Abstract
Different technological and policy solutions have been developed to decarbonise energy systems and improve energy efficiency. Combined heat and power (CHP) is one solution that can bring about emission reductions by improving fuel use efficiency through the simultaneous generation of electricity and heat. Index decomposition analysis (IDA) is a tool that has been widely used to study emission trends and quantify the contribution of different measures to emission reductions. Techniques to estimate the emission reductions from CHP using IDA, however, have yet to be developed. This study develops new decomposition frameworks for two methods that have been used to estimate the carbon intensities of CHP and compares their performance theoretically and empirically using the data of Canada, Denmark and Finland. Based on the analysis, the substitution method is recommended as it can be more universally applied to different energy systems. Through the substitution method, the impact of different climate mitigation measures such as power generation efficiency and CHP can be compared within a single IDA framework.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is recommended that the energy input of CHP be allocated to the energy sector instead of end-use sectors (Koreneff, 2018). When CHP energy input was allocated to autoproducers in the industry sector, a reduction in the use of CHP (i.e. by purchasing power from the grid) could result in a reduction in energy intensity and be misperceived as an improvement in energy efficiency. Therefore, within the IDA framework, CHP is studied through the power sector where energy input of CHP is allocated.
These two approaches are selected as they consider the differences in quality of energy between electricity and heat in the estimation of energy or carbon intensities of CHP. Other approaches which sum electricity and heat in energy units do not distinguish between the differences in the type of energy output and are not as suitable for the evaluation of energy efficiency or emission reductions.
There are CHP systems which use multiple fuel inputs to generate electricity and heat simultaneously. Methods to consider CHP with multiple fuel inputs within the decomposition framework are not addressed in this paper and is an area for future research.
Emission reductions are selected as the focus of this study as there is now greater international interest in energy-related CO2 emissions in comparison to energy savings from energy efficiency, which was widely studied using IDA in the 1970s to 1990s before concerns surrounding climate change started to take centre stage. The application of the recommended methods to energy savings require some transformation and are discussed as an extension.
For example, based on 2016 statistics from the IEA (2018b), only 13 GWh of electricity output in Denmark was from electricity plants while 16,964 GWh of electricity output was from CHP. In such instances, the selection of hypothetical heat and electricity plants for comparison may lead to large uncertainties in the estimated reductions.
There is a range of power loss factors used in different studies. Analysts should select the power loss factor best suited to their local power system.
The power factor is not applicable for ‘bottoming cycle’ CHP where waste heat from industrial processes is captured to produce electricity.
If specific data on reference efficiencies of individual boilers and heat pumps are available, these can also be used in a decomposition study with greater levels of disaggregation.
A less commonly used variant of the method computes the effective efficiency of thermal generation by deducting the energy that would have been used to generate electricity if CHP had not been used (Rosen, 2008).
The IDA method and the selected target and reference points (e.g. target and reference years, regions or scenarios) determine the weights assigned and emission reductions estimated. An analyst does not need to develop additional hypothetical heat and electricity systems for the comparison. There is also greater consistency across countries which is essential for cross-country comparisons where energy systems can vary greatly.
Methodologically, it is preferable that a single method is applied to estimate the carbon intensity as this ensures that the results are comparable.
For example, in Denmark and Poland, CHP contributes to more than 50% of total electricity output.
For instance, a switch to CHP may be estimated as a deterioration in electricity generation efficiency. The same can be said of the comparison of scenarios where CHP features strongly in the electricity generation mix.
It is not possible to allocate energy input into CHP based on the share of electricity out of the total hypothetical electricity output (Q′) if heat was not produced as this leads to unrealistic results in some cases where the allocated heat input is less than the heat output.
The power-to-heat ratio is the ratio of electricity to heat output from CHP.
Note that data from the IEA world energy balances comprises of electricity and heat from electricity plants, autoproducers and heat plants. Heat directly used in industrial sites is not considered. If data for individual boilers and heat pumps used on-site are available for a specific country of analysis, this data should be used for more accurate decomposition results.
In the numerical analysis, the analytical limit approach is used to address zero values in the data sets as LMDI requires additional treatment to handle zero values (Ang and Liu, 2007).
To improve the accuracy of the decomposition results, country-specific emission factors should be used when available. When country-specific emission factors change over time, the emission factor effect is non-zero.
It was observed that the ratio change in CHP intensities computed based on the power loss factor method had a smaller standard deviation and range compared to the substitution method. This is based on 86 data points for coal, oil and natural gas use in CHP for countries with available data in the IEA world energy balances between 1990 and 2014. Refer to list of data in Table 6 in Appendix C.
The power loss factor method produces a mean CHP intensity value that is closer to that for electricity plants based on 110 data points for coal, oil and natural gas from the IEA world energy balances for countries with CHP in 2014.
References
Agnolucci, P., Ekins, P., Iacopini, G., Anderson, K., Bows, A., Mander, S., & Shackley, S. (2009). Different scenarios for achieving radical reduction in carbon emissions: A decomposition analysis. Ecological Economics, 68, 1652–1666.
Akyürek, Z. (2020). LMDI decomposition analysis of energy consumption of Turkish manufacturing industry: 2005–2014. Energy Efficiency, 13, 649–663.
Anderson, K. L., Mander, S. L., Bows, A., Shackley, S., Agnolucci, P., & Ekins, P. (2008). The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios—Part II: Scenarios for a 60% CO2 reduction in the UK. Energy Policy, 36, 3764–3773.
Ang, B. W. (2015). LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation. Energy Policy, 86, 233–238.
Ang, B. W., & Goh, T. (2019). Index decomposition analysis for comparing emission scenarios: Applications and challenges. Energy Economics, 83, 74–87.
Ang, B. W., & Liu, N. (2007). Handling zero values in the logarithmic mean Divisia index decomposition approach. Energy Policy, 35, 238–246.
Ang, B. W., & Su, B. (2016). Carbon emission intensity in electricity production: A global analysis. Energy Policy, 94, 56–63.
Ang, B. W., Xu, X. Y., & Su, B. (2015). Multi-country comparisons of energy performance: The index decomposition analysis approach. Energy Economics, 47, 68–76.
Bashmakov, I., & Myshak, A. (2014). Russian energy efficiency accounting system. Energy Efficiency, 7, 743–759.
CODE2, 2014. D5.1 - Final cogeneration roadmap member state: Denmark. Cogeneration Observatory and Dissemination Europe.
Colinet Carmona, M. J., Colinet Carmona, M. J., Román Collado, R., & Román Collado, R. (2016). LMDI decomposition analysis of energy consumption in Andalusia (Spain) during 2003–2012: The energy efficiency policy implications. Energy Efficiency, 9, 807–823.
Dong, K., Hochman, G., & Timilsina, G. R. (2020). Do drivers of CO2 emission growth alter overtime and by the stage of economic development? Energy Policy, 140, 111420.
Elliott, N.R., Chittum, A., Trombley, D., Watson, S., 2009. CHP savings and avoided emissions in portfolio standards. American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, Washington D.C.
European Commission Joint Research Centre. (2017). Assessing the progress towards the EU energy efficiency targets using index decomposition analysis. Publications Office of the European Union.
European Environment Agency. (2013). Combined heat and power (CHP). European Environment Agency.
Förster, H., Schumacher, K., de Cian, E., Hübler, M., Keppo, I., Mima, S., & Sands, R. D. (2013). European energy efficiency and decarbonization strategies beyond 2030 - A sectoral multi-model decomposition. Climate Change Economics, 4, 134004–134001-134004–134029.
Fragkos, P., Tasios, N., Paroussos, L., Capros, P., & Tsani, S. (2017). Energy system impacts and policy implications of the European Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and low-carbon pathway to 2050. Energy Policy, 100, 216–226.
Gambhir, A., Schulz, N., Napp, T., Tong, D., Munuera, L., Faist, M., & Riahi, K. (2013). A hybrid modelling approach to develop scenarios for China’s carbon dioxide emissions to 2050. Energy Policy, 59, 614–632.
Goh, T., & Ang, B. W. (2018). Quantifying CO2 emission reductions from renewables and nuclear energy – Some paradoxes. Energy Policy, 113, 651–662.
Goh, T., & Ang, B. W. (2019a). Comprehensive economy-wide energy efficiency and emissions accounting systems for tracking national progress. Energy Efficiency, 12, 1951–1971.
Goh, T., & Ang, B. W. (2019b). Tracking economy-wide energy efficiency using LMDI: Approach and practices. Energy Efficiency, 12, 829–847.
Goh, T., Ang, B. W., & Xu, X. Y. (2018). Quantifying drivers of CO2 emissions from electricity generation - Current practices and future extensions. Applied Energy, 231, 1191–1204.
Graus, W., & Worrell, E. (2011). Methods for calculating CO2 intensity of power generation and consumption: A global perspective. Energy Policy, 39, 613–627.
Harmsen, R., & Crijns-Graus, W. (2021). Unhiding the role of CHP in power & heat sector decomposition analyses. Energy Policy, 152, 112208.
IEA. (2015). CO2 Emissions from fuel combustion. International Energy Agency.
IEA, 2016. World energy balances, IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances (database). International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2018a). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2018b). Electricity information. International Energy Agency.
IEA, 2018c. IEA bioenergy countries’ report – Update 2018. Bioenergy policies and status of implementation. International Energy Agency, Paris.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers, in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlomer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kannan, R., & Strachan, N. (2009). Modelling the UK residential energy sector under long-term decarbonisation scenarios: Comparison between energy systems and sectoral modelling approaches. Applied Energy, 86, 416–428.
Koomey, J., Schmidt, Z., Hummel, H., & Weyant, J. (2019). Inside the Black Box: Understanding key drivers of global emission scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software, 111, 268–281.
Koreneff, G., 2018. Energy efficiency: Can we easily compare countries?, Research Report. Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Lund, H., Möller, B., Mathiesen, B. V., & Dyrelund, A. (2010). The role of district heating in future renewable energy systems. Energy, 35, 1381–1390.
Mancarella, P., & Chicco, G. (2008). Assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions from cogeneration and trigeneration systems. Part II: Analysis techniques and application cases. Energy, 33, 418–430.
Maruyama, N., & Eckelman, M. J. (2009). Long-term trends of electric efficiencies in electricity generation in developing countries. Energy Policy, 37, 1678–1686.
Mishra, G. S., Zakerinia, S., Yeh, S., Teter, J., & Morrison, G. (2014). Mitigating climate change: Decomposing the relative roles of energy conservation, technological change, and structural shift. Energy Economics, 44, 448–455.
O’Mahony, T., & Dufour, J. (2015). Tracking development paths: Monitoring driving forces and the impact of carbon-free energy sources in Spain. Environmental Science and Policy, 50, 62–73.
Office of Energy Efficiency. (2016). Energy efficiency trends in Canada 1990 to 2013. Natural Resources Canada.
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, n.d. Benefits of Combined Heat and Power. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C.
Reuter, M., Patel, M. K., & Eichhammer, W. (2017). Applying ex-post index decomposition analysis to primary energy consumption for evaluating progress towards European energy efficiency targets. Energy Efficiency, 10, 1381–1400.
Reuter, M., Patel, M. K., & Eichhammer, W. (2019). Applying ex post index decomposition analysis to final energy consumption for evaluating European energy efficiency policies and targets. Energy Efficiency, 12, 1329–1357.
Rosen, M. A. (2008). Allocating carbon dioxide emissions from cogeneration systems: Descriptions of selected output-based methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 171–177.
Sands, R. D., & Schumacher, K. (2009). Economic comparison of greenhouse gas mitigation options in Germany. Energy Efficiency, 2, 17–36.
Saygin, D., Wetzels, W., Worrell, E., & Patel, M. K. (2013). Linking historic developments and future scenarios of industrial energy use in the Netherlands between 1993 and 2040. Energy Efficiency, 6, 341–368.
Shipley, A., Hampson, A., Hedman, B., Garland, P., Bautista, P., 2008. Combined heat and power: Effective energy solutions for a sustainable future. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee.
Shipley, A.M., Green, N., McCormack, K., Li, J., Elliott, N.R., 2001. Certification of combined heat and power systems: establishing emissions standards. American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy, Washington D.C.
Smit, T., Hu, J., & Harmsen, R. (2014). Unravelling projected energy savings in 2020 of EU Member States using decomposition analyses. Energy Policy, 74(271), 285–271.
Torrie, R. D., Stone, C., & Layzell, D. B. (2018). Reconciling energy efficiency and energy intensity metrics: An integrated decomposition analysis. Energy Efficiency, 11, 1999–2016.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2016. Combined heat and power (CHP) technical potential in the United States. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C.
Wachsmuth, J., & Duscha, V. (2019). Achievability of the Paris targets in the EU - The role of demand-side-driven mitigation in different types of scenarios. Energy Efficiency, 12, 403–421.
Xu, X. Y. (2013). Index decomposition analysis of energy consumption and carbon emissions: Some methodological issues (p. 244). National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Zhang, M., Song, Y., Su, B., & Sun, X. (2015). Decomposing the decoupling indicator between the economic growth and energy consumption in China. Energy Efficiency, 8, 1231–1239.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix A
With reference to Eq. (3) and from Ang (Ang, 2015), the additive LMDI-I decomposition formulae for a temporal decomposition analysis of the electricity sector are as follows:
where \(L\left(x,y\right)=\frac{x-y}{1\mathrm{n}x-1\mathrm{n}\mathrm{y}}\) for \(x\ne y\), and \(L\left(x,y\right)=x\) for \(x=y\). Similarly, for the heat sector with reference to Eq. (5),
Table
Appendix B
Analysts may encounter other challenges in decomposition studies that incorporate CHP. Some of these challenges are the inclusion of CHP in economy-wide energy efficiency analysis, treatment of transmission and distribution losses, dealing with biomass CHP systems and the presence of many zero values in the data set. These issues and possible solutions or points to note, are described.
Inclusion of CHP in economy-wide energy efficiency analysis
Besides CO2 emissions, there is also an interest in quantifying the impact of CHP on a country’s economy-wide energy efficiency. In particular, a number of national agencies (European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2017; Office of Energy Efficiency, 2016) and researchers (Bashmakov & Myshak, 2014; Torrie et al., 2018) have developed economy-wide energy efficiency accounting systems (EEAS) which study the savings from energy efficiency via IDA. In an IDA study of energy use, the energy consumed by the energy sector is usually taken as the losses from the energy transformation process (Goh & Ang, 2019a).
To apply the power loss factor method to an economy-wide EEAS, the same principle of allocation (i.e. all energy consumed by CHP are allocated to electricity generation) used for CO2 emissions is applied. This means that all energy losses from CHP are allocated to the electricity sector. The resulting IDA identity is:
where \(O\) is the total electricity output from fossil fuels, biomass, geothermal and nuclear energy, and \(E\) and \({E}_{ij}\) are the total energy losses from electricity and CHP plants, and energy losses from plant \(j\). Note that in this case, biomass, geothermal and nuclear energy are classified as energy source \(i\) together with fossil fuels as they experience losses in the energy transformation process. This treatment of the energy sector is slightly different from that for CO2 emissions; for more details on the differences in the treatment of energy losses and CO2 emissions from the energy sector in IDA studies, see Goh and Ang (2019a). For energy losses from the production of heat, the identity is very similar to that for CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions are replaced by the energy losses due to the generation of heat in the identity in Eq. (7). CHP is assumed to have no energy losses.
Likewise, for the substitution method, the principle of assigning heat output from CHP a reference value of \({r}_{i}\) for energy source \(i\) is applied. This means that the energy losses from the generation of electricity via CHP is the difference between the energy losses from CHP and the energy losses from heat generation from CHP based on this reference value. The corresponding identities for energy consumption which are based on energy losses are as follows:
where \({E}_{e}\) and \({E}_{h}\) are the total energy losses from electricity and heat generation, \({H}_{ik}\) and \({E}_{ik,h}\) are the heat output and energy losses from plant \(k\) and \(\frac{{E}_{ik,h}}{{H}_{ik}}=(1-{r}_{i})/{r}_{i}\) for CHP.\(\frac{{H}_{ik}}{{H}_{i}}\) is the plant share effect. Note that if \({r}_{i}\) is 1 (i.e. 100% efficiency or no conversion losses), Eq. (21) can be considered to be the same as Eq. (20) where the intensity and CHP adjustment factor are multiplied to obtain the intensity \(\frac{{E}_{ij}}{{Q}_{ij}}\).
Transmission and distribution losses
CHP systems in industry and in distributed systems are usually located nearer to consumption centres in comparison to centralised power generation plants. This means that CHP can also reduce energy losses and emissions associated with transmission and distribution losses. It is desirable to quantify this impact of CHP. However, it can only be quantified in the study of energy consumption, but not in a study of CO2 emissions as the impact of transmission and distribution losses is aggregated by end-use energy consumption. This is a drawback of the proposed approach.
Biomass CHP systems
Biomass CHP systems pose some unique problems for decomposition analysis. They have been used in countries such as Denmark and Finland (IEA, 2018c), and in decarbonisation scenarios (Agnolucci et al., 2009; Mishra et al., 2014). Biomass is considered to be a zero-emissions source in CO2 emission decomposition but in energy analysis, it is not considered a source with 100% efficiency in electricity generation. This means that the combustion of biomass for electricity production results in energy losses. For CO2 emissions, the adoption of biomass CHP is captured by the fossil share effect. There is no differentiation between the adoption of biomass CHP and regular biomass generation plants. For energy consumption, biomass is classified as a type of fuel \(i\) and therefore the impact of CHP is captured in the same way as other fossil fuel CHP plants.
Different CHP systems
In countries with extensive usage of CHP systems, it may be useful to make comparisons between different CHP systems. The decomposition framework can be extended to compare the efficiencies of different CHP systems through the inclusion of an additional level of disaggregation \(l\), where \(l\) is the type of CHP system for a particular fossil fuel. More granular data by CHP system will be required. This form of analysis is suitable for in-depth studies of changes in emissions of a single country over time where it is important to attribute emission reductions to specific CHP systems or technologies. Such an extension can be performed when the emission reductions attributed to CHP are very large and more analysis is required to reveal more refined decomposition results.
Zero values in the data set
An issue that analysts may encounter in the decomposition of electricity and heat output from CHP is the presence of many zero values in the data set. This problem arises because there are more levels of disaggregation required in a decomposition study involving CHP in comparison to a conventional decomposition of the power sector and not all countries have CHP systems for each fuel type studied.
Zero values are an issue only when they change to or from a non-zero value over time or space. For instance, countries may rely entirely on CHP or electricity or heat plants for a particular fuel type but may adopt or decommission these plants in a later year, especially if the decomposition is conducted over a very long time period. Such zero value changes are also likely to be more pronounced in cross-country comparisons as countries are unlikely to have similar generation systems.
Zero values may generate results that are very different between the two methods as LMDI assigns the entire change to the structure effect that corresponds to the highest level of analysis that the zero value to non-zero value occurs. This means that for the substitution method, zero values can result in the allocation of the entire change in emissions to the plant share effect, the mix effect or the activity effect based on both the small value and analytical limit approaches (Ang & Liu, 2007). As the substitution and power loss factor methods have different levels of disaggregation, when a data set contains too many zero values, the aggregate results may exhibit significant differences. A way to reduce the number of zero values that change to a non-zero value is to compute changes annually in the decomposition study of a single country over time such that gradual changes will be captured in the decomposition, resulting in fewer zero values.
Appendix C
Table
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goh, T., Ang, B.W. Integrating combined heat and power in index decomposition analysis of the power sector. Energy Efficiency 14, 76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-09969-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-021-09969-6