordic market (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway), the Iberian market (Spain and Portugal),

Central (Eastern European countries) and United Kingdom and Ireland.

The analysis is based on the methodologies described in Phylipsen et al. (1998) and applied in

Phylipsen et al. (2003). Only public power plants are taken into account, including public CHP plants.

For the latter a correction for the (district) heat supply has been applied.

This chapter gives an overview of the fuel mix for power generation for the included countries and of

the amount of fossil-fired power generation. The methodology for this study is described in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 gives an overview of the efficiency of fossil-fired power generation by fuel source and

addresses the development of the share of renewables in public power generation over time. Chapter

4 gives the conclusions.

1.1 Power generation by fossil-fuel sources

Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, greenhouse

gas emissions from fossil-fired power generation accounted for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas

emissions in 2005 (UNFCCC, 2008). The countries included in the study generate 68% of public fossil-

fired power generation worldwide in 2011 (IEA, 2013).

2

Figure 8 Absolute (top) and relative (bottom) public power generation by source in 2011. Note that for the

Nordic countries there is a small underestimation of power production from natural gas as power produced

from natural gas in Norway is confidential.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Ele

ctr

icitry

pro

duction (

TW

h)

Other renewables Hydro Nuclear Oil Natural gas Coal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other renewables Oil Natural gas Coal Nuclear Hydro

3

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.

4

Figure 9 shows that the total coal-fired power generation in all countries increased from 3,036 to

7,158 (+136%) during the period 1990 - 2011. China shows the strongest absolute growth from

442 to 3,697 TWh. The US saw its share of coal-fired power production shrink to the lowest

relative level since 1995, mainly driven by national or regional legislation and regulations

promoting gas and renewable technologies at the expense of coal-fired generation. The drop in

2009 is caused by a significant drop in natural gas prices due to development of shale gas.

Figure 9 Coal-fired power generation.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ele

ctr

icity g

enera

tion (

TW

h)

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

5

Figure 10 indicates that gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551

to 1,879 in 1990 – 2011 (+241%). The United States shows the strongest absolute growth from

319 to 954 TWh. Between 2009 and 2011, the growth was fuelled by shale gas. In Japan, Gas-

fired power generation experienced a very steep increase in 2011 (+25% increase in a single

year). The UK and Ireland saw a drop in gas-fired power generation because of the relative low

prices of coal and CO2 prices of around 15 Euro per tonne CO2 under Europe’s emission trading

scheme (EU ETS).

Figure 10 Gas-fired power generation

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ele

ctr

icity g

enera

tion (

TW

h)

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

6

Figure 11 shows that oil-fired power generation plays a limited role and its importance has

further diminished in the past two decades, especially in the case of the three leading oil-fired

power producing countries (USA, Japan and China), although in Japan oil-fired power production

doubled again in 2011 post-Fukushima.

Figure 11 Oil-fired power production.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ele

ctr

icity g

enera

tion (

TW

h)

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

7

Figure 12 indicates that the total fossil-fired power generation increased from 4,027 to 9,209

TWh (+129%) in 1990 - 2011. China, US, India and Japan show the strongest absolute growth in

this period.

Figure 12 Fossil-fired power production.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ele

ctr

icity g

enera

tion (

TW

h)

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

8

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.

9

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%.

10

An alternative for the steam cycle is the gas turbine, where combusted gas expands through a

turbine and drives a generator. The hot exit gas from the turbine still has significant amounts of

energy which can be used to raise steam to drive a steam-turbine and another generator. This

combination of gas and steam cycle is called ‘combined cycle gas turbine’ (CCGT) plant. A CCGT

plant is generally fired with natural gas. Also coal firing and biomass firing however is possible by

gasification; e.g. in integrated coal gasification combined cycle plants (IGCC). These technologies

are not widely used yet. The energy efficiency of a single steam cycle is at most 47%, while the

energy efficiency of a combined cycle can be up to 61% (Siemens. 2012).

Several possible indicators exist for benchmarking energy efficiency of power generation. One

possible indicator is the comparison of individual countries’ efficiencies to predefined best practice

efficiency. The difficulty in this method is the definition of best practice efficiency. Best practice

efficiency could e.g. be based on:

The best performing country in the world or in a region;

The best performing plant in the world or in a region;

The best practical efficiency possible, by best available technology (BAT).

The best practice efficiency differs yearly, which means that back-casting is required to

determine best practice efficiencies for historic years.

A different method for benchmarking energy efficiency is the comparison of countries’ efficiencies

against average efficiencies. An advantage of this method is the visibility of a countries’

performance against average efficiency. In this study we choose to use this indicator. We

compare the efficiency of countries and regions to the average efficiency of the selected

countries.

The average efficiency is calculated per fuel source and per year and can be either weighted or

non-weighted. In the first case the weighted-average efficiency represents the overall energy

efficiency of the included countries. A disadvantage of this method is that countries with a large

installed generating capacity heavily influence the average efficiency while small countries have

hardly any influence at all on the average efficiency. On the other hand, when applying non-

weighted benchmark indicators, one efficient power plant in a country could influence the

average efficiency if absolute power generation in the country is small. In this research we

included both methods, to see if this leads to different results.

The formula for the non-weighted average efficiency for coal (BC1) is given below as an example.

The formulas for oil and gas are similar.

11

BC1 = ECi / n

Where:

BC1 Benchmark efficiency coal (1). This is the average efficiency of coal-fired power

generation for the selected countries.

ECi Efficiency coal for country or region i (i = 1,…n)

n The number of countries and regions

The formula for the weighted average efficiency for coal (BC2) is given below as an example:

BC2 = (PCi + HCi *s)/ ICi

Where:

BC2 Benchmark efficiency coal (2). This is the weighted average efficiency of coal-fired

power generation for the selected countries.

PCi Coal-fired power production for country or region i (i = 1,…n)

HCi Heat output for country or region i (i = 1,…n)

s Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in electricity

production per unit of heat extracted

ICi Fuel input for coal-fired power plants for country or region i (i = 1,…n)

To determine the performance of a country relative to the benchmark efficiency we divide the

efficiency of a country for a certain year by the benchmark efficiency in the same year. The

formula of the indicator for the efficiency of coal-fired power is given below as an example:

BCi = ECi / BC1 or BCi = ECi / BC2

Where:

BCi Benchmark indicator of the energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation for country

or region i

Countries that perform better than average for a certain year show numbers above 100% and

vice versa.

To come to an overall comparison for fossil-fired power efficiency we calculate the output-

weighted average of the three indicators, as is shown in the formula below:

BFi = (BCi * PCi + BGi * PGi + BOi * POi) / (PCi + PGi + POi)

Where:

BFi, BCi, BGi and BOi Benchmark indicator for the energy efficiency of fossil-fired, coal-

fired, gas-fired and oil-fired power generation for country or region i

12

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

13

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.

14

3 Results

Table 3 gives an overview of the content of the different sections of Chapter 3.

Table 3 What can be found in which section in this chapter

Section Content

3.1 Energy efficiencies for coal,- gas- and oil-fired power production, including a

simple aggregation of fossil-fired power 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 CO2 intensities per fuel source and for total power generation per country

3.5 CO2 abatement potentials per country when replacing current installed based

by best available technology

3.6 Development of the share of renewable and nuclear power production over the

last decade

The underlying data for the figures in this chapter can be found in in Appendix II. This section

provides, amongst other data, energy efficiency and input data for the analysis in terms of power

generation, fuel input, heat output and the resulting benchmark efficiencies.

3.1 Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation

Figure 13 - Figure 15 show the efficiency trend for coal-, gas- and oil-fired power production,

respectively, for the period 1990 - 2011. Figure 16 shows the energy efficiency of fossil-fired

power generation by the weighted-average efficiency of gas, oil- and coal-fired power generation.

15

Figure 13 Average efficiency of coal-fired power production.

The energy efficiencies for coal-fired power generation range from 26% for India to 43% in the

case of France in 2011. Note that over the past two decades, especially China and South Korea,

and to a lesser extent Germany and Japan, have gradually improved the efficiency of their coal-

fired power generation, whereas other regions have experienced very limited up to zero (e.g.

United States) improvement.

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

16

Figure 14 Average efficiency of gas-fired power production.

In contrast to other fuels, the efficiency gas-fired power generation has improved substantially

over the last two decades. Efficiencies range from 34% for France to 53% for the UK and

Ireland in 2011.

Indian efficiencies appear to have a statistical flaw as average efficiencies of around 60%

represent BAT and are thus are considered unrealistic for a country as a whole. The sudden

peak for Australia in 2003 and 2004 is also considered unreliable.

The largest efficiency improvements in 1990 - 2011 are observed for USA, India4, South Korea

and Germany. Surprisingly, the Chinese efficiency has remained constant over time at an

invariable 38.9%. This gives the impression that power production or fuel consumption have

been calculated rather than based on actual data collection.

For some countries (India and France) efficiencies fluctuate heavily over time. This may be

explained by gas-fired power plants significantly varying operating hours from year to year.

Four-fifths of the French public power originates from nuclear plants, with natural gas only

responsible for a marginal 4% in 2011. Natural gas capacity does not include high efficiency

NGCC plants (pre-2012) and is deployed as a peak load capacity together with oil fired

capacity. This provides explanation for the fluctuating and relative low efficiencies.

4 Although the figures for India are deemed unreliable with efficiencies approaching the current BAT efficiency of 61% in 2008

already.

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

17

Figure 15 Average efficiency of oil-fired power production.

For oil-fired power generation the efficiencies range from 20% for India to 46% for South Korea

in 2011. The graph shows large fluctuations in efficiency for oil-fired power generation. This is

likely to be the result of fluctuating operating hours5 or data uncertainty (in the case of

unrealistically large changes). Please note that oil-fired power generation is very small (below 6

TWh, or roughly 1 GW generating capacity) compared to other fossil fuels in all countries but

Japan and the USA and to a lesser extent India and South Korea. The data for countries with

low amount of oil-based power are therefore considered to be unreliable (e.g. France peaks

above BAT efficiencies), but have limited impact on the overall fossil efficiency.

5 Running at significantly lower operating hours typically lowers efficiencies.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

18

Figure 16 Average efficiency of fossil-fired power production.

For overall fossil-fired power generation, the efficiencies range from 29% for India to 45% for

UK and Ireland in 2011.

Below is a discussion of the results organised by country. Note that all data refers to the year

2011, unless stated otherwise.

Australia

Total fossil-fired power generation in Australia is 173 TWh, of which 74% is generated from

coal, of this 39% is lignite. Total coal-fired capacity was 27 GW in 2005 (Platts, 2006).

The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation decreased in the period 1990 - 2011, from

36% to 33%.

The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation in Australia is 40%. Gas-fired power

generation in Australia was limited at 38 TWh.

Oil-fired power generation in Australia is very limited, at less than 1 TWh.

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

19

China

China is the largest fossil-fired power generator and generates 3,784 TWh and almost entirely

relies on coal (for fossil power production).

The average energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation is 36%. It has increased steadily

in the period 1990 - 2011 coming from 29%. Coal-based electricity production increased

substantially from 442 TWh in 1990 to 3,698 TWh in 2011, corresponding to a more than eight-

fold increase. The average efficiency of coal-fired power generation is expected to continue to

increase, as China has become “the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants

with high-specification emission control systems” according to the IEA (New York Times, 2009).

For instance, Yuhuan, one of China’s most advanced plants, boasts an efficiency of 45%

(Siemens, 2008).

Gas-fired power generation increased from 3 TWh in 1995 to 84 TWh. Since 2003, gas-based

power generation increased by at least 20% annually. Figure 14 shows that over the period of

1990 - 2011 the efficiency gas-fired power generation has remained constant.

Oil-fired power generation makes up only 3 TWh.

France

Fossil-fired power generation in France is relatively small at only 41 TWh. Besides the dominant

contribution of nuclear capacity France relies on both coal and gas-fired power generation.

The energy efficiency for coal-fired power plants in France is 43%. Coal-fired power generation

in France shows strong fluctuations year by year ranging from about 10 to 30 TWh in the past

two decades, and may depend on power production by hydro and nuclear plants. In France

electricity demand peaks in winter due to electric heating, and fossil power generation is used

to absorb the peak in demand. This means that the capacity factor of coal-fired power plants

can vary strongly which generally reduces energy efficiency. Based on Platts (2006) the

operational capacity for coal-fired power plants is 8200 MW in 2005. This implies that, on

average, full load hours range from 1,800 – 3,700 hours per year.

Gas-fired power generation increased rapidly especially since 2000 (before practically no gas

was used). In 2011, 22 TWh was generated. The energy efficiency was constant in 2000 - 2006

at 46-50% but plummeted very low to 32% in 2010. The operational capacity for public gas-

fired power generation increased from practically zero in 1990 to roughly 2000 MW in 2005.

The first NGCCs were commissioned in 2012 (and is not included in the results). The largest

share of the capacity went into operation after 1998.

Germany

Fossil-fired power generation in Germany is 318 TWh in 2011, of which 80% is produced by

coal (thereof 58% lignite).

After the reunification of West and East Germany several inefficient lignite power plants were

closed. This led to a higher efficiency of coal-fired power generation. The efficiency of coal-fired

power generation increased from 35% in 1990 to 38% .

20

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:

21

Japanese general electric utilities started to implement gas-fired power plants ahead of

time in response to the oil crises of the 1970s. In those times gas turbines were not yet

implemented on a large scale. As a result, utilities implemented conventional steam

turbines based on active electricity demand, as they remain now. In the 1990s however,

utilities implemented combined cycle power plants. Furthermore, utilities will implement

More Advanced Combined Cycle (MACC) with 59% (LHV) thermal efficiency, among the

world’s highest. The first MACC began its commercial operation in June 2007.

Oil-fired power generation in Japan decreased from 206 TWh in 1990 to 60 TWh in 2010, which

almost doubled in 2011 (119 TWh) likely because of the shutdown of nuclear power plants

following the Fukushima accident.

Nordic countries

Total fossil-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 45 TWh. Sweden and Norway both

have a very limited fossil power capacity; Finland and Denmark have a comparable production.

Coal-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 31 TWh. The energy efficiency for coal-

fired power generation in the Nordic countries has been between 37% and 42% in 1990 –

2011.

Gas-fired power generation (with a large share consisting of CHP plants) in the Nordic countries

is 14 TWh, generated at an efficiency of 47%.

South Korea

Total fossil-fired power generation in South Korea is 329 TWh, of which 204 TWh is generated

by coal and 113 TWh by gas.

The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation increased strongly from 26% in 1990 to

36% on average on 2009 - 2011. Coal-fired power generation increased in this period from 12

TWh to current levels. The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation increased from 40%

to 52% in the period 1990 – 2011.

United Kingdom and Ireland

Total fossil-fired power generation in the United Kingdom and Ireland is 251 TWh, of which 112

TWh is generated from coal and 138 TWh from gas.

Due to the liberalization of the electricity market in the early '90s several less efficient coal-

fired power plants were closed in the UK, leading to a higher average efficiency of coal-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%.

22

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.

23

Figure 17 shows the average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this study.

Because these efficiencies are not weighted, they do not represent the total overall energy

efficiency of power production in the included countries.

Figure 17 Average non-weighted efficiencies

With regard to average non-weighted efficiencies, the efficiency for gas-fired power generation

shows a strong increase from 38% in 1990 to 46% in 2011 (average annual improvement of

1.0%). The reason for this improvement is mainly the large amount of new generating capacity;

gas-fired power generation increased by +241% over the period 1990 - 2011.

Coal-fired power generation increased by +136% over the period 1990 - 2011. However,

remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen from 34% to 37% (average annual

improvement of 0.3%).

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%] Coal

Gas

Oil

Fossil

24

Figure 18 shows the energy efficiencies of the countries divided by the non-weighted average of

efficiency. The data is averaged over the period 2009 – 2011 as uncertainty in the data of an

individual year can be high. A benchmark indicator of 110% for gas means that the efficiency for

gas-fired power generation in a country is 10% higher than the average (non-weighted)

efficiency of the considered countries. The fossil benchmark indicator is based on the average

benchmark indicators for coal, gas and oil, and is weighted by power generation output.

Figure 18 Average 2009 – 2011 performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective non-

weighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the non-

weighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation.

As can be seen, the UK & Ireland and Japan perform best in terms of fossil-fired power

generating efficiency with 17% and 15% above average efficiency respectively closely followed

by the Nordic countries, South Korea and Germany with 10%, 5% and 4% respectively above

average. India is the most prominent underperformer with fossil efficiency of 27% below the

benchmark.

Figure 19 shows the time development of the benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power

generation.

Note that a decrease of the benchmark indicator for a country might mean that the efficiency of

the country has decreased or that the non-weighted average efficiency has increased.

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

Perf

orm

ance r

ela

tive t

o b

enchm

ark

Coal Gas Oil Fossil Non-weighted benchmark

25

Figure 19 Output-weighted average benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on

non-weighted average efficiencies).

3.3 Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency

In this section, we calculate a second benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation

efficiency. This is done by comparing the efficiency of countries and regions to the weighted

average efficiencies of the selected countries. The formula for calculating the benchmark

indicators can be found in Section 2.2. The benchmark indicator is based on the country

efficiency per fuel source divided by the weighted average efficiency per fuel source. The

separate benchmark indicators are weighted by power generation to get to an overall indicator

for fossil-fired power generation.

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Perf

orm

ance r

ela

tive t

o f

ossil b

enchm

ark

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

26

Figure 20 shows the weighted average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this

study. This corresponds to the efficiency of all countries and regions together.

Figure 20 Average weighted efficiencies of all countries and regions at the scope of this study (%).

For the weighted average efficiencies, the efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a

strong increase from 39% in 1990 to 48% in 2011 (average annual improvement of 1.1%). The

reason for this improvement is mainly the large amount of (more efficient) new generating

capacity; gas-fired power generation increased by +241% over the period 1990 - 2011. The

efficiency for oil fired generation increased also in the period 2006-2011. The increase in

efficiency between 2010 and 2011 can perhaps be explained by the relative large increase in

generation in Japan with relative high efficiency.

Coal-fired power generation increased by +136% over the period 1990 - 2011. However

remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen of 34% to 35% (average annual

improvement of 0.1%). The reason for this is that a large part of the growth in coal-fired power

generation took place in China and India, for which generating efficiency by coal increased only

slightly (+7 % pts in China) or remained the same (India).

The differences with the non-weighted average approach (Figure 17) are limited. In general

they can be explained by the fact that the impact of countries with large power production

output is diminished by the non-weighted approach whereas the impact of small countries is

magnified. For instance, the largest producers from gas-fired power are Japan, South Korea and

the United Kingdom and Ireland and they are also among the most efficient. Hence, in the non-

weighted average approach their impact on the average is lower (than in the weighted average

approach) resulting in a lower overall average efficiency for all countries combined.

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Coal

Gas

Oil

Fossil

27

Figure 25 shows the energy efficiencies of the countries divided by the weighted average

efficiency. Again, the data is based on the average over the period 2009 – 2011 as uncertainty

in the data for an individual year can be high. A benchmark indicator of 110% for gas means

that the efficiency for gas-fired power generation in a country is 10% higher than the weighted

average efficiency of the considered countries. The fossil benchmark indicator is based on the

average benchmark indicators for coal, gas and oil, and is weighted by power generation

output.

Figure 21 Average 2009 – 2011 performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective

weighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the

weighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation.

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

Perf

orm

ance r

ela

tive t

o b

enchm

ark

Coal Gas Oil Fossil Weighted benchmark

28

Figure 22 shows the development in time of the benchmark indicators for fossil-fired power

generation. On average in the period 2008-2011, the Nordic countries had a 10% higher

weighted fossil efficiency, followed by the United Kingdom and Ireland, Japan, Germany and

South Korea (all in the range of +5% to +9%), the United States (+3%) and China (+1%).

France and Australia perform within -7 to -8% under the benchmark, while the most severe

underperformer is India with -21%.

Figure 22 Output-weighted benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on weighted

average efficiencies).

Although the exact numbers for the two benchmark approaches; (1) non-weighted and (2)

weighted average efficiency, differ, the results in terms of which countries are most efficient, are

more or less the same. The ranking in relative performance relative to the fossil benchmark for

the three most recent years remains unchanged for the six countries ranked lowest. The four

highest ranked countries - which performed comparably in the weighted and non-weighted

approach in terms of fossil efficiencies – (Figure 19), is reordered.

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Perf

orm

ance r

ela

tive t

o f

ossil b

enchm

ark

Australia

China

France

Germany

India

Japan

Korea

Nordic countries

UK + Ireland

United States

29

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.

Figure 23 CO2-intensity for coal-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in

2009 - 2011.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average

30

On average over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for gas-fired power generation ranges

from 386 g/kWh for the United Kingdom and Ireland to 605 g/kWh for France (Figure 24). This is

a difference of +57% in emissions per unit of power generation.

Figure 24 CO2-intensity for gas-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in

2009 - 2011.

On average over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for oil-fired power generation ranges

from 641 g/kWh for Japan to 1,462 g/kWh for India (Figure 25). This is a difference in emissions

of +128 % per unit of oil-fired power generated.

Figure 25 CO2-intensity for oil-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-intensity in

2009 - 2011.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average

31

On average, over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for fossil-fired power generation ranges

from 547 g/kWh for Italy to 1,174 g/kWh for India (Figure 26). This is a difference in emissions

of 115% per unit of fossil-fired power generation. The CO2 intensity for fossil-fired power

generation depends largely on the share of coal in fossil power generation and on the efficiency

of the coal fired power plants.

Figure 26 CO2-intensity for fossil fuel-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO2-

intensity in 2009 - 2011.

On average, over the period 2009 - 2011, CO2 intensities for total power generation ranges from

61 g/kWh for France to 921 g/kWh for India (Figure 27). The CO2-intensity for total power

generation depends mostly on the share of decarbonised electricity in the mix. In France, about

four-fifths of electricity is generated by nuclear power and in the Nordic Countries 75% comes

from hydro (two-thirds) and nuclear power (one-third). Meanwhile, in China, Australia and India

two-thirds of public power originates from coal. At present, nuclear and hydropower generally

remain the dominant sources of decarbonised power, although the share of renewables other

than hydropower has experienced a very fast uptake in the past decade.

For Japan, the higher CO2 intensity in 2011 as compared to the earlier years reflects the impact

of the shutdown of the Japanese nuclear power plants following the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

The development of renewables and nuclear power production over time is addressed in more

detail in Chapter 3.6.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average

32

Figure 27 CO2-intensity for total (i.e. including fossil and renewable) power generation. Countries are sorted

based on average CO2-intensity in 2009 - 2011.

3.5 Emission reduction potential

A large potential for emission reduction is present by improving the energy efficiency of fossil-

fired power generation.

The figures below show the specific (g CO2/kWh), absolute (Mtonne CO2) and relative (%)

emission abatement potential per country that would occur if the best available technologies

(BAT) for the respective fuels was applied for all power produced. Hence, it is assessed how

much CO2 emissions would be avoided if all power producing installations would be replaced by

an installation that that operates according to the best available conversion efficiency

corresponding to the fuel combusted. Note that, as such, CO2 emissions reductions from fuel

switch are not incorporated in this analysis. A large abatement potential reflects the

deployment of inefficient power generation. However, this potential is larger or smaller

depending on the fuels combusted. This means that, for example, equally inefficient power

production in a country with only gas use versus a country with only coal use would result in a

larger CO2 reduction potential for the coal-based country.

The efficiencies used for BAT are 47% for coal, 61% for natural gas and 47% for oil-fired power

generation6. No changes are assumed for the fuel mix for fossil-fired power generation per

country. The average reduction potential is determined based on the years 2009 - 2011.

6 These values originating from the European Commission (2006), Siemens/TÜV (2012) and VGB (2004) respectively and refer to

operational efficiencies based on gross power output and net calorific value for fuel input. Note that BAT efficiencies given by the

relevant Best Reference document for Large Combustion Plants (European Commission, 2013) are lower. This can be explained the

fact that BREF documents do not always show the most up-to-date values as there is a time delay in adopting such values.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

CO

2in

tensity [

g/k

Wh]

2009 2010 2011 Average

33

Note that the chart with specific potential (Figure 28) gives an indication for the GHG in-

efficiency of public power production, or the amount of specific GHG emissions above the BAT

level. The chart with absolute potential (Figure 29) indicates the absolute amount of reduction

possible thus taking into account the total amount of power production occurring in a country.

Finally, the chart with relative potential (Figure 30) illustrates how large the absolute potential

is in comparison with the total emissions.

India, Australia and China have the largest specific abatement potentials as these have,

relatively, the highest shares of coal and the lowest conversion efficiencies. The United States

is, with regard to coal-based power production, among the least efficient countries. This is

offset by the fact that for the past twenty years, the declining share of coal-based power was

mostly replaced by power production from gas-fired power plants which are at present among

the most efficient.

Figure 28 Specific CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public

power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type.

China, United States and India show very high absolute emission reduction potentials of 812, 500

and 338 Mt per year, respectively. The absolute abatement potential is very much dictated by the

total amount of power produced in the country and the extent to which this occurs by making use

of inefficient technologies combusting CO2-intensive fuels. That explains why large countries with

relatively inefficient power production, often predominantly from coal, have the largest absolute

CO2 abatement potentials.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CO

2re

duction p

ote

ntial [g

/KW

h]

34

Figure 29 Absolute CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public


Relative CO2 emission reduction potentials range from 16% for the Nordic Countries and Japan to

43% for India. On average the emission reduction potential is 23% for the included countries.

Figure 30 Relative CO2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

CO

2re

duction p

ote

ntial [M

t CO

2]

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

CO

2re

duction p

ote

ntial [%

]

35

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.

36

Australia

Despite its significant uranium deposits, there are no nuclear power facilities in Australia. Hydro

power has remained the main renewable power source in the period 2000 – 2011. The share of

hydropower has been constant between 5 and 8%. The share of wind energy especially since

2005 increased strongly while the use of bioenergy (mainly primary solid biofuels – sugar cane

residue and wood waste - and biogas) after a steady growth between 2000 and 2008,

decreased in recent years. The Clean Energy Future plan of 2012 reaffirmed the commitment to

20% renewable electricity production by 2020 and provided support which should increase

renewable production in future. However, there have been a number of policy changes with

South Australia reducing its rates for existing renewable power projects and eliminating support

for new projects. Recently the Australian government has also been considering to

“grandfathering” the scheme to allow only existing investments to continue, but to halt the

support for new renewable energy projects. These developments need to be continuously

watched and could have serious consequences for renewable power in the country.

Figure 31 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 – 2011 in Australia.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear

= total public power production relative to year 2000

37

Figure 32 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in Australia.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

38

China

The share of power production from non-fossil sources has been constant in China for the

period of interest. The share of public power production from hydropower and nuclear power

fluctuated between 15% and 19% and 1% and 2% respectively. However, in absolute terms

public power production increased by a factor 3 in a decade and the steady share of non-fossil

production implies an equivalent increase in hydro and nuclear capacity.

Deployment of renewable energy forms a strong element in the overall energy and industrial

policy. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006 - 2010), during which the 2006 Renewable Energy Law

was made effective, resulted in the establishment of renewable energy markets, the completion

of renewable resource evaluations, and construction of many renewable projects. The 12th Five-

Year Plan (2011 - 2015) aims for 11.4% of non-fossil resources in primary energy consumption

by 2015 (and 15% by 2020). Indicative cumulative capacity growth figures are given in the

table below. The policy support consists among others of feed-in tariffs and preferential taxes

and access to cheap credit. Projects approved by government are granted access to grid in the

Renewable Energy Law. Priority dispatch is guaranteed by law, but often not applied in practice.

Another point of attention is that not all installed capacity can be connected to the grid (only

75% of wind capacity was connected in 2011). The Renewable Energy Law has therefore been

amended in 2009 to improve grid access, however not all changes have already taken effect.

For PV, China has recently amended its feed-in tariff to introduce regional differentiation of

tariffs and also introduced further value-added tax rebates.

Table 4 Power generation capacities (2011) from IEA ETP (2014) and indicative capacity targets in the 12th

FYP of China (GW)

2011 2015 2020

Coal 739 960

Gas 39 56

Nuclear 12 40

Hydropower 213 290 420

Wind (grid-

connected) 62

100

(o.w. 5 offshore)

200

(o.w. 30 offshore)

Solar

(PV and CSP) 3

21

(o.w. 1 CSP)

50

(o.w. 1 CSP)

Biomass 10 13 30

Geothermal 0 100

Ocean 0 50

Total 1078 1490

39

Figure 33 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in China.

Figure 34 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in China.

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

40

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 non-

existent 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.

Figure 35 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in France.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


41

Figure 36 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in France.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

42

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.

Figure 37 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in Germany.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


43

Figure 38 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in Germany.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

44

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.

Figure 39 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 20011 in Japan.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


45

Figure 40 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 – 2011 in Japan.

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

46

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.

47

Figure 41 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the Nordic Countries.

Figure 42 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the Nordic

Countries.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

48

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

Targeted additions

11th Plan 2007-2012

Achieved additions

12th Plan 2012-2017

Targeted additions

Thermal (coal and gas) 59.6 48.5 72.3

Nuclear 3.3 0.8 5.3

Large hydropower 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

Total 90.9 69.5 118.5

49

Figure 43 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in India.

Figure 44 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in India.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

50

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).

Figure 45 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the United States.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


51

Figure 46 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the United

States.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

52

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 so-

called 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

through the Contract for Difference scheme.

Figure 47 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during 2000 - 2011 in the UK and Ireland.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Develo

pm

ent of to

tal public

pow

er

pro

duction r

ela

tive t

o t

he y

ear

2000

Share

in t

ota

l public p

ow

er

pro

duction (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

Hydro

Nuclear


53

Figure 48 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during 2000 - 2011 in the UK and

Ireland.

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sh

are

in

to

tal p

ub

lic p

ow

er

pro

du

ctio

n (

%)

Waste

Geothermal

Ocean

Solar

Bio

Wind

54

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 non-

weighted 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

55

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.

56

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.

57

3. In the CO2-intensity analysis, uncertainties arise mainly from the CO2 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.

58

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 CO2 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 non-

OECD 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

http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energyUPDATE09/htm/data.htm

http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/energy_dec06/excel/ELEC06_aus.xls

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0811a

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030/1_pref_en.pdf

http://bree.gov.au/documents/data/ausenergystats/EnergyUpdate_2011_REPORT.docx

59

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

http://www.iea.org/etp/etp2014/restrictedaccessarea/

http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/site/home.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=0

http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?products_id=85

http://www.siemens.com/innovation/pool/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_2008/energy/coal_china/pof108_energie_coalchina_en.pdf

http://www.siemens.com/innovation/pool/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_2008/energy/coal_china/pof108_energie_coalchina_en.pdf

http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/salatuo/2008/salatuo_2008_2009-10-21_tau_001_en.html

http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php

http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdf

60

Worldwatch Institute. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010 – 2011.

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FIN

AL.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FINAL.pdf

61

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.

62

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

carrier

Net calorific

value

Gross electricity

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.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

IEA MOSPI

63

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.

Figure 51 Energy efficiency of oil-fired power generation (%).

Figure 52 shows the energy efficiency by gas-fired power generation, calculated by both

sources.

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ener

gy e

ffic

ien

cy [

%]

IEA EIA

30%

34%

38%

42%

46%

50%

54%

58%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ener

gy e

ffic

ien

cy [

%]

IEA EIA

64

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.

Figure 53 Energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation in the United States (%).

30%

34%

38%

42%

46%

50%

54%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ener

gy e

ffic

ien

cy [

%]

IEA EIA

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Ener

gy e

ffic

ien

cy [

%]

IEA EIA

65

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.

66

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

67

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

AU 29.6 30.5 23.5 25.1 25.7 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

CH 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 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

FR 37.9 38.3 38.4 37.1 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

DE 27.8 30.0 29.6 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

IN 22.0 22.0 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

JP 41.9 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

KR 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 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

68

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%

69

Table 12 Explanation for differences in fossil efficiencies in this report and the previous version of this report (Ecofys, 2013)

Region Years of

deviation Explanation Source

Australia S: 2004

L: 2003; 2005-2009

In the 2013 edition, data for Australia were revised back to 2003 due to the adoption of the National Greenhouse and Energy

Reporting (NGER) as the main energy consumption data source for the Australian Energy Statistics. a

China

S: 1994-2002, 2005-

2008; 2010

M: 2009

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). b

France S: 2000; 2010

L: 2009 Gas: improvements in data collection lead to some breaks in series between 2008 and 2009. a

Germany

S:1997-2000

M:1995-1996;

2004-2009

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

administration for 1995-2000 and 2003-2006 for autoproducer CHP, main activity CHP, and main activity heat

a

India

S: 2005

M: 2006-2007;

2009-2010 Data was updated by the IEA, but no explanation was provided with regard to the changes made

-

Japan 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)

70

Appendix II: Input data

Table 13 Public power generation absolute by source (TWh) in 2011

Coal Natural gas Oil Nuclear Hydro Other

renewables Total

Total 7,191 1,880 175 1,901 1,497 505 13,148

United States 1,854 955 32 821 320 179 4,162

China 3,697 84 2 86 699 70 4,640

Japan 237 360 119 102 66 15 899

India 612 92 4 33 131 51 923

Germany 254 63 2 108 17 109 552

France 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

Nordic countries 31 14 1 84 194 35 358

Australia 173 38 0 0 17 7 235

Table 14 Public power generation relative by source in 2011

Coal Gas Oil Nuclear Hydro Other

renewables

United States 45% 23% 1% 20% 8% 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%

France 3% 4% 0% 82% 8% 3%

South Korea 42% 23% 2% 32% 1% 1%

UK + Ireland 32% 40% 0% 20% 2% 6%

Nordic countries 9% 4% 0% 23% 54% 10%

Australia 74% 16% 0% 0% 7% 3%

71

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

UK+IE 209 214 199 174 164 160 149 124 127 110 126 136 130 142 135 139 153 140 128 106 110 112

US 1666 1663 1694 1765 1766 1787 1878 1930 1961 1970 2060 1996 2025 2070 2075 2112 2088 2118 2087 1846 1937 1821

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

DK+FI+SE 4 5 5 6 7 9 11 11 14 15 16 17 18 20 20 17 19 15 16 15 19 14

UK+IE 4 4 9 32 50 62 80 106 111 134 134 132 142 139 146 139 129 155 168 160 170 138

US 319 327 344 352 397 432 390 412 463 487 534 572 626 584 646 704 756 839 826 866 928 954

72

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

DK+FI+SE 2 2 3 3 6 6 11 8 7 6 5 5 6 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

UK+IE 31 25 27 21 15 14 14 9 9 9 7 8 6 5 5 6 7 5 6 5 3 1

US 125 118 97 111 104 72 79 91 128 117 110 125 94 119 120 122 63 64 45 38 36 30

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

UK+IE 244 244 235 226 229 236 244 238 246 253 267 276 277 286 287 285 289 300 302 270 283 251

US 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

73

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

UK+IE 2021 2025 1944 1634 1543 1473 1375 1185 1226 1048 1185 1308 1228 1333 1288 1337 1460 1336 1215 1007 1056 1066

US 16615 16603 16815 17561 17618 17824 18805 19296 19610 19664 20625 20007 20195 20608 20690 21132 20854 21208 20909 18559 19489 18316

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 34 39 95 281 395 469 616 770 808 963 966 945 993 981 1024 982 930 1084 1164 1116 1172 933

US 3070 3130 3235 3253 3656 3968 3542 3781 4292 4502 4862 5023 5243 4756 4946 5358 5749 6344 6187 6392 6877 7058

74

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

DK+FI+SE 21 28 34 36 59 59 106 71 75 65 51 53 60 46 31 25 29 21 18 22 25 11

UK+IE 274 238 247 196 172 148 140 86 75 71 57 64 41 49 54 64 60 44 58 50 30 15

US 1257 1177 972 1100 1036 729 794 900 1281 1189 1124 1255 937 1177 1179 1204 623 639 455 375 364 273

Table 22 Fuel consumption of fossil-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 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

UK+IE 2329 2302 2286 2111 2110 2089 2131 2042 2109 2082 2208 2317 2262 2364 2366 2383 2451 2463 2437 2172 2259 2015

US 20942 20910 21023 21914 22311 22521 23142 23977 25184 25355 26611 26286 26375 26541 26815 27694 27227 28191 27552 25326 26729 25647

75

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

DK+FI+SE 112 127 122 128 120 122 133 123 110 104 97 109 110 114 116 105 114 110 104 106 114 100

UK+IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US 22 22 29 31 39 43 45 42 46 55 56 54 42 40 41 42 40 40 39 40 40 39

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

DK+FI+SE 10 13 15 16 20 19 22 12 20 13 7 11 16 15 14 12 13 8 7 8 11 6

UK+IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US 10 6 6 8 9 14 12 12 7 7 7 6 4 8 9 8 7 8 7 7 6 6

76

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

DK+FI+SE 20 23 30 35 42 49 56 63 68 70 76 81 84 81 80 76 71 66 69 73 86 67

UK+IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US 84 87 108 113 126 124 128 139 150 154 167 173 226 211 253 253 218 224 215 201 197 208

Table 26 Heat output from fossil-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 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

DK+FI+SE 142 163 167 179 183 190 211 198 198 186 180 200 210 210 210 192 198 184 180 187 211 173

UK+IE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

US 116 115 143 152 174 181 186 193 202 216 230 234 272 259 302 303 266 272 262 249 244 253

77

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%

Table 28 Benchmark indicators for oil (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 86% 88% 69% 74% 76% 65% 77% 80% 71% 94% 84% 95% 106% 55% 47% 86% 89% 91% 90% 96% 93% 110%

CN 98% 97% 98% 99% 100% 102% 98% 98% 99% 96% 91% 94% 86% 94% 102% 99% 100% 100% 99% 104% 98% 96%

FR 110% 111% 112% 109% 106% 109% 105% 109% 104% 96% 196% 153% 146% 143% 137% 105% 101% 106% 96% 79% 86% 86%

DE 81% 87% 87% 78% 78% 85% 88% 89% 93% 91% 62% 75% 109% 127% 110% 120% 100% 100% 109% 114% 108% 105%

IN 64% 64% 64% 65% 65% 66% 64% 65% 65% 63% 47% 50% 44% 49% 54% 55% 55% 32% 43% 43% 69% 57%

JP 122% 121% 121% 120% 123% 124% 119% 119% 120% 116% 110% 112% 105% 115% 124% 120% 121% 124% 122% 128% 121% 118%

KR 105% 108% 113% 120% 128% 116% 123% 105% 112% 97% 87% 93% 84% 97% 102% 96% 96% 110% 109% 116% 112% 130%

DK+FI+SE 112% 109% 117% 117% 124% 123% 117% 121% 108% 112% 106% 106% 102% 124% 110% 108% 113% 110% 114% 103% 109% 102%

UK+IE 118% 111% 114% 111% 94% 102% 104% 107% 120% 134% 120% 120% 126% 95% 102% 103% 116% 118% 113% 106% 98% 85%

US 104% 105% 105% 107% 107% 107% 104% 107% 107% 102% 96% 101% 93% 102% 112% 108% 109% 108% 105% 112% 106% 112%

78

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)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

AU 102% 101% 100% 101% 101% 100% 100% 100% 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%

79

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 2003 2004 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%

US 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 97% 97% 95% 93% 92% 93% 95% 97% 97% 100% 101% 100% 100% 100% 103% 103% 102%

80

Table 33 Benchmark indicators for oil (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 78% 81% 62% 67% 68% 58% 71% 74% 67% 91% 88% 97% 116% 55% 44% 81% 85% 81% 84% 86% 86% 96%

CN 89% 89% 88% 90% 88% 91% 90% 92% 93% 93% 96% 96% 94% 94% 95% 94% 96% 89% 92% 93% 90% 84%

FR 100% 101% 101% 99% 94% 97% 96% 101% 98% 93% 206% 157% 160% 143% 128% 99% 96% 95% 90% 71% 79% 76%

DE 73% 79% 78% 71% 69% 76% 81% 83% 87% 88% 65% 77% 120% 127% 103% 114% 95% 89% 102% 102% 100% 92%

IN 58% 58% 58% 59% 58% 59% 59% 60% 61% 61% 49% 51% 49% 49% 51% 52% 52% 29% 41% 38% 63% 50%

JP 111% 110% 109% 109% 109% 110% 110% 111% 112% 113% 116% 114% 115% 115% 116% 114% 115% 111% 114% 114% 111% 104%

KR 95% 98% 102% 108% 113% 103% 113% 98% 105% 94% 92% 96% 92% 97% 95% 91% 92% 98% 102% 104% 103% 115%

DK+FI+SE 101% 99% 105% 106% 110% 110% 108% 113% 101% 108% 112% 109% 112% 124% 102% 103% 108% 98% 107% 92% 100% 90%

UK+IE 107% 101% 102% 101% 83% 91% 96% 100% 112% 130% 126% 123% 139% 95% 95% 97% 110% 106% 106% 95% 90% 75%

US 95% 96% 95% 97% 95% 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%

81

CO2-intensity

Table 35 CO2-intensity coal-fired power (g/kWh)

2009 2010 2011 Average

Australia 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

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




Canada 700 890 903 831

Italy 681 798 731 737

82

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




Canada 448 481 474 467

Italy 396 400 398 398

Table 38 CO2-intensity fossil-fired power (g/kWh)

2009 2010 2011 Average

Australia 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




Canada 750 778 756 761

Italy 540 548 553 547

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




Italy 97 107 100 101

Canada 131 175 178 161

83

Table 40 CO2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (Mtonne)

2009 2010 2011 Average

Australia 73 62 60 65

China 788 782 866 812

France 9 10 8 9

Germany 55 48 49 51

India 327 350 336 338

Japan 56 58 70 61

South Korea 46 50 55 50




Italy 19 21 19 20

Canada 17 22 23 21

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%

84

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.

ECOFYS Netherlands B.V.

Kanaalweg 15G

3526 KL Utrecht

T: +31 (0) 30 662-3300

F: +31 (0) 30 662-3301

E: [email protected]

I: www.ecofys.com

International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity ...

Documents

Transcript of International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity ...