Aviel Verbruggen
University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Download article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp110572339Published in: World Renewable Energy Congress - Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 57:8, p. 2339-2346
Published: 2011-11-03
ISBN: 978-91-7393-070-3
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Main contentious issues of public regulation to support CHP as an efficient thermal power cycle are discussed. First the merit of CHP is defined as the transformation of residual heat in conventional power plants into useful heat; this merit suffices to rank CHP activity prior to standard thermal power generation wasting the heat. Second; the main metrics of CHP performance is the amount of co-generated electricity requiring uncontested identification when CHP activity is mixed with condensing power generation (mainly in extractioncondensing steam turbines). The proper method is based on design characteristics of CHP processes; not on arbitrary averages as CEN proposes. Therefore; the novel concept of “bliss point” of a CHP activity is developed. Third it is argued why co-generated power – clearly measured – is a sufficient performance indicator. Additional qualifications based on external benchmarks (as the EU-Directive allows) may imply perverse incentives in impeding CHP development qualitatively and quantitatively. The difference between perverse and benign regulations explains the wavering position of the EU-2004 Directive on the promotion of CHP.
CHP quality; Power-to-heat ratio; EU Directive; Incentive Regulation; Benchmarking
[1] European Parliament and Council; 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 Directive 92/42/EEC; Official Journal of the European Union; 21.2.2004; L52/50-60.
[2] J. Couder; A. Verbruggen; Technical Efficiency measures as a tool for energy bench-marking in industry?; Energy & Environment 14; 2003; pp. 705-724
doi: 10.1260/095830503322663410.
[3] G. Schauman; Energy Efficiency in Industry; keynote lecture at 4th European Congress on Economics and Management of Energy in Industry; Porto; 27-30 November 2007.
[4] D. Toke; A. Fragaki; Do liberalized electricity markets help or hinder CHP and district heating? The case of the UK; Energy Policy 36; 2008; pp.1448-1456
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.12.021.
[5] EDUCOGEN; An educational tool for cogeneration; SAVE EU programme; 2001; pp. 199
[6] CEN Workshop Agreement; Manual for Determination of Combined Heat and Power (CHP); CWA 45547; CEN/CENELEC; Brussels; 2004; pp. 78
[7] A. Verbruggen; The merit of cogeneration: Measuring and rewarding performance; Energy Policy 36; 2008; pp. 3059-3066
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.020.
[8] D. Harvey; Clean Building Feature; Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production; 2006; pp.107-115
[9] U. Franke; Die Thermodynamik der KWK aus systematischer Sicht Euroheat & Power 33; 2004; pp. 28-33
[10] A. Verbruggen; Qualifying Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Activity; Int. J. Energy Technology and Policy 5; 2007; pp. 36-52
doi: 10.1504/IJETP.2007.012570.
