Potential Energy Saving in Energy System Via DEA Technique by Relying on QoL

  • Reza NadimiEmail author


Previous chapter analyzed potential final energy consumption (FEC) saving while either improving or maintaining QoL. In other words, demand side analysis was the target of previous chapter without considering any economic limitation. The current chapter looks for potential improvement of QoL or at least keeping QoL by means of FEC and TPES together. Furthermore, energy supply constraint is added to ensure global energy supply and economic growth, which is the target of the sustainable energy strategy by IEA (Chap.  1, Sect. 1.4). Thus, this chapter focuses on both demand and supply sides to investigate potential amount of energy reduction while either keeping or improving QoL. Previous chapter utilized the concept of efficient area to present three energy policies corresponding with three types of country classifications; developed, developing, and pre-developing. This chapter employes the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique to measure the efficiency of each country [decision making units (DMUs)]. The energy supply constraint can be defined through an appropriate type of DEA model orientation in the supply side analysis. Moreover, considering the output-oriented DEA model in the demand side of energy ensures the economic growth related to the energy consumption. However, various energy related studies have used the DEA technique to measure the efficiency of DMUs. While, heterogeneous DMUs and either inappropriate input or output-oriented DEA model lead to unreasonable results. The K-Means clustering algorithm is applied for energy data to classify homogenous countries. The input oriented DEA model is performed for power stations (PS) under renewables. Whereas, the output-oriented model is used to examine the efficiency of PS under non-renewables and refineiries as well as demand analysis. The energy related quality of life (QoL) is the output variable of the demand efficiency analysis. The overall energy efficiency is calculated by multiplying the efficiency of supply side into the demand side. The results of this chapter specify that the highest potential energy saving (PES) source in the supply side belongs to the non-renewables in power stations, followed by refineries, and finally deployment of renewables. Demand side analysis identifies that the highest PES belongs to countries with high population, and high-income economy. In conclusion, the results of overall energy efficiency based on QoL, suggests an allowance for the use of fossil fuels in countries with weak economic and low population. The allowance is proposed to support energy poverty, health improvement, and promotion of education.


Energy consumption Data envelopment analysis Overall efficiency Quality of life 


  1. 1.
    D. Anderson, in World Energy Assessment. Energy and economic prosperity (Washington, D.C., United Nations Development Programme, 2000), pp. 394–413Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Nagothu, Measuring Multidimensional Energy Poverty the Case of India (Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, 2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Demski, C. Butler, K.A. Parkhill, A. Spenced, N.F. Pidgeon, Public values for energy system change. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 59–69 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.S. Nørgard, Consumer efficiency in conflict with GDP growth. Ecol. Econ. 57, 15–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Barbir, S. Ulgiati, Sustainable Energy Production and Consumption (Springer, Netherlands, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    IEO, International Energy Outlook, (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.A. Miller, J. Richter, Social planning for energy transitions. Curr. Sustain./Renew. Energy Rep. 1, 77–84 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.A. Miller, C. Altamirano-Allende, N. Johnson, M. Agyemang, The social value of mid-scale energy in Africa: Redefining value and redesigning energy to reduce poverty. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 5, 67–69 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.K. Steinberger, J.T. Roberts, From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol. Econ. 70, 425–433 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Potential energy saving via overall efficiency relying on quality of life. Appl. Energy 233–234, 283–299 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Akira, Population decline and electricity demand in Japan: myth and facts. IEE Jpn. 1–9 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Mazur, How does population growth contribute to rising energy consumption in America? Popul. Environ. 15(5), 371–378 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.-M. Boulanger, Three strategies for sustainable consumption. S.A.P.I.EN.S. Surv. Perspect. Integrating Environ. Soc. 3(2), 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H.E. Daly, Steady-State Economics (United States, New York, 1991), pp. 211–215Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.J.P.M. Rehabil, Quality of life, life satisfaction, and spirituality: comparing outcomes between rehabilitation and cancer patients. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 81(6), 400–410 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Yildirim, S.P. Kilic, A.D. Akyol, Relationship between life satisfaction and quality of life in Turkish nursing school students. Nurs. Health Sci. 15(4), 415–422 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Modeling of quality of life in terms of energy and electricity consumption. Appl. Energy 212, 1282–1294 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Energy use analysis in the presence of quality of life, poverty, health, and carbon dioxide emissions. Energy 153, 671–684 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    IPCC, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, E.L. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T.J. Coelli, R. Prasada, O.J. O’Donnell, G.E. Battese, An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (Springer, USA, 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.D. Banker, A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper, Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage. Sci. JSTOR 30(9), 1078–1092 (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Fare, S. Grosskopf, C.K. Lovell, The Measurement of Efficiency of Production (Springer, New York, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    GEA, Global Energy Assessments, (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Mahalingam, W.H. Orman, GDP and energy consumption: a panel analysis of the US. Appl. Energy 213, 208–218 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    X. Long, E.Y. Naminse, J. Du, J. Zhuang, Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 680–688 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H.K. Çaliskan, Technological change and economic growth. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 649–654 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Johnson, D. Wichern, Applied Multivariate Statistical Methods, 3rd edn. (Prentice Hall, 1992)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    IEA, Worldwide Engagement for Sustainable Energy Strategies, (International Energy Agency, 2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    W.W. Cooper, L.M. Seiford, K. Tone, Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software (Springer Science + Business Media, New York, 2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    IEA, International Energy Agency, 28 Jan 2018, [Online]. Available
  32. 32.
    J.-W. Lee, R.J. Barro, Educational attainment dataset, November 2016, [Online]. Available
  33. 33.
    Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Program, November 2016, [Online]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Z. Wang, C. Feng, Sources of production inefficiency and productivity growth in China: a global data envelopment analysis. Energy Eco. 49, 380–389 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Z. Wang, C. Feng, A performance evaluation of the energy, environmental, and economic efficiency and productivity in China: an application of global data envelopment analysis. Appl. Energy 147, 617–626 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. Wang, Y.-M. Wei, Sources of energy productivity change in China during 1997–2012: a decomposition analysis based on the Luenberger productivity indicator. Energy Eco. 54, 50–59 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009, (International Energy Agency, 2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018, (Frankfurt School—UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance, 2018)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. Henderson, Upgrading and Efficiency Improvement in Coal-Fired Power Plants (IEA Clean Coal Centre, 2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Foucault, P. Meisen, Is 100% Renewable Energy Possible in France by 2020? (Global Energy Network Institute (GENI), 2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    DECC, UK Renewable Energy Roadmap, 2011Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    European energy market reform Country Profile: Italy, (Deloitte Conseil, 2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    G.S. Alemán-Nava, V.H. Casiano-Flores, D.L. Cárdenas-Chávez, R. Díaz-Chavez, N. Scarlat, J. Mahlknecht, J.-F. Dallemand, R. Parra, Renewable energy research progress in Mexico: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 140–153 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Mearns, Energy matters, UK electricity generation statistics 1920–2012, [Online]. Available Accessed 1 May 2018
  45. 45.
    T. Jasmina, W. Soetjipto, N. v. d. Windt, Rehabilitation of Power Plants in Indonesia, (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 2015)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    MHI, Indonesia’s First Super Critical Subbituminous Coal-Fired Power Plant Commences Operation (815 MW Expansion Project for PT Paiton Energy), (Power Plant Inauguration, 2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    IEA, National Renewable Action Plan (NREAP), International Energy Agency, [Online]. Available Accessed 02 May 2018
  48. 48.
    IRENA, Mongolia Renewables Readiness Assessment, (International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ORER, Increasing Australia’s renewable electricity generation_Annual Report, Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, 2009Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    GEO, Barapukuria Coal Power Plant, 2014, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  51. 51.
    PPATW, CCGT Power Plants in Bangladesh, Power Plants Around the World, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  52. 52.
    PPATW, Diesel and Gas-Engine Power Plants in Bangladesh, Power Plants Around The World, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  53. 53.
    ADB, Proposed Loan Republic of the Philippines: Acquisition and Rehabilitation of the Masinloc Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant, (Asian Development Bank, 2007)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Masinloc Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant, AES Philippines, 2008, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  55. 55.
    Chana Power Plant, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  56. 56.
    South Bangkok Power Plant, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  57. 57.
    North Bangkok Power Plant, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, [Online]. Available Accessed 2 May 2018
  58. 58.
    R. Nadimi, K. Tokimatsu, Analyzing of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption via baysian inference. Energy Procedia 142, 2773–2778 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    ETSAP, Oil Refineries, (Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program (ETSAP), 2014)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    P. Stevens, Kuwait Petroleum Corporation: Searching for Strategy in a Fragmented Oil Sector, (The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, 2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    NUFCCC, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, (United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    U. Nations, Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development,, 2015
  63. 63.
    International Trade Center, [Online]. Available Accessed 27 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations