IEA Statistics. Coal Information 2011

II.16 - COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART II

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

emissions increased, especially between 1978 and

1985, from its lowest point (31%) to its highest point

(39%). After 1985, the share of emissions from coal

declined regularly and by 1994 essentially returned to

its 1971 level (34%), where it has remained.

World coal-related CO

2

emissions due to electricity

and heat generation more than tripled between 1971

and 2008, from 2.4 Gt in 1971 to 8.7 Gt in 2008

(Figure II.11). During the same period, coal emissions

due to manufacturing industries and construction in-

creased almost doubled, from 1.6 Gt in 1971 to 3.1 Gt

in 2008. Emissions due to the other sectors (including

transport) were almost cut by a third between 1971

and 2008, falling from 1.2 Gt in 1971 to 0.8 Gt in

2008. As a result, the electricity and heat generation

share of world coal-related CO

2

emissions increased

from 46% in 1971 to 69% in 2008. On the other hand,

the share of CO

2

emissions from manufacturing indus-

tries and construction fell from 31% in 1971 to 24%

in 2008 and the share of other emissions fell from

23% to 6% over the period.

Figure II.11: World coal-related

CO

2

emissions by sector

* Other includes residential, transport, commercial/public services,

agriculture, other energy industries and non-specified other sectors.

Source: IEA/OECD CO

2

Emissions from Fuel Combustion

46%

59%

69%

31%

26%

24%

23%

14%

6%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1971 1990 2008

Gt CO

2

Electricity and heat production

Manufacturing industries and construction

Other*

COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART II - II.17

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

EFFICIENCY OUTLOOK FOR POWER

GENERATION FROM COAL

This is a selected excerpt from a report by the IEA

Coal Industry Advisory Board (CIAB), which is a

group of high-level executives from coal-related in-

dustrial enterprises, established by the IEA in July

1979 to provide advice to the IEA Executive Director

on a wide range of issues relating to coal. The CIAB

currently has 46 members from 21 countries, contrib-

uting valuable experience in the fields of coal produc-

tion, trading and transportation, electricity generation

and other aspects of coal use. Mr. Mike Garwood of

E.On was the primary author of the report. The full

report, "Power Generation from Coal: Measuring and

Reporting Efficiency Performance and CO

2

Emis-

sions", is available at:

http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PU

BS_ID=2296.

The need for energy, together with the economics of

producing and supplying that energy to the end user,

are central considerations in power plant investment

decisions and operating strategies. Inevitably, there

will be a point at which higher efficiency and lower

emissions come at a cost which cannot be justified.

Where economic and regulatory conditions exist

which shift this balance consistently in favour of

higher efficiency and lower emissions, improvements

become a normal part of running a competitive busi-

ness. The trend over time has been towards improved

power plant performance.

Worldwide coal-fired power plant efficiency averaged

35.1% in 2007, compared with 33.5% in 1971.

1

1. On a lower heating value, gross electrical output basis, after correc-

tion for heat supply. The average efficiency in 2007 is estimated to be

32.6% on a net output basis, assuming power plant own use of approx-

imately 7%. The reported average efficiency would be lower if no

correction were made for heat supply (see Figure II.16).

Figures II.12, II.13, II.14 and II.15 illustrate the evo-

lution of efficiency in countries where coal is used

widely for electricity generation and heat supply. This

top-down assessment is based on annual coal con-

sumption and electricity supply data collected by the

IEA. Fuel energy input is on a net calorific value

(NCV) or lower heating value (LHV) basis, while

electricity output is on a gross basis (i.e. at the genera-

tor terminals, before any deduction for on-site elec-

tricity use); each being the basis adopted by the IEA

for reporting energy statistics. Heat supply is based on

the quantity of heat supplied under commercial ar-

rangements; the gross-net concept has no meaning for

heat supply. Efficiency is calculated after correcting

for heat supply using the methodology adopted by the

European Union.

2

While this assessment allows for a

comparison of coal-fired power generation efficiency

at the national level, it does not allow for performance

comparisons to be made between individual plants;

indeed, the IEA does not collect plant-level data.

Although drawing national comparisons is not the

purpose of this article, some observations can be made

on the four figures:

2. Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a

useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Direc-

tive 92/42/EEC was published in the Official Journal of the European

Union, OJ L 52 on 21 February 2004 (pp. 50-60). Harmonised effi-

ciency reference values for the separate production of electricity and

heat were tabulated in Commission Decision 2007/74/EC (OJ L 32,

6 February 2007, pp. 183-188), with further detailed guidance in

Commission Decision 2008/952/EC (OJ L 338, 17 December 2008,

pp. 55-61).

II.18 - COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART II

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

Figures II.12, II.13, II.14 and II.15: Evolution of coal-fired heat and power plant efficiency

in selected countries

Note: The data reported in Figures II.12 to II.15 are not corrected for any of the factors which influence uncontrollable variables on performance,

such as ambient temperature.

Source: IEA databases.

• The most rapid efficiency improvements have

been seen during periods when large new coal-

fired power plants were being built, for example in

Japan, Korea and South Africa.

• In North America, much of the fleet of coal-fired

power plants operating today was built during the

1960s, so efficiency performance has been largely

unchanged over the last 40 years. The availability

of competitively priced indigenous coal and the

need to retrofit pollution control equipment have

not favoured efficiency improvements.

• In Europe, the trend of improving efficiency

reflects the closure of older, less efficient coal-

fired power plants, replaced either by new coal-

fired plants or other energy sources for power

generation such as natural gas, renewable sources

and nuclear.

• Coal-fired power generation efficiency shows a

gradual improvement in China as more new plants

are built with improved performance.

• Countries which exploit poor quality coal for power

generation are faced with lower levels of efficiency,

for example in Australia and India. Many power

plants in these two countries must also contend with

high ambient temperatures and limited water sup-

plies, both contributing to lower efficiency.

• The cogeneration of heat and power can improve

efficiency, for example in Russia and Poland.

However, this assumes that the heat supplied is

used effectively.

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Japan Ko rea Australia

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Germany Po land Italy UK

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Canada USA

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

So uth Africa China India

Figure II.16: Efficiency i

Source: VGB (2009). Reprinted by permission of the

p

The development of supercritical

supercritical steam cycles, with progres

s

steam temperatures and pressures, co

m

modern plant design and automation, pr

o

cant potential for further efficiency impro

v

the mitigation of CO

2

emissions when

c

existing coal-fired power plants. These i

m

can be realised through the progressive re

p

existing assets with new

p

lant designs th

a

practices.

Although a large number of supercritic

a

supercritical pulverised coal-fired powe

r

currently under construction or planne

d

technology has continued to dominate

r

However, with stricter requirements t

o

emissions, the share of supercritical

supercritical plants should increase.

By far the largest energy loss from existi

n

coal-fired power plants will remain the

h

from the steam cycle to the cooling wate

r

co-generation or combined heat and p

with district heating and cooling, has

t

ceived renewed interest in the light of re

q

improve energy efficiency and reduce

s

emissions. However, the most significan

t

reduce CO

2

emissions from coal-fired

p

will come through the application of CO

2

storage. Here, basic plant efficiency i

m

will be a significant factor in ensuring th

e

carbon capture.

Figure II.16 shows projections by VGB

ciency of and emissions from coal-fired

eration by 2020. With proper policy a

n

support for demonstration, by 2015 the n

COAL INFORMATION (2011

E

INTERNATIO

N

mprovement potential at hard coal-fired power plan

t

p

ublisher. © VGB PowerTech e.V., 2009.

and ultra-

s

ively higher

m

bined with

o

vide signi

f

i-

v

ements and

c

ompared to

m

provements

p

lacement of

a

t reflect best

a

l and ultra-

r

plants are

d

, subcritical

r

ecen

t

build.

o

limit CO

2

and ultra-

n

g and future

h

eat rejected

r

. The use of

ower, along

t

herefore re-

q

uirements to

s

pecific CO

2

t

potential to

p

ower plants

2

capture and

m

provements

e

viability of

fo

r

the effi-

power gen-

n

d financial

et efficiency

of state-of-the-art units firing har

d

could reach 50% (LHV) at plants

w

and storage. For lignite-fired plan

t

be up to 5 percentage

p

oints low

e

moisture content of the coal, but t

h

if developments in efficient coa

l

are successful, using either wast

e

steam.

CO

2

capture will significantly imp

a

b

oth existing and future plants. A

t

technology, units retrofitted with

c

a decrease in efficiency of up to 1

2

and consume perhaps 20% to 30

%

of electricity supplied. While a c

o

stitutes “capture-ready” exists for

n

may not be economic or technica

l

existing pulverised coal

p

lants wi

pecially at smaller units. Refurbis

h

necessary to improve efficiency a

t

fore CO

2

capture retrofits can

b

40% efficiency were to be consi

d

CO

2

capture retrofit, around 10%

rent coal-fired capacity would be

Even then, and assuming a route

t

case analyses would be needed to

isting control systems can be

s

whether the large steam require

m

equipment can be sensibly suppli

e

ing plants.

3. Estimate using IEA Clean Coal Centre Co

a

7 173 units listed in the database, the indivi

d

ple comprising 4 396 units (with a total c

a

b

een estimated from available operating p

a

255 units (with a total capacity of 118 GW)

efficiency of greater than 40%.

E

dition) PART II - II.19

N

AL ENERGY AGENCY

t

s

d

or bituminous coal

w

ithou

t

CO

2

capture

t

s, these figures will

e

r depending on the

h

at can be improved

l

-drying technology

e

heat or low-grade

a

ct the efficiency of

t

the current state of

c

apture would suffer

2

percentage points,

%

more fuel per unit

o

ncept of what con-

n

ew power plants, it

l

ly viable to retrofit

th CO

2

capture, es-

h

ments will often be

t

existing plants be-

b

e contemplated. If

d

ered the cu

t

-off for

of the world’s cur-

suitable for CCS.

3

t

o storage, case-by-

assess whether ex-

s

afely adapted and

m

ent of CO

2

capture

e

d from these exist-

a

lPower5 database. Of the

d

ual efficiencies of a sam-

a

pacity of 1 074 GW) has

a

rameters. Of these units,

are estimated to have an

II.20 - COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART II

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

Owing to the loss of efficiency, retrofitted units will

deliver less power; additional new capacity would

likely be needed to offset this loss. Based on new-

build information, project proposals and forecasts it

appears that while the majority of future plants will be

either supercritical or ultra-supercritical with an effi-

ciency rating above 40%, subcritical units will still

have a significant market share. By 2030, up to half of

the fleet might be considered suitable for CCS retrofit

when necessary, while most of the remaining plants

would require either upgrading to deliver high effi-

ciencies or total replacement.

4

Further work is needed

to better define the future potential for CCS retrofit at

coal-fired power plants.

4. Estimate from supercritical coal-fired power plants listed in Platts

UDI World Electric Power Plants Database 2009 and analysis pre-

sented in IEA World Energy Outlook 2009.

COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART III - III.1

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

PART III

WORLD COAL OVERVIEW

COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART III - III.3

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

1. PRODUCTION

COAL INFORMATION (2011 Edition) PART III - III.5

1973 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010e

Australia

(2)

55483 71610 122346 158572 191055 239429 300190 324571 325375 334630 353034

Austria - - - - 1 - - - - - -

Belgium

(2)

10362 8018 7666 2357 637 375 109 - - - -

Canada 12337 20173 34310 37673 38621 33805 29086 32812 32841 27961 33703

Chile

(2)

1374 1125 1291 2183 1038 366 544 243 667 636 619

Czech Republic 27780 27721 26401 22415 17738 14855 13254 12894 12663 11001 11435

France

(2)

26350 20190 17055 11199 8495 3804 617 422 277 147 261

Germany 104407 94492 88849 76553 58858 37376 28018 24185 19068 13766 12900

Hungary 1186 883 592 169 - - - - - - -

Ireland 64 60 57 25 1 - - - - - -

Italy - - - 58 - - 95 158 117 72 101

Japan

(2)

25090 18027 16381 7979 6317 2964 - - - - -

Korea

(2)

13571 18625 22543 17217 5720 8300 2832 2886 2773 2519 2084

Mexico

(2)

2578 3089 5193 6933 9320 11344 10755 12514 11430 10548 9975

Netherlands 1829 - 101 - - - - - - - -

New Zealand

(2)

2325 1930 2279 2419 3334 3246 5021 4574 4578 4304 5035

Norway 415 288 507 303 292 632 1471 4073 3430 2641 1935

Poland 156630 193121 191642 147736 137166 103331 97904 88312 84345 78064 76710

Portugal

(2)

221 177 237 281 - - - - - - -

Spain 9991 12838 16091 14612 13497 11317 8548 7873 7314 6952 5987

Sweden 12 18 13 11 - - - - - - -

Turkey 4642 3598 3605 2745 2248 2392 2170 2462 2601 2864 2778

United Kingdom 131985 130097 94111 92762 53037 31198 20498 17007 18054 17874 18159

United States

(2)

530064 710178 735935 853647 858627 893972 962440 981690 1007222 921801 932279

IEA Total 1114744 1332044 1380721 1448733 1395644 1386996 1472253 1503919 1520658 1424596 1456401

OECD Total 1118696 1336258 1387205 1457849 1406002 1398706 1483552 1516676 1532755 1435780 1466995

Algeria 333 3 23 - - - - - - - -

Botswana - - 437 794 898 947 985 828 910 738 738

Dem. Rep. of Congo 130 138 121 126 93 96 120 126 129 133 133

Egypt - - - - - 58 25 25 25 25 24

Morocco 565 680 775 526 650 31 12 - - - -

Mozambique 394 207 35 40 38 16 3 24 38 38 38

Nigeria 327 176 140 90 20 388888

South Africa 62352 115120 173500 174800 206211 224200 244986 247666 252213 250582 254727

United Rep. of Tanzania - 1 15 4 44 79 75 85 90 95 95

Zambia 940 570 511 377 152 194 150 14 1 1 1

Zimbabwe 2806 2768 3104 5345 4693 4260 3621 3237 3039 2997 2997

Other Africa 160 196 317 314 342 585 678 693 711 708 708

Argentina 451 390 400 276 305 259 25 110 110 82 82

Brazil 1015 1748 1661 637 240 159 528 228 355 78 78

Colombia 2834 4164 8766 21375 25651 38242 59064 69902 73502 72807 74350

Peru 33 41 127 97 51 17 43 112 142 322 322

Venezuela 50 42 40 2189 4064 7885 7195 7647 7647 8792 8792

Table 1.1: World hard coal production

(1)

(thousand tonnes)

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

IEA Statistics. Coal Information 2011

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.