International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity - Update 2014 FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity - Update 2014 FINAL REPORT

2 International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity Update 2014 FINAL REPORT By: Charlotte Hussy, Erik Klaassen, Joris Koornneef and Fabian Wigand Date: 5 September 2014 Project number: CESNL15173 Ecofys 2014 by order of: Mitsubishi Research Institute, Japan ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

3 Summary The purpose of this study is to compare the energy efficiency and CO 2 -intensity of fossil-fired power generation for Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland (aggregated), and the United States. This is done by calculating separate benchmark indicators for the energy efficiency of gas-, oil- and coal-fired power generation. Additionally, an overall benchmark for fossil-fired power generation is determined. The benchmark indicators are based on deviations from average energy efficiencies. For the comparison of CO 2 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 In the period the share of fossil power used in the public power production mix has increased from 64% to 68%. Total power generation is largest in the China with roughly 4,640 TWh, closely followed by the United States with 4,162 TWh. Japan is the country ranked third with 899 TWh. From the fossil fuels, coal is most frequently used in most countries. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of public power generation per country. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other renewables Oil Natural gas Coal Nuclear Hydro Figure 1 Fuel mix for public power generation by source in 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 , with China being the strongest grower, increasing from 442 to 3,697 TWh, fuelled by fast-growing domestic energy demand. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

4 Efficiency [%] Gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551 to 1,879 TWh (+241%) in 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 , 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, : Coal-fired power efficiencies range from 27% (India) to 43% (France). Gas-fired power efficiencies range from 34% (France) to 53% (United Kingdom and Ireland). Oil-fired power generation efficiencies range from 20% (India) to 46% (South Korea). Fossil-fired power efficiencies range from 29% (India) to 45% (United Kingdom and Ireland). The weighted average generating efficiency for all countries together in 2011 is 35% for coal, 48% for natural gas, 40% for oil-fired power generation and 38% for fossil power in general. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Coal Gas Oil Fossil Figure 2 Energy efficiency per fuel source (average ). The weighted average efficiency for gas-fired power generation shows a strong increase from 39% to 48% for the considered countries (see Figure 3), caused by a strong increase in modern gas-based capacity: gas-based production more than tripled. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

5 Efficiency [%] Coal-fired power generation however, doubled in the period , 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 in China). The majority of coal-fired power plants in China is based on sub-critical steam systems (although this is changing as China is currently the main market in the world for advanced coal-fired power plants). The efficiency that can be achieved by sub-critical units is around 39%. The efficiency that can be achieved by applying best available technology (super-critical units) is as high as 47%. This means that coal-fired power efficiency in China could have been much higher if best practice technology had been used. For India the situation is the same; a large share of coal-fired capacity is built after 1990, of which the majority is based on sub-critical steam systems. 50% 45% Coal 40% 35% Gas Oil Fossil 30% 25% Figure 3 Weighted average energy efficiency for included countries. Figure 4 shows the benchmark for the weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation. Countries with benchmark indicators above 100% perform better than average and countries below 100% perform worse than the average. As can be seen, in order of performance, the Nordic countries, United Kingdom and Ireland, Japan, Germany, South Korea and the United States all perform better than the benchmark fossil-fired generating efficiency. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

6 CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] Performance relative to benchmark 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Coal Gas Oil Fossil Weighted benchmark Figure 4 Benchmark for weighted energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (100% is average). CO 2 -intensity and reduction potential Figure 5 shows the CO 2 -intensity for fossil-fired power generation for the years per country. The CO 2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation ranges from 547 g/kwh for Italy to 1,174 g/kwh for India on average. This is a difference in emissions of more than 100% per unit of fossilfired power generated. The CO 2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation depends largely on the share of coal in fossil power generation and on the energy efficiency of power production. 1,400 1,200 1, Average Figure 5 CO 2-intensity for fossil-fired power generation. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

7 CO 2 reduction potential [%] 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 technologies 1 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 CO 2 emissions would be for all individual countries as a share of emissions from fossil-fired power generation. The CO 2 emission reduction potential per country, as a percentage of emissions from public power generation, ranges from 16% for Japan to 43% for India. 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 6 Relative CO 2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type. 1 I.e. Installations operating according to the present highest existing conversion efficiencies. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

8 CO 2 reduction potential [Mt CO 2 ] 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 CO 2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by energy efficiency improvement by replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

9 Table of contents 1 Introduction Power generation by fossil-fuel sources 1 2 Methodology Energy efficiency of power generation Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency CO 2 intensity power generation Share of renewable and nuclear power generation 13 3 Results Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation Benchmark based on non-weighted average efficiency Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency CO 2 -intensities Emission reduction potential Renewable and nuclear power production 35 4 Conclusions 54 5 Discussion of uncertainties & recommendations for follow-up work 56 6 References 58 Appendix I: Comparison national statistics 61 Appendix II: Input data 70 Appendix III: IEA Definitions 84 ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I Chamber of Commerce

10 1 Introduction This study is an update of the analysis International comparison of fossil power generation and CO 2 intensity (Ecofys, 2013). This analysis aims to compare fossil-fired power generation efficiency and CO 2 -intensity (coal, oil and gas) for Australia, China (excluding Hong Kong), France, Germany, India, Japan, Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated), South Korea, United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States. This selection of countries and regions is based on discussions with the client. United Kingdom and Ireland, and the Nordic countries are aggregated, because of the interconnection between their electricity grids. Although the electricity grids in Europe are highly interconnected, there are a number of markets that operate fairly independently. These are the Nordic market (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway), the Iberian market (Spain and Portugal), Central (Eastern European countries) and United Kingdom and Ireland. The analysis is based on the methodologies described in Phylipsen et al. (1998) and applied in Phylipsen et al. (2003). Only public power plants are taken into account, including public CHP plants. For the latter a correction for the (district) heat supply has been applied. This chapter gives an overview of the fuel mix for power generation for the included countries and of the amount of fossil-fired power generation. The methodology for this study is described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the efficiency of fossil-fired power generation by fuel source and addresses the development of the share of renewables in public power generation over time. Chapter 4 gives the conclusions. 1.1 Power generation by fossil-fuel sources Fossil-fired power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fired power generation accounted for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (UNFCCC, 2008). The countries included in the study generate 68% of public fossilfired power generation worldwide in 2011 (IEA, 2013). 1

11 Electricitry production (TWh) 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Other renewables Hydro Nuclear Oil Natural gas Coal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other renewables Oil Natural gas Coal Nuclear Hydro Figure 8 Absolute (top) and relative (bottom) public power generation by source in Note that for the Nordic countries there is a small underestimation of power production from natural gas as power produced from natural gas in Norway is confidential. 2

12 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 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 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 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 , from public power plants and public CHP plants together. 3

13 Electricity generation (TWh) Figure 9 shows that the total coal-fired power generation in all countries increased from 3,036 to 7,158 (+136%) during the period 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 Australia China France 2500 Germany 2000 India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States Figure 9 Coal-fired power generation. 4

14 Electricity generation (TWh) Figure 10 indicates that gas-fired power generation in all countries combined increased from 551 to 1,879 in (+241%). The United States shows the strongest absolute growth from 319 to 954 TWh. Between 2009 and 2011, the growth was fuelled by shale gas. In Japan, Gasfired power generation experienced a very steep increase in 2011 (+25% increase in a single year). The UK and Ireland saw a drop in gas-fired power generation because of the relative low prices of coal and CO 2 prices of around 15 Euro per tonne CO 2 under Europe s emission trading scheme (EU ETS) Australia 1000 China France 800 Germany 600 India Japan 400 Korea 200 Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States Figure 10 Gas-fired power generation 5

15 Electricity generation (TWh) Figure 11 shows that oil-fired power generation plays a limited role and its importance has further diminished in the past two decades, especially in the case of the three leading oil-fired power producing countries (USA, Japan and China), although in Japan oil-fired power production doubled again in 2011 post-fukushima. 250 Australia 200 China France 150 Germany India 100 Japan Korea 50 Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States Figure 11 Oil-fired power production. 6

16 Electricity generation (TWh) Figure 12 indicates that the total fossil-fired power generation increased from 4,027 to 9,209 TWh (+129%) in China, US, India and Japan show the strongest absolute growth in this period Australia China France 2500 Germany 2000 India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States Figure 12 Fossil-fired power production. 7

17 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 P H s Energy efficiency of power generation Power production from public power plants and public CHP plants Heat output from public CHP plants Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted 2 The Net Calorific Value (NCV) or Lower Heating Value (LHV) refers to the quantity of heat liberated by the complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a vapour and the heat is not recovered. 8

18 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 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 point 3. 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 percent point per degree. [Phylipsen et al, 1998] In order to determine the efficiency for power production for a region, we calculate the weighted average efficiency of the countries included in the region. 2.2 Benchmark for fossil generation efficiency In this analysis we compare the efficiency of fossil-fired power generation across countries and regions. Instead of simply aggregating the efficiencies for different fuel types to a single efficiency indicator, we determine separate benchmark indicators per fuel source. This is because the energy efficiency for natural gas-fired power generation is generally higher than the energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation. In general, choices for fuel types are often outside the realm of the industry and therefore a structural factor. Choices for fuel diversification have in the past often been made at the government level for strategic purposes, e.g. fuel diversification and fuel costs. The most widely used power plants for coal-fired power generation are conventional boiler plants based on the Rankine cycle. Fuel is combusted in a boiler and with the generated heat, pressurized water is heated to steam. The steam drives a turbine and generates electricity. In principle any fuel can be used in this kind of plant. 3 A change of 1 percent point in efficiency here means a change of e.g. 40% to 41%. 9

19 An alternative for the steam cycle is the gas turbine, where combusted gas expands through a turbine and drives a generator. The hot exit gas from the turbine still has significant amounts of energy which can be used to raise steam to drive a steam-turbine and another generator. This combination of gas and steam cycle is called combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant. A CCGT plant is generally fired with natural gas. Also coal firing and biomass firing however is possible by gasification; e.g. in integrated coal gasification combined cycle plants (IGCC). These technologies are not widely used yet. The energy efficiency of a single steam cycle is at most 47%, while the energy efficiency of a combined cycle can be up to 61% (Siemens. 2012). Several possible indicators exist for benchmarking energy efficiency of power generation. One possible indicator is the comparison of individual countries efficiencies to predefined best practice efficiency. The difficulty in this method is the definition of best practice efficiency. Best practice efficiency could e.g. be based on: The best performing country in the world or in a region; The best performing plant in the world or in a region; The best practical efficiency possible, by best available technology (BAT). The best practice efficiency differs yearly, which means that back-casting is required to determine best practice efficiencies for historic years. A different method for benchmarking energy efficiency is the comparison of countries efficiencies against average efficiencies. An advantage of this method is the visibility of a countries performance against average efficiency. In this study we choose to use this indicator. We compare the efficiency of countries and regions to the average efficiency of the selected countries. The average efficiency is calculated per fuel source and per year and can be either weighted or non-weighted. In the first case the weighted-average efficiency represents the overall energy efficiency of the included countries. A disadvantage of this method is that countries with a large installed generating capacity heavily influence the average efficiency while small countries have hardly any influence at all on the average efficiency. On the other hand, when applying nonweighted benchmark indicators, one efficient power plant in a country could influence the average efficiency if absolute power generation in the country is small. In this research we included both methods, to see if this leads to different results. The formula for the non-weighted average efficiency for coal (BC 1 ) is given below as an example. The formulas for oil and gas are similar. 10

20 BC 1 = EC i / n Where: BC 1 EC i n Benchmark efficiency coal (1). This is the average efficiency of coal-fired power generation for the selected countries. Efficiency coal for country or region i (i = 1, n) The number of countries and regions The formula for the weighted average efficiency for coal (BC 2 ) is given below as an example: BC 2 = (PC i + HC i *s)/ IC i Where: BC 2 PC i HC i s IC i Benchmark efficiency coal (2). This is the weighted average efficiency of coal-fired power generation for the selected countries. Coal-fired power production for country or region i (i = 1, n) Heat output for country or region i (i = 1, n) Correction factor between heat and electricity, defined as the reduction in electricity production per unit of heat extracted 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: BC i = EC i / BC 1 or BC i = EC i / BC 2 Where: BC i Benchmark indicator of the energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation for country or region i Countries that perform better than average for a certain year show numbers above 100% and vice versa. To come to an overall comparison for fossil-fired power efficiency we calculate the outputweighted average of the three indicators, as is shown in the formula below: BF i = (BC i * PC i + BG i * PG i + BO i * PO i ) / (PC i + PG i + PO i ) Where: BF i, BC i, BG i and BO i Benchmark indicator for the energy efficiency of fossil-fired, coalfired, gas-fired and oil-fired power generation for country or region i 11

21 PC i, PG i and PO i Coal-fired, gas-fired and oil-fired power production for country or region i 2.3 CO 2 intensity power generation In this study we calculate CO 2 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 CO 2 -intensities (g CO 2 /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 (see Section 2.1). The formula for calculating CO 2 intensity is: CO 2 -intensity = (1/E i * C i * P i ) / P i Where: i Fuel source 1... n E i Energy efficiency power generation per fuel source (see Section 2.1) C i P i CO 2 emission factor per fuel source (see table below) (tonne CO 2 /TJ) Power production from public power and CHP plants per fuel source (MWh) In the comparison of CO 2 -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 CO 2 emission factors per fuel source. Table 1 Fossil CO 2 emission factor (IEA, 2005) Fuel type Tonne CO 2/TJ ncv Hard coal 94.6 Lignite Natural gas 56.1 Oil 74.1 Other fuels (biomass, nuclear, etc.) 0 12

22 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 , 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 Industrial waste Municipal waste (renewable) Primary solid biofuels Biogases Bio-gasoline Biodiesels Other liquid biofuels Non-specified primary biofuels and waste Charcoal Hydro Geothermal Solar photovoltaics Solar thermal Tide, wave and ocean Wind Ecofys mapping Waste Waste Bio Bio Bio Bio Bio Bio Bio Hydro Geothermal Solar Solar Ocean Wind Data input for calculating the shares originates from IEA (2013). To be consistent with the rest of this study, only the share in public power production is considered. 13

23 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 CO 2 intensities per fuel source and for total power generation per country CO 2 abatement potentials per country when replacing current installed based by best available technology Development of the share of renewable and nuclear power production over the last decade The underlying data for the figures in this chapter can be found in in Appendix II. This section provides, amongst other data, energy efficiency and input data for the analysis in terms of power generation, fuel input, heat output and the resulting benchmark efficiencies. 3.1 Efficiency of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power generation Figure 13 - Figure 15 show the efficiency trend for coal-, gas- and oil-fired power production, respectively, for the period Figure 16 shows the energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation by the weighted-average efficiency of gas, oil- and coal-fired power generation. 14

24 Efficiency [%] 45% Australia 40% China France 35% Germany India 30% Japan Korea 25% Nordic countries 20% UK + Ireland United States Figure 13 Average efficiency of coal-fired power production. The energy efficiencies for coal-fired power generation range from 26% for India to 43% in the case of France in Note that over the past two decades, especially China and South Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany and Japan, have gradually improved the efficiency of their coalfired power generation, whereas other regions have experienced very limited up to zero (e.g. United States) improvement. 15

25 Efficiency [%] 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% Australia China France Germany India Japan Korea Nordic countries UK + Ireland United States Figure 14 Average efficiency of gas-fired power production. In contrast to other fuels, the efficiency gas-fired power generation has improved substantially over the last two decades. Efficiencies range from 34% for France to 53% for the UK and Ireland in 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 are observed for USA, India 4, 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 Natural gas capacity does not include high efficiency NGCC plants (pre-2012) and is deployed as a peak load capacity together with oil fired capacity. This provides explanation for the fluctuating and relative low efficiencies. 4 Although the figures for India are deemed unreliable with efficiencies approaching the current BAT efficiency of 61% in 2008 already. 16

26 Efficiency [%] 60% Australia 50% China France 40% Germany India 30% Japan Korea 20% Nordic countries 10% UK + Ireland United States Figure 15 Average efficiency of oil-fired power production. For oil-fired power generation the efficiencies range from 20% for India to 46% for South Korea in The graph shows large fluctuations in efficiency for oil-fired power generation. This is likely to be the result of fluctuating operating hours 5 or data uncertainty (in the case of unrealistically large changes). Please note that oil-fired power generation is very small (below 6 TWh, or roughly 1 GW generating capacity) compared to other fossil fuels in all countries but Japan and the USA and to a lesser extent India and South Korea. The data for countries with low amount of oil-based power are therefore considered to be unreliable (e.g. France peaks above BAT efficiencies), but have limited impact on the overall fossil efficiency. 5 Running at significantly lower operating hours typically lowers efficiencies. 17

27 Efficiency [%] 50% Australia 45% China 40% France Germany 35% India 30% 25% Japan Korea Nordic countries 20% UK + Ireland United States Figure 16 Average efficiency of fossil-fired power production. For overall fossil-fired power generation, the efficiencies range from 29% for India to 45% for UK and Ireland in 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 , from 36% to 33%. The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation in Australia is 40%. Gas-fired power generation in Australia was limited at 38 TWh. Oil-fired power generation in Australia is very limited, at less than 1 TWh. 18

28 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 coming from 29%. Coal-based electricity production increased substantially from 442 TWh in 1990 to 3,698 TWh in 2011, corresponding to a more than eightfold increase. The average efficiency of coal-fired power generation is expected to continue to increase, as China has become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems according to the IEA (New York Times, 2009). For instance, Yuhuan, one of China s most advanced plants, boasts an efficiency of 45% (Siemens, 2008). Gas-fired power generation increased from 3 TWh in 1995 to 84 TWh. Since 2003, gas-based power generation increased by at least 20% annually. Figure 14 shows that over the period of 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 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 at 46-50% but plummeted very low to 32% in The operational capacity for public gasfired power generation increased from practically zero in 1990 to roughly 2000 MW in The first NGCCs were commissioned in 2012 (and is not included in the results). The largest share of the capacity went into operation after Germany Fossil-fired power generation in Germany is 318 TWh in 2011, of which 80% is produced by coal (thereof 58% lignite). After the reunification of West and East Germany several inefficient lignite power plants were closed. This led to a higher efficiency of coal-fired power generation. The efficiency of coal-fired power generation increased from 35% in 1990 to 38%. 19

29 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 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 %). 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 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 The energy efficiency in this period remained constant in the range of 40-41%. Gas-based electricity generation increased in this period from 165 TWh to 360 TWh, as shown in Figure 10. In 2011, a 25% increase was observed to compensate for the decline in nuclear power generation. Figure 14 shows an increase of gas-fired generating efficiency in Japan from 43% in 1990 to 48%. The Japanese Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) mentions the followings reason for the large share of conventional steam turbines in gas-fired power plants in Japan: 20

30 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 Oil-fired power generation in Japan decreased from 206 TWh in 1990 to 60 TWh in 2010, which almost doubled in 2011 (119 TWh) likely because of the shutdown of nuclear power plants following the Fukushima accident. Nordic countries Total fossil-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 45 TWh. Sweden and Norway both have a very limited fossil power capacity; Finland and Denmark have a comparable production. Coal-fired power generation in the Nordic countries is 31 TWh. The energy efficiency for coalfired power generation in the Nordic countries has been between 37% and 42% in 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 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 United Kingdom and Ireland Total fossil-fired power generation in the United Kingdom and Ireland is 251 TWh, of which 112 TWh is generated from coal and 138 TWh from gas. Due to the liberalization of the electricity market in the early '90s several less efficient coalfired power plants were closed in the UK, leading to a higher average efficiency of coal-fired power plants. In the following years ( ), lower production of coal-based electricity was seen by reducing the load factor of coal-fired power plants, resulting in a decrease of the average efficiency of coal-fired power plants. The energy efficiency for coal-fired power plants has not changed over the past 20 years and is 38% in 2011 due to no new renewal of the coal-based stock. As gas prices decreased, gas-fired power generation capacity increased significantly from 1992 onwards. The large addition of new capacity has resulted in a strong increase of the average efficiency of gas-fired power plants, from 40% in 1990 to 53%. 21

31 Gas-fired power generation increased from a minor 4 TWh in 1990 to 138 TWh in , although a drop is observed in the year 2011 compare to 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 , at 33%. The energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation increased from 38% in 1990 to 49% in 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 , the cumulative installed capacity of coal-fired power plants remained very stable in the range of 307 to 319 GW e, while the cumulative installed capacity of gas-fired plants increased from 78 to 413 GW e. Due to the limited replacements, the average age of the fleet of coal fired power plants increased in the past decades (EIA, 2014). Oil-fired power generation is 30 TWh and is generated at an efficiency of 39%, making the US the second largest producer behind Japan. 3.2 Benchmark based on non-weighted average efficiency In this section, a benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation efficiency is calculated. This is done by comparing the efficiency of countries and regions to the average efficiency of the selected countries. Separate benchmark indicators for coal, oil, gas and fossil-fired power generation are calculated to compare the efficiencies. The formula for calculating the benchmark indicators can be found in Chapter 2. The benchmark indicator is based on the country efficiency per fuel source divided by the average efficiency per fuel source. The separate benchmark indicators are weighted by power generation to get to an overall indicator for fossil-fired power generation. 22

32 Efficiency [%] Figure 17 shows the average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this study. Because these efficiencies are not weighted, they do not represent the total overall energy efficiency of power production in the included countries. 50% 45% 40% Coal Gas 35% Oil Fossil 30% 25% 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 Coal-fired power generation increased by +136% over the period However, remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen from 34% to 37% (average annual improvement of 0.3%). 23

33 Performance relative to benchmark Figure 18 shows the energy efficiencies of the countries divided by the non-weighted average of efficiency. The data is averaged over the period 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. 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Coal Gas Oil Fossil Non-weighted benchmark Figure 18 Average performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective nonweighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the nonweighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation. As can be seen, the UK & Ireland and Japan perform best in terms of fossil-fired power generating efficiency with 17% and 15% above average efficiency respectively closely followed by the Nordic countries, South Korea and Germany with 10%, 5% and 4% respectively above average. India is the most prominent underperformer with fossil efficiency of 27% below the benchmark. Figure 19 shows the time development of the benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation. Note that a decrease of the benchmark indicator for a country might mean that the efficiency of the country has decreased or that the non-weighted average efficiency has increased. 24

34 Performance relative to fossil benchmark 120% Australia China 110% France Germany 100% India 90% Japan Korea 80% Nordic countries 70% UK + Ireland United States Figure 19 Output-weighted average benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on non-weighted average efficiencies). 3.3 Benchmark based on weighted average efficiency In this section, we calculate a second benchmark indicator for fossil-fired power generation efficiency. This is done by comparing the efficiency of countries and regions to the weighted average efficiencies of the selected countries. The formula for calculating the benchmark indicators can be found in Section 2.2. The benchmark indicator is based on the country efficiency per fuel source divided by the weighted average efficiency per fuel source. The separate benchmark indicators are weighted by power generation to get to an overall indicator for fossil-fired power generation. 25

35 Efficiency [%] Figure 20 shows the weighted average efficiencies for all countries and regions considered in this study. This corresponds to the efficiency of all countries and regions together. 50% 45% Coal 40% 35% Gas Oil Fossil 30% 25% 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 The efficiency for oil fired generation increased also in the period 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 However remarkably, only a very limited increase in efficiency is seen of 34% to 35% (average annual improvement of 0.1%). The reason for this is that a large part of the growth in coal-fired power generation took place in China and India, for which generating efficiency by coal increased only slightly (+7 % pts in China) or remained the same (India). The differences with the non-weighted average approach (Figure 17) are limited. In general they can be explained by the fact that the impact of countries with large power production output is diminished by the non-weighted approach whereas the impact of small countries is magnified. For instance, the largest producers from gas-fired power are Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom and Ireland and they are also among the most efficient. Hence, in the nonweighted average approach their impact on the average is lower (than in the weighted average approach) resulting in a lower overall average efficiency for all countries combined. 26

36 Performance relative to benchmark 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 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. 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Coal Gas Oil Fossil Weighted benchmark Figure 21 Average performance for coal, gas, oil and fossil for countries relative to respective weighted average benchmark efficiencies. Countries are sorted on the basis of performance relative to the weighted benchmark for fossil fuel-fired power generation. 27

37 Performance relative to fossil benchmark Figure 22 shows the development in time of the benchmark indicators for fossil-fired power generation. On average in the period , 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%. 120% Australia China 110% France Germany 100% India 90% Japan Korea 80% Nordic countries 70% UK + Ireland United States Figure 22 Output-weighted benchmark for energy efficiency of fossil-fired power production (based on weighted average efficiencies). Although the exact numbers for the two benchmark approaches; (1) non-weighted and (2) weighted average efficiency, differ, the results in terms of which countries are most efficient, are more or less the same. The ranking in relative performance relative to the fossil benchmark for the three most recent years remains unchanged for the six countries ranked lowest. The four highest ranked countries - which performed comparably in the weighted and non-weighted approach in terms of fossil efficiencies (Figure 19), is reordered. 28

38 CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] 3.4 CO 2 -intensities In this section we compare the CO 2 -intensity per country for the different fuel sources (coal, oil, gas), for fossil-fired power generation and for total power generation. The average CO 2 intensities for the period 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 , CO 2 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 CO 2 emissions from coal-fired power generation are more than 50% higher in India per unit of power than in Japan. When excluding India, specific emissions for all other countries are at most +23% higher than in Japan. 1,400 1,200 1, Figure 23 CO 2-intensity for coal-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO 2-intensity in Average 29

39 CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] On average over the period , CO 2 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 Average Figure 24 CO 2-intensity for gas-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO 2-intensity in On average over the period , CO 2 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. 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Figure 25 CO 2-intensity for oil-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO 2-intensity in Average 30

40 CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] On average, over the period , CO 2 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 CO 2 intensity for fossil-fired power generation depends largely on the share of coal in fossil power generation and on the efficiency of the coal fired power plants. 1,400 1,200 1, Figure 26 CO 2-intensity for fossil fuel-fired power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO 2- intensity in Average On average, over the period , CO 2 intensities for total power generation ranges from 61 g/kwh for France to 921 g/kwh for India (Figure 27). The CO 2 -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 CO 2 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

41 CO 2 intensity [g/kwh] 1, Figure 27 CO 2-intensity for total (i.e. including fossil and renewable) power generation. Countries are sorted based on average CO 2-intensity in Average 3.5 Emission reduction potential A large potential for emission reduction is present by improving the energy efficiency of fossilfired power generation. The figures below show the specific (g CO 2 /kwh), absolute (Mtonne CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 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, CO 2 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 CO 2 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 generation 6. 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 These values originating from the European Commission (2006), Siemens/TÜV (2012) and VGB (2004) respectively and refer to operational efficiencies based on gross power output and net calorific value for fuel input. Note that BAT efficiencies given by the relevant Best Reference document for Large Combustion Plants (European Commission, 2013) are lower. This can be explained the fact that BREF documents do not always show the most up-to-date values as there is a time delay in adopting such values. 32

42 CO 2 reduction potential [g/kwh] Note that the chart with specific potential (Figure 28) gives an indication for the GHG inefficiency of public power production, or the amount of specific GHG emissions above the BAT level. The chart with absolute potential (Figure 29) indicates the absolute amount of reduction possible thus taking into account the total amount of power production occurring in a country. Finally, the chart with relative potential (Figure 30) illustrates how large the absolute potential is in comparison with the total emissions. India, Australia and China have the largest specific abatement potentials as these have, relatively, the highest shares of coal and the lowest conversion efficiencies. The United States is, with regard to coal-based power production, among the least efficient countries. This is offset by the fact that for the past twenty years, the declining share of coal-based power was mostly replaced by power production from gas-fired power plants which are at present among the most efficient Figure 28 Specific CO 2 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 CO 2 -intensive fuels. That explains why large countries with relatively inefficient power production, often predominantly from coal, have the largest absolute CO 2 abatement potentials. 33

43 CO 2 reduction potential [%] CO 2 reduction potential [Mt CO 2 ] Figure 29 Absolute CO 2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type. Relative CO 2 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. 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 30 Relative CO 2 emission reduction potential for fossil power generation by replacing all fossil public power production by BAT for the corresponding fuel type. 34

44 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

45 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 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 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. 12% 140% 10% 120% 8% 6% 4% 2% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 31 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in Australia. 36

46 Share in total public power production (%) 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Figure 32 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in Australia. 37

47 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 11 th Five-Year Plan ( ), during which the 2006 Renewable Energy Law was made effective, resulted in the establishment of renewable energy markets, the completion of renewable resource evaluations, and construction of many renewable projects. The 12 th Five- Year Plan ( ) 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 12 th FYP of China (GW) Coal Gas Nuclear Hydropower Wind (gridconnected) (o.w. 5 offshore) (o.w. 30 offshore) Solar (PV and CSP) (o.w. 1 CSP) (o.w. 1 CSP) Biomass Geothermal Ocean 0 50 Total

48 Share in total public power production (%) Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year % 400% 20% 350% 300% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 33 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in China. 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% Figure 34 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in China. 39

49 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 France France traditionally has an extremely high share of nuclear power of about 80%. This, combined with the share of 9% to 14% of hydropower, makes power from fossil fuels only marginal and suggests little room for the deployment of renewable power production technologies if nuclear and hydropower production remain equally dominant in the future. However, since 2004 there has been an increase in wind power production from almost nonexistent to ~2.1% in 2011 due to the feed-in tariff provided by the Government. France is the only country within the scope of this study that generates any notable (albeit still very limited with 0.1%) amounts of electricity by means of tidal energy. One of the largest facilities is the Rance Tidal Power station that has been operating for more than 40 years. The National Renewable Energy Action Plan has a binding target of 23% renewable energy in gross final energy consumption in 2020 (EU target). Feed-in tariffs are used for most renewable energy sources and tender schemes are applied to offshore wind, solar PV (>100 kw), bioenergy (>12 MW) and hydropower. France also introduced the Nitrogen Autonomy Plan in 2013 with the aim to commission 1000 biogas plants until The amount of PV projects tenders has also been increased. 100% 120% 90% 80% 100% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 35 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in France. 40

50 Share in total public power production (%) 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Figure 36 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in France. 41

51 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 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 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. 45% 120% 40% 35% 100% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 37 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in Germany. 42

52 Share in total public power production (%) 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Figure 38 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in Germany. 43

53 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 Japan Japan s share of nuclear power production fluctuated between 26% and 35% between 2000 and 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 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 % 120% 45% 40% 100% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 39 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in Japan. 44

54 Share in total public power production (%) 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% Figure 40 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in Japan. 45

55 Nordic countries (interconnected grid of the Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) The region traditionally has a low dependence on fossil fuels. During , 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 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 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 Denmark is ahead of its schedule to meet the 30% RES target for 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 ). The past decade, there has been a rapid uptake of the share of power from bio energy and wind of up to 3.1% and 4.2% respectively. There is a mix of instruments to promote renewable energy including a technology-neutral tradable green certificates scheme. Since the beginning of 2012, this has expanded to create a common market with Norway for these certificates. In 2013 quota levels have been increased and tax exemptions have been introduced for wind energy. 46

56 Share in total public power production (%) Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year % 120% 90% 80% 100% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 41 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in the Nordic Countries. 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Figure 42 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in the Nordic Countries. 47

57 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 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 12 th 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 The government also pledget to increase its renewable power capacity from 25GW in 2012 to 55GW in 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 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) 11 th Plan Targeted additions 11 th Plan Achieved additions 12 th Plan Targeted additions Thermal (coal and gas) Nuclear Large hydropower Wind Solar Other renewables Total

58 Share in total public power production (%) Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year % 200% 180% 20% 160% 140% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 43 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in India. 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Figure 44 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in India. 49

59 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 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 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 , 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). 35% 120% 30% 100% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 45 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in the United States. 50

60 Share in total public power production (%) 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% Figure 46 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in the United States. 51

61 Share in total public power production (%) Development of total public power production relative to the year 2000 United Kingdom and Ireland (interconnected grid of the United Kingdom and Ireland) Less than 10% of the total power generation (including fossil power) is produced in Ireland. All nuclear power facilities are located in the UK. These are responsible for about 20% of the total public power produced. In 2011, the share of total renewable power production was 8% with about half from wind turbines. New electricity market reforms announced in 2011, aim to increase the proportion of non-fossil fired power generation. The uncertainty about the details of the reform resulted in lower deployment rates and higher costs of capital for renewables. Currently there is a technology-specific quota scheme with tradable green certificates as well as a feed-in tariff scheme for small installations. In 2014 the United Kingdom has introduced a socalled Contract for Differences that includes key elements of a feed-in premium scheme. In Ireland a technology-specific feed-in tariff and tax relief for corporate equity investments are the main policy instruments. Although support levels are comparatively low, onshore wind is the dominant technology being applied. This is due to the high electricity market price and the good wind sites with low generation costs. The share of nuclear power production shows a drop in 2008 and increase in the subsequent year. Recently the UK has decided to build several new nuclear plants that will be financed through the Contract for Difference scheme. 30% 120% 25% 100% 20% 80% 15% 10% 5% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind Hydro Nuclear 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% = total public power production relative to year 2000 Figure 47 Share of renewable and nuclear power production during in the UK and Ireland. 52

62 Share in total public power production (%) 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% Waste Geothermal Ocean Solar Bio Wind 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Figure 48 Share of renewable power production (excluding hydropower) during in the UK and Ireland. 53

63 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 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 countries 7, 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 Secondly, the CO 2 intensity and CO 2 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 , distinguishing the different renewable energy sources, has also been investigated. In this study two approaches are applied for benchmarking energy efficiency: (1) by using nonweighted average efficiencies and (2) by using weighted average efficiencies by countries electricity generation. Although the exact numbers for the two approaches differ, the general results, in terms of which countries are most efficient, are roughly the same. On average in the period , 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 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 in the case of China). Power generation increased by +136%. 7 Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway aggregated 54

64 Oil-fired power: The use of oil for power production has declined drastically over the course of As a result, oil-fired power played only a marginal role in the total fossil public power in 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, CO 2 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 CO 2 -intensive fuels. In most countries assessed, the share of nuclear and hydropower production typically remained constant in the past decade ( ), 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 occurred in Germany, the Nordic Countries and the United Kingdom and Ireland. The share of power generation from wind and biogenic sources experienced the largest increases. 55

65 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 ( ) to reduce this uncertainty. For follow-up research checks can be made with assistance of national statistical experts to determine structural errors and inconsistencies in statistics. 56

66 3. In the CO 2 -intensity analysis, uncertainties arise mainly from the CO 2 emission factor used per fuel source. We based the analysis on average CO 2 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 CO 2 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 Another source of uncertainty is the assumed energy efficiency loss resulting from heat generation. In this study a factor of 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 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 ( %/ C). Surface water cooling leads to slightly higher efficiencies than the use of cooling towers. The effect of cooling method on efficiency may be up to 1-2 percent point. We do not recommend further work on this point. 57

67 6 References ABARE (2011). Table F 08 Australian energy consumption, by industry and fuel. Electricity generation per fuel source: Australian energy: national and state projections to ABARE (2011b). Andrew Schultz and Rebecca Petchey. June p.3. Borkent, B.M. (2010). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity. Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands. Ecofys (2013). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity. Ecofys Update of with IEA data for the year Utrecht, The Netherlands. EIA (2013). Annual Energy Review Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2010). October, Energy Information Administration (EIA). US Department of Energy (DOE). Washington D.C., United States. Table 8.2b, 8.3b and 8.4b. EIA (2014). Annual Energy Review. able 8.11a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors), Available online: European Commission (EC), Reference document on best available techniques for large combustion plants. European Commission (2003). European energy and transport Trends to Brussels, Belgium. European Commission (2006). European Directive: Integration Pollution, Prevention and Control, Best Available Techniques. Graus, W. (2009). International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO 2 intensity. Ecofys. Utrecht, The Netherlands. IEA (2004). Energy balances of OECD countries International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France. IEA (2005a). CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion. International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France. IEA (2013). Energy balances of OECD countries and Energy balances of non- OECD countries International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France. IEA (2005b). Personal communication with Antonio Di Cecca on and Yuichiro Torikata on International Energy Agency (IEA). Paris, France

68 IEA (2003a). World Energy Outlook 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: LBNL (2004). China Energy Databook. Version 6.0. June 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. Energy Statistics 2013 Sections 3 and 6. New York Times (2009). China outpaces the U.S. in cleaner coal-fired plants. Online available: 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 CO 2 emissions, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University. Utrecht, The Netherlands. Platts (2006). World Electric Power Plant Database (WEPP). United States. Siemens (2008). Olympic efficiencies. Available online: 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 UNFCCC (2008). Greenhouse gas inventory data. 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

69 Worldwatch Institute. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report AL.pdf 60

70 Appendix I: Comparison national statistics In this section, energy-efficiencies based on IEA Energy Balances 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 %pts. India For India energy statistics are available from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI, 2013) for the years 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 : annual data is only available for 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 GJ/tonne coal (GCV) for coal corresponding to GJ/tonne (NCV) assuming a conversion factor of 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 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 refers to 1990/

71 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% IEA MOSPI Figure 49 Energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation (%). United States For the United States, energy efficiencies are calculated from the Annual Energy Review 2013 (EIA, 2013). The US report power generation GCV (or HHV) basis and concerns net electricity generation. To be consistent with this study the EIA data is multiplied by the factors shown below to yield NCVs and gross electricity generation 11. Table 6 Conversion factors Energy carrier Net calorific value Gross electricity production Coal Oil Natural gas Figure 50 shows energy efficiency by coal-fired power generation, calculated by both sources. 11 Gross electricity generation refers to the electric output of the electrical generator. Net electricity output refers to the electric output minus the electrical power utilised in the plant by auxiliary equipment such as pumps, motors and pollution control devices. Auxiliary consumption is in general higher for coal-fired power plants than for gas-fired power plants. In this study we use 6% for coal-fired power generation, 3% for gas-fired power generation and 5% for oil-fired power generation. These values result in figures that are most consistent with the gross electricity generation figures from IEA. 62

72 Energy efficiency [%] Energy efficiency [%] 38% 36% 34% 32% 30% IEA EIA Figure 50 Energy efficiency of coal-fired power generation. The energy efficiency for coal-fired power generation in both sources differs significantly. The energy efficiency based on EIA seems more reliable because it is more consistent. We therefore replace IEA data by EIA data for all years and fuels. Figure 51 shows energy efficiency by oil-fired power generation, calculated by both sources. As can be seen, there are large differences in the efficiency of oil-fired power generation for the years 2000, 2001 and 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. 58% 54% 50% 46% 42% 38% 34% 30% IEA EIA Figure 51 Energy efficiency of oil-fired power generation (%). Figure 52 shows the energy efficiency by gas-fired power generation, calculated by both sources. 63

73 Energy efficiency [%] Energy efficiency [%] 54% 50% 46% 42% 38% 34% 30% IEA EIA Figure 52 Energy efficiency of gas-fired power generation (%). The chart shows a discrepancy which is in the range of %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. 42% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% 30% IEA EIA Figure 53 Energy efficiency of fossil-fired power generation in the United States (%). 64

74 Resulting energy-efficiencies The tables below show energy efficiencies for coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired and fossil-fired power generation. Unless otherwise specified the numbers are based on IEA (2013). Some corrections are made, based on the comparison of IEA data to national statistics in Appendix I. This is indicated by footnotes. In Table 10 differences between the efficiency of fossil power generation between this report and last year s report (Ecofys, 2013) is shown. Differences are the result of changes in historical data of the IEA (2013) database compared the IEA (2012) database and differences in national statistics updates for the US (EIA, 2013) and India (MOSPI, 2013). Table 11 provides explanations for the differences found. 65

75 Table 7 Efficiency of coal-fired power generation (%) AU CH FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 8 Efficiency of gas-fired power generation (%) AU CH FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

76 Table 9 Efficiency of oil-fired power generation (%) AU CH FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 10 Efficiency of fossil-fired power generation (%) AU CH FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

77 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 AU 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.2% -1.6% -1.6% -1.5% -1.5% -2.6% -0.7% CH 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.4% -0.1% FR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.1% DE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.5% -0.3% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.6% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% 0.0% IN 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% -0.5% -0.6% JP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.5% KR 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% DK+FI+SE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% UK+IE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% US 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68

78 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; 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: , ; 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 a Germany S: M: ; 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 and for autoproducer CHP, main activity CHP, and main activity heat a S: 2005 India M: ; Data was updated by the IEA, but no explanation was provided with regard to the changes made - Japan M: UK + Ireland S Legend S: Small differences ( 0.2 ppts). For these differences no explanation is provided. M: Medium differences are ppts L: Large differences are > 1.0 ppts Sources a = IEA (2013). Energy Balances Of OECD Countries: Beyond 2020 Documentation (2013 Edition) b = IEA (2012): Energy Statistics Of Non-OECD Countries: Beyond 2020 Documentation (2013 Edition) 69

79 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, ,901 1, ,148 United States 1, ,162 China 3, ,640 Japan India Germany France South Korea UK + Ireland Nordic countries Australia 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% 70

80 Power generation Table 15 Coal-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 16 Gas-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

81 Table 17 Oil-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 18 Fossil-fired power generation of public power plants in TWh AU CN ,093 1,162 1,317 1,556 1,769 2,013 2,336 2,692 2,769 2,979 3,301 3,784 FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE 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 72

82 Fuel input Table 19 Fuel consumption of coal-fired power plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 20 Fuel consumption of gas-fired power plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

83 Table 21 Fuel consumption of oil-fired power plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 22 Fuel consumption of fossil-fired power plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

84 Heat output Table 23 Heat output from coal-fired public CHP plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 24 Heat output from oil-fired public CHP plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

85 Table 25 Heat output from gas-fired public CHP plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US Table 26 Heat output from fossil-fired public CHP plants in PJ AU CN FR DE IN JP KR DK+FI+SE UK+IE US

86 Benchmark indicators Table 27 Benchmark indicators for coal (by non-weighted average) 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) 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% 77

87 Table 29 Benchmark indicators for gas (by non-weighted average) 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) 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% 78

88 Table 31 Benchmark indicators for coal (by weighted average) 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) 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% 79

89 Table 33 Benchmark indicators for oil (by weighted average) 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) AU 104% 104% 104% 105% 106% 106% 108% 106% 103% 101% 103% 103% 92% 98% 98% 96% 96% 94% 94% 91% 94% 93% CN 85% 86% 88% 87% 89% 87% 85% 91% 90% 92% 93% 93% 92% 92% 93% 95% 96% 99% 99% 100% 101% 101% FR 112% 116% 120% 110% 112% 111% 114% 104% 110% 107% 121% 115% 115% 116% 114% 111% 109% 106% 100% 93% 94% 92% DE 98% 100% 99% 101% 101% 104% 105% 104% 108% 107% 110% 106% 107% 113% 109% 113% 108% 107% 109% 106% 108% 107% IN 80% 80% 79% 80% 80% 80% 79% 80% 81% 83% 82% 81% 84% 83% 82% 80% 81% 81% 80% 79% 76% 81% JP 112% 112% 112% 111% 111% 111% 112% 112% 112% 112% 113% 112% 112% 111% 110% 110% 110% 108% 108% 109% 108% 105% KR 91% 93% 96% 102% 107% 105% 106% 102% 111% 106% 100% 103% 111% 108% 104% 104% 105% 110% 110% 107% 105% 104% DK+FI+SE 114% 114% 114% 117% 117% 117% 118% 115% 113% 116% 115% 115% 114% 115% 112% 110% 113% 111% 110% 111% 111% 110% UK+IE 108% 109% 106% 109% 109% 114% 114% 113% 113% 114% 114% 113% 113% 111% 109% 109% 108% 108% 108% 108% 109% 109% US 103% 103% 104% 104% 103% 104% 105% 103% 103% 103% 102% 103% 103% 104% 105% 105% 105% 103% 103% 104% 103% 102% 80

90 CO 2 -intensity Table 35 CO 2-intensity coal-fired power (g/kwh) Average Australia 1,100 1,055 1,051 1,069 China France Germany India 1,307 1,323 1,261 1,297 Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Canada Italy Table 36 CO 2-intensity oil-fired power (g/kwh) Average Australia China France 1, Germany India 1,919 1,134 1,334 1,462 Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Canada Italy

91 Table 37 CO 2-intensity gas-fired power (g/kwh) Average Australia China France Germany India Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Canada Italy Table 38 CO 2-intensity fossil-fired power (g/kwh) Average Australia 1, China France Germany India 1,178 1,195 1,149 1,174 Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Canada Italy Table 39 CO 2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (g/kwh) Average Australia China France Germany India Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Italy Canada

92 Table 40 CO 2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (Mtonne) Average Australia China France Germany India Japan South Korea Nordic countries United Kingdom + Ireland United States Italy Canada Table 41 CO 2 emission reduction potential fossil-fired power (%) Average Australia 33% 30% 30% 31% China 27% 25% 24% 25% France 28% 27% 27% 27% Germany 21% 18% 19% 19% India 43% 44% 41% 43% Japan 16% 16% 16% 16% South Korea 21% 21% 22% 22% Nordic countries 17% 15% 16% 16% United Kingdom + Ireland 18% 18% 17% 18% United States 23% 23% 23% 23% Italy 18% 19% 18% 18% Canada 17% 23% 24% 21% 83

93 Appendix III: IEA Definitions Coal Coal includes all coal, both primary (including hard coal and lignite/brown coal) and derived fuels (including patent fuel, coke oven coke, gas coke, BKB, coke oven gas, and blast furnace gas). Peat and gas works gas are also included in this category. Oil Crude oil comprises crude oil, natural gas liquids, refinery feed stocks, and additives as well as other hydrocarbons (including emulsified oils, synthetic crude oil, mineral oils extracted from bituminous minerals such as oil shale, bituminous sand, etc., and oils from coal liquefaction). Petroleum products are also included. These comprise refinery gas, ethane, LPG, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene, gas/diesel oil, heavy fuel oil, naphtha, white spirit, lubricants, bitumen, paraffin waxes, petroleum coke and other petroleum products. Gas Gas includes natural gas (excluding natural gas liquids). The latter appears as a positive figure in the "gas works" row but is not part of production. Public power supply The IEA makes a distinction between auto-producers and main activity producers of heat and power: Main activity undertakings generate electricity and/or heat for sale to third parties, as their primary activity. Auto-producing undertakings generate electricity and/or heat, wholly or partly for their own use as an activity which supports their primary activity. In this study only public power (and heat) supply - i.e. production from main activity producers - is taken into account. Both installations producing only power and combined heat and power (CHP) installations are taken into included in the assessment. 84

94 ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T +31 (0) F +31 (0) E [email protected] I

95 ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. Kanaalweg 15G 3526 KL Utrecht T: +31 (0) F: +31 (0) E: I: