Primary,
Final, Useful and Equivalent
Energy and Economical Activity
Carlos Feu Alvim
feu@ecen.com
Omar Campos Ferreira
omar@ecen.com
Frida Eidelman
frida@ecen.com
José Goldemberg
Introduction
Energy is the indispensable input for the
activities of civilized society. The correlation between energy and production is a
postulate of the industrial age where energy is one of the basic inputs.
The consumption increase after the petroleum
crisis of the seventies checkmated this nearly linear correlation between the economic
activity and the use of energy as the central countries were able to show economic growth
for more than a decade without the corresponding increase of energy consumption.
The evolution of production methods made evident
that considerable gains in efficiency could be attained through conservation measures
(avoiding loses) or changes in the production process.
It became evident as well that the policy of
conservation or reduction of energy amount per product would bring about better results in
developed countries where financial resources were available. This is natural, since
conservation, after an initial phase of use optimization, implies investments in machines,
equipment and processes, besides management know-how.
Along the process of comparing Energy and
Economical Activity, there was an important methodological improvement that made possible
comparing the currency of different countries, not limited to their exchange rates,
frequently distorted by governments or ruled by imperfect markets.
For example, if we use merely the exchange rate,
the Brazilian GDP as well as its GDP per capita would be reduced in 40% a few months after
the beginning of 1999. This inconvenience can be avoided using methodologies that
calculate the purchase power of the local currency.
The energy area still lacks a convenient
measurement to take into account the yield of different energy sources in their different
uses. Some progress was attained when not only the primary but also the final consumable
energy was measured.
Expressing the offered and consumed energy in
terms of final energy, an equitable comparison could be made, for example, between
hydraulic energy and natural gas for electricity generation.
Still in the form of final energy, the same
natural gas is used to heat water, competing with electricity in domestic uses, without
taking into account their relative efficiencies.
The final energy concept enhances the efficiency
factor by taking into account for each use the efficiency of the different energy sources.
In order to elaborate useful energy balances, it was necessary to organize the uses so
that this concept could be applied in a practical manner.
Even though the concept of useful energy
permits comparing the different energy sources in each use, the energy sum
expressed in this way presents generalization difficulties that are not smaller than those
encountered in primary or final energy sum.
The optimal solution would be the elaboration of
an exergetic analysis of the use of energy in a country or activity. The
generalization of this methodology is possible and desirable but should be submitted to a
methodological development - in part already done - and mainly to a didactic elaboration.
This task could be successful since the concept of exergy is, in a strict sense, no
less intuitive than that of energy.
We learn in school that energy is conserved in
nature and only changes its form but we go on saying "spend energy" and even the
specialists of the area, we say as we did above - conserve and consume
energy ... Not to mention the conversion of mass into energy (in the nuclear area), what
is "perfectly understood" by those who considered that the mass of wood that
they watched being burned in their childhood was converted into energy under the most
easily perceived form as such - heat.
Previous use of the Equivalent Energy concept
The equivalent energy concept was used by an
inter-ministerial group coordinated by the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy - MME,
in the elaboration of the energy matrix of the country. This concept was presented in
[Metodologia de Projeção de Demanda de energia a partir da Energia Equivalente de
Substituição Carlos Feu Alvim et al. Reunião brasil/EUA de Planejamento
energético Washington 4 a 6/12/1990]). It consists of taking for each use an
equivalent energy source. In that case it was used " fuel oil equivalent " for heat
process and direct heating and "diesel equivalent" for the
transportation area, as we have been doing in analyzing the Brazilian "Alcohol
Program".
It should be mentioned that, considering the
larger efficiency of hydraulic energy for generating electricity when compared to other
sources - and satisfying a political desire to emphasize the participation of domestic
energy in the Brazilian energy balance - hydraulic energy is valued in Brazil as primary
energy, taking into account its capacity to generate electricity. Alcohol fuel received
the same treatment in order to value it vis-à-vis gasoline.
In other words, the aim of the equivalent energy
concept is to systematize, in a way easily understandable to the external analyst, energy
"consumption" in terms of equivalent energy. In this work all energy sources, in
all uses, are referred to natural gas equivalence.
Concepts
It is convenient to review some concepts.
Normally, the "energy content" of primary sources is considered by calculating
its heat dissipation capacity into the environment. For fuels it is normally used the
"upper calorific power".
Primary sources can not be directly used so
different transformation processes are used that converts petroleum into its products for
several uses, coal into coke, wood into charcoal, etc. Several fuels, primary or
secondary, are converted into electricity, in general, for more noble ends,.
In energy balances this is expressed by the
formula
Primary Energy = Final Energy + Transformation
Loses
In useful energy balances, for each use j,
the fuel efficiency i is such that
Useful Energy (i,j) = Final Energy (i,j) *
Efficiency (i,j)
or
UE(i,j) = FE(i) * E (i,j)
The uses considered in the Brazilian Useful
Energy are: driving force, direct heating, process heat, lighting, electrochemistry and
others.
Since the energy balances are not sub-divided
according to use, in order to calculate the final energy used in each sector it is
necessary to know the distribution D(i,j) of each energy source in each use.
Using the same technology, it is expected that
this distribution is similar in all countries. Since actually there are different degrees
of technological evolution, this distribution may diverge considerably in some sectors. We
have
FE(i,j) = FE(i) * D(i,j)
Considering the energy source efficiency i
(always for a determined sector) in use j as E(i,j), we will have the useful energy
defined as
UE(i,j) = FE(i,j) * E(i,j)
For each specific use it makes sense, for
example, to deal with useful energy by unit production. This rate is notably more stable
than final energy/ product when different energy sources with different efficiencies are
used. For this purpose, it makes sense to calculate the useful energy, for the same use,
originating from various energy sources.
UE(j) = |
S FE (i) * D(i,j) * E(i,j) |
| i |
It may be of interest to calculate, for each
sector, the average efficiency of one energy source, namely
UE(i) = FE (i) * |
S * D(i,j) * E(i,j) |
| j |
The addition at the right is the useful energy
conversion factor into final energy for energy source i,
given the distribution D(i,j) and efficiencies E(i,j).
The Equivalent Energy is defined as
Equivalent Energy (i,j) = UE(i,j)/E(io,j)
where E(io,j) is the efficiency in the considered
sector of the reference fuel io
or
EE(i,j) = UE(i,j)/E(io,j) = FE(i,j) * E (i,j) /
E(io,j)
By definition, we will have for an energy source
io selected as reference,
EE(i)
= FE (i) * |
S D(i,j)*E(i,j)/E(io,j) |
| j |
For each sector and each energy source a
conversion coefficient is generated which converts the final energy into equivalent energy
resulting from the relative average efficiencies weighted by the final energy destination
in the sector. In the expression for the useful energy it is obtained likewise a
conversion coefficient for each energy source for each sector. A practical example will
demonstrate the convenience of using preferably the equivalent energy.
Equivalence Coefficient Useful Energy
For each sector specified in the energy balance,
reference efficiencies were considered and the use of each energy source supplied by the
Useful Energy Balance 1995 - MME/Brazil should tend to these reference values. These
efficiencies are those used to evaluate the potential of a conservation policy in Brazil
using present technologies. Since it is intended to use the average efficiencies for
inter-comparison among different countries, these efficiencies were considered more
significant than those presently adopted in Brazil where the efforts aiming at energy
conservation are still very limited. The distribution of use of each energy source in each
sector used was considered for Brazil in 1993. As the balance data used are more
aggregated than those available in the Brazilian Energy
Balance and the aim of this work is to obtain a first approximation, the average
conversion coefficients were obtained for three aggregates, namely: industrial,
transportation and others. For each energy source and the different sectors k of the
economy comprised in each aggregate, the coefficients were obtained considering
Similarly, for the final energy of each energy
source and each aggregate one obtains
UCa(i) = UEa(i)/FEa(i)
In the same manner, for equivalent energy one
gets the coefficients
CEa(i) = EEa(i)/FEa(i)
Average Conversion Coefficients - Final Energy
to Useful Energy
|
Industry |
Transportation |
Others |
Total |
| NATURAL GAS |
0,76 |
0,34 |
0,57 |
0,75 |
| VAPOR COAL |
0,54 |
|
|
0,54 |
| METALLURGICAL COAL |
0,85 |
|
|
0,85 |
| FIREWOOD |
0,56 |
|
0,20 |
0,33 |
| SUGARCANE PRODUCTS |
0,66 |
|
|
0,66 |
| OTHER PRIMARY SOURCES. |
0,50 |
|
|
0,50 |
| DIESEL OIL |
0,54 |
0,44 |
0,44 |
0,45 |
| FUEL OIL |
0,75 |
0,59 |
0,77 |
0,73 |
| GASOLINE |
|
0,29 |
|
0,29 |
| LPG |
0,55 |
|
0,50 |
0,50 |
| KEROSENE |
0,73 |
0,33 |
0,01 |
0,32 |
| GAS |
0,83 |
|
0,52 |
0,80 |
| MINERAL COAL COKE. |
0,84 |
|
|
0,84 |
| ELECTRICITY |
0,83 |
0,94 |
0,68 |
0,77 |
| CHARCOAL |
0,79 |
|
0,15 |
0,73 |
| ETHYL ALCOHOL |
|
0,40 |
|
0,40 |
| OTHER SEC. SOURCES |
|
|
|
|
| OTHER PETR. SEC. SOURCES |
0,80 |
|
|
0,80 |
| TAR |
0,79 |
|
|
0,79 |
The present work aims at comparing in a first
approximation the use of primary, final, useful and equivalent energy expressed as a
function of the economic activity and of the power purchase parity. For this
approximation, it was used the aggregated structure shown in the table and the energy
source aggregate presented in the energy source balances disseminated by OECD for several
countries. Considering the structure of Brazilian final energy use, the structure used
yields the following equivalence table:
|
Industry |
Transportation |
Others |
Total |
| Coal |
0,81 |
|
|
0,81 |
| Petroleum
Products |
0,74 |
0,40 |
0,48 |
0,49 |
| Gas |
0,78 |
0,34 |
0,52 |
0,77 |
| Renewable
Fuels |
0,65 |
0,40 |
0,20 |
0,48 |
| Electricity |
0,83 |
0,94 |
0,68 |
0,77 |
This table originates from the previous one where
the different energy sources are grouped and weighted as a function of their use (addition
of energy values/ addition of final energy values). In the two previous tables the
inconvenience of using this type of equivalence when the total is considered becomes
evident. The petroleum products in the last column that specifies the total have a
relatively low efficiency when compared to coal and gas in this same column. The
explanation is easy to understand when the column industry is examined - where the
equivalencies are those expected - and compared to the column transportation, where the
equivalencies are also those expected but the efficiencies are lower because in this case
one is measuring the conversion of chemical energy into driving energy while in industry
the predominance is the conversion of this energy into process heat or direct heating.
Since the petroleum products are predominant in transportation, on the average, they
evidently show low efficiency. Similar comments can be made concerning the primary sources
in the first table, specially the low efficiencies of gasoline and alcohol when compared
to fuel oil or mineral coal in their various forms.
Coefficients for Equivalent Energy
In order to obtain the energy as equivalent
energy it is necessary to choose a reference fuel for each kind of use. For driving force, gasoline was chosen and for process heat and direct heating,
natural gas. For lighting, electrochemistry and others, electricity was chosen, which is
exclusive or practically exclusive in these uses.
Subsequently, these values were unified to
natural gas equivalent using equivalence 1 (ratio between efficiencies) between natural
gas and gasoline, selected by the Brazilian Useful Energy Balance to be used for driving
force. Finally, the equivalence between electricity and natural gas was fixed in 3.57,
which is the efficiency of electricity generation using natural gas (28%). This procedure
permitted to express all energy sources as a function of the equivalent energy in natural
gas. The result is shown in the following table.
The relative values in the different columns are
less discrepant among themselves what results in more compatible total values. The only
surprise seems to be the efficiency of metallurgical coal, 6% higher than that of natural
gas, used specifically in the steel industry, in direct contact with the material to which
heat is supplied (part of the heat is incorporated into the material).
Average Conversion Coefficients - Final Energy
to Equivalent Energy
|
Industry |
Transportation |
Others |
Total |
| NATURAL GAS |
1,00 |
1,00 |
1,00 |
1,00 |
| VAPOR COAL |
0,87 |
|
|
0,87 |
| METALLURGY COAL |
1,06 |
|
|
1,06 |
| FIREWOOD |
0,80 |
|
0,37 |
0,52 |
| SUGARCANE PRODUCTS |
0,73 |
|
|
0,73 |
| OTHER PRIMARY SOURCES |
0,72 |
|
|
0,72 |
| DIESEL OIL |
1,19 |
1,52 |
1,51 |
1,51 |
| FUEL OIL |
1,00 |
1,36 |
1,00 |
1,03 |
| GASOLINE |
|
1,00 |
|
1,00 |
| LPG |
1,00 |
|
1,00 |
1,00 |
| KEROSENE |
1,00 |
1,14 |
0,01 |
1,09 |
| GAS |
1,00 |
|
1,00 |
1,00 |
| MINERAL COAL COKE |
1,06 |
|
|
1,06 |
| ELECTRICITY |
2,63 |
3,10 |
2,93 |
2,76 |
| CHARCOAL |
1,05 |
|
0,30 |
0,97 |
| ETHYL ALCOHOL |
|
1,38 |
|
1,38 |
| OTHER
SEC. SOURCES |
|
|
|
|
| OTHER
PETR. SEC. SOURCES |
0,89 |
|
|
0,89 |
| TAR |
1,00 |
|
|
1,00 |
For the aggregated structures of the OECD balance
we used the following equivalencies
|
Industry |
Transportation |
Others |
Total |
| Coal |
1,04 |
|
|
1,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Petroleum Products |
0,99 |
1,34 |
1,19 |
1,23 |
| Gas |
1,00 |
1,00 |
1,00 |
1,00 |
| Renewable Fuel |
0,83 |
1,38 |
0,37 |
0,81 |
| Electricity |
2,63 |
3,10 |
2,93 |
2,76 |
The results are intuitively expected except that
of coal whose explanation was previously presented. This factor, to be used in other
countries, should be closer to those in the previous table for vapor coal, since in the
case of Brazil its use in industry is practically zero in what concerns heat generation.
Nevertheless, as the coal used in Brazil is of
poor quality, the coefficient value should be higher than 0.87. Furthermore, it would be
necessary to consider the use in the steel industry in other countries, which would also
present relative high efficiency.
The preliminary results that will be presented
use the coefficients calculated for Brazil. In future works, less aggregated sectors and
energy sources will be considered, which would avoid the inconveniences of the aggregated
analysis now presented.
Energy and Economical Activity
In what follows, the results of the comparison
made regarding the energy source consumption in countries presenting a large range of
development and their respective economical activities measured by the purchase power (PPP
methodology) are presented. The values were also obtained from the OCED energy source
balances. All values are relative to 1996. The countries are listed according to the GDP
per capita and the GDP was measured in purchase power parity (PPP methodology) expressed
in 1990 dollar.
Countries, population, Equivalent Energy and
Primary Energy (PE), Final FE), Useful (UE) and Equivalent (EE) intensity use per product
measured in purchase power parity (GDP PPP Gross Domestic Product, Purchase Power
Parity)
|
Population |
GDP PPP |
Equiv.
Energy |
GDP/ inhab. |
PE/GDP |
FE/GDP |
UE/GDP |
EE/GDP |
|
10^6
inhabit. |
10^6
US$(90)
|
10^3
tep |
10^3
US$(90)/ inhab. |
kep/US$ |
koe/US$ |
koe/US$ |
koe/US$ |
| Ethiopia |
58,2 |
25,1 |
6,9 |
0,43 |
0,66 |
0,68 |
0,12 |
0,28 |
| Haiti |
7,3 |
3,9 |
2,9 |
0,53 |
0,50 |
0,92 |
0,61 |
0,75 |
| Congo |
45,2 |
30,3 |
8,3 |
0,67 |
0,46 |
0,43 |
0,13 |
0,27 |
| Nigeria |
114,6 |
119,8 |
39,6 |
1,05 |
0,69 |
0,61 |
0,16 |
0,33 |
| Bangladesh |
121,7 |
130,4 |
16,9 |
1,07 |
0,18 |
0,17 |
0,07 |
0,13 |
| India |
945,5 |
1224,5 |
308,5 |
1,30 |
0,37 |
0,29 |
0,11 |
0,25 |
| Bolivia |
7,6 |
17,0 |
3,1 |
2,24 |
0,21 |
0,16 |
0,07 |
0,18 |
| El Salvador |
5,8 |
15,5 |
2,9 |
2,67 |
0,26 |
0,20 |
0,07 |
0,19 |
| China |
1215,0 |
3594,0 |
869,8 |
2,96 |
0,31 |
0,24 |
0,13 |
0,24 |
| Algeria |
28,7 |
86,4 |
18,2 |
3,01 |
0,28 |
0,17 |
0,09 |
0,21 |
| Russia |
147,7 |
687,9 |
104,5 |
4,66 |
0,90 |
0,08 |
0,05 |
0,15 |
| South
Africa |
37,6 |
178,5 |
77,4 |
4,75 |
0,56 |
0,30 |
0,17 |
0,43 |
| Brazil |
161,4 |
877,7 |
178,7 |
5,44 |
0,19 |
0,16 |
0,08 |
0,20 |
| Poland |
38,6 |
229,1 |
77,6 |
5,93 |
0,47 |
0,31 |
0,16 |
0,34 |
| Gabon |
1,1 |
7,6 |
1,1 |
6,91 |
0,21 |
0,18 |
0,07 |
0,15 |
| Argentina |
35,2 |
245,5 |
52,4 |
6,97 |
0,24 |
0,16 |
0,09 |
0,21 |
| Chile |
14,4 |
165,5 |
20,6 |
11,49 |
0,12 |
0,10 |
0,05 |
0,12 |
| South Korea |
45,6 |
542,9 |
163,0 |
11,92 |
0,30 |
0,22 |
0,13 |
0,30 |
| Spain |
39,3 |
521,3 |
163,8 |
13,27 |
0,19 |
0,23 |
0,14 |
0,31 |
| Germany |
81,9 |
1421,8 |
339,1 |
17,36 |
0,25 |
0,18 |
0,09 |
0,24 |
| United
Kingdom |
58,8 |
1021,2 |
286,4 |
17,37 |
0,23 |
0,22 |
0,14 |
0,28 |
| Sweden |
8,9 |
157,0 |
53,7 |
17,64 |
0,33 |
0,23 |
0,12 |
0,34 |
| Austria |
8,1 |
146,2 |
30,4 |
18,14 |
0,19 |
0,15 |
0,08 |
0,21 |
| Australia |
18,3 |
332,6 |
96,4 |
18,19 |
0,30 |
0,20 |
0,11 |
0,29 |
| France |
58,4 |
1077,2 |
228,6 |
18,45 |
0,24 |
0,15 |
0,08 |
0,21 |
| Canada |
30,0 |
568,7 |
266,7 |
18,98 |
0,42 |
0,32 |
0,18 |
0,47 |
| Japan |
125,6 |
2590,9 |
509,3 |
20,63 |
0,20 |
0,13 |
0,07 |
0,20 |
| USA |
265,6 |
6316,4 |
2108,8 |
23,79 |
0,34 |
0,23 |
0,12 |
0,33 |
In Figure 1 the countries are presented
according to GDP/inhab, per capita product value, and the Final Energy coefficients /GDP.
It can be noticed that the poorer countries present a larger final energy index by product
than the richer countries. When this rate is observed in terms of useful energy and
equivalent energy this difference practically disappears as can be observed in figures 2
and 3.

Figure 1: Final Energy / GNP and per Capita Product for countries classified as a function
of this parameter whose values are represented in graphic in the secondary axis.

Figure 2: Equivalent Energy by dollar of product
by country classified by GDP/inhab.

Figure 3: Useful Energy by dollar of product by country classified by GDP/inhab
A preliminary analysis of the graphics makes it
noticeable that those countries with low revenue present a high consumption of final
energy relative to the product. This is fundamentally due to the low efficiency of the
type of energy source used (efficiencies for each country were not considered). Except for
Haiti, whose relative consumption is high by any criterion adopted, the poorer countries
do not stand out against the average regarding both the useful and equivalent energy
coefficients. The Final Energy/ Equivalent Energy rate shown in Figure 4 demonstrates that
explicitly.

Figure 4: The poorer countries present high Final
Energy/ Equivalent Energy rate pointing up the low efficiency of the energy sources used.
Another interesting fact is that the small
dispersion of the Final Energy/ Equivalent Energy values makes it clear that the
advantages of considering equivalent energy - and not final energy - are greater for
countries with low or average income. In the case of rich countries, if the change brings
no improvement, it does not generate distortions as well rendering it convenient for
general use.
Even in countries with high GDP per capita it can
be noticed a trend to a more efficient use of energy sources when the income rises, as
shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Values of the previous figure for
countries with GDP per capita higher than 10 000 dollars annually
Energy x Product
The positive relation between product and energy
still exists no matter the way energy is computed, as shown in Figure 6 where the primary,
final, equivalent and useful energy are represented as a function of the GDP.

Figure 6: Energy X GNP values for the different
studied countries (logarithmic graphic)
In terms of Energy/Product coefficients to be
used it is easy to notice in Figure 7 that the primary and final energies present very
different values for rich and poor countries.

Figure 7: Energy/Product Coefficients for
different countries for primary, final, useful and secondary energy
By fitting lines to the points in Figure 7, it
can be seen the negative slopes for curves referring to primary and final energy, a
smaller slope for useful energy and a practically zero slope for equivalent energy.
|
PE/GDP |
FE/GDP |
UE/GDP |
EE/GDP |
| Line
slope |
-0,00909 |
-0,01011 |
-0,00251 |
-0,00004 |
In terms of dispersion, the results of the table
below show that, even though the useful energy coefficient may be used in different energy
ranges, it introduces a larger relative dispersion for all countries. A smaller dispersion
is found in the equivalent energy coefficient
|
Unit |
PE/GDP |
FE/GDP |
UE/GDP |
EE/GDP |
| Coefficient |
koe/US$ |
0,34 |
0,26 |
0,12 |
0,27 |
| Standard Deviation |
koe/US$ |
0,18 |
0,19 |
0,10 |
0,13 |
| Standard Deviation |
% |
53% |
71% |
82% |
46% |
In Figure 8 it is shown Equivalent Energy per
capita as a function of the GDP PPP per capita for the different studied countries.

Figure 8: Equivalent Energy per inhabitant
relative to consumption per inhabitant.
Conclusion
Just like the economical activity indexes need to
be corrected so that the exchange rate effects can be minimized, likewise the energy data
need to be corrected in order to take into account the different efficiencies in the
different uses.
For the same type of use (driving force, heat
process, direct heating, lighting, etc.) the useful energy concept seems to be
satisfactory to handle the different types of energy. The Equivalent Energy concept,
suggested here, seems adequate to study the relation energy /product. It is advisable that
in further studies a better determination of the coefficients should be made through the
improvement of the efficiencies used and of the distribution of the energy by use in each
country.
The preliminary results show that the poorer
countries utilize the normally used
energy sources with lower efficiency. It should
be noted that there is no technology suitable to improve this efficiency in spite of the
fact that some laboratories have indicated the possibility of substantially increasing
this efficiency with low cost.
As an example, we could mention the work
developed in 1984/85 by Fundação Christiano Ottoni for the Fuel Contingency Plan of the
Brazilian Energy Commission where gains of 300 and 200% were obtained, respectively, for
the use of firewood and charcoal in domestic ovens with better design. |