Evaluation of Electricity Generating System’s Technology Mix Using 3E Indicator

  • Vojin GrkovićEmail author


For the purpose of the research, the technologies for electricity generation are classified in four categories: CO2-free-desspatchable (hydro, nuclear, and biomass fired), CO2-free-non-desspatchable (wind generators and photo voltaic), CO2-dependent-despatchable and CO2-dependent-non-despatchable ones. 3E indicator is introduced purposely to enable quantitative evaluation of the considered complex technology structures, as well as to provide support for decision making during the design and operation procedures of electricity generating systems. The application of the indicator is demonstrated with appropriate model numerical simulations for the general European conditions. In the model calculations are analyzed simplified technology mixes with CO2 free, non-despatchable technologies in overall load, two technologies in base part of the residual load (lignite fired and nuclear), one technology in intermediate part of the residual load and one in the pick part of the residual load both CO2 dependent, despatchable ones. The results show that the introduced 3E indicator is suitable for analysis of the technological combinations for electricity generation within considered countries. The results also show that increase participation of nuclear power plants in residual load domain contribute to better (lower) value of 3E indicator. The results obtained for technology structures in nine analyzed European countries (Germany, France, Austria, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Belgium and Netherlands) point out that the country with higher participation of CO2 free despatchable and lower participation of CO2 free non-despatchable technologies in electricity generation has tendency toward better i.e. lower value of 3E indicator. On the other hand the country with the higher participation of CO2 free non-despatchable and lower to moderate participation of CO2 free despatchable technologies has tendency toward the higher value of 3E indicator. These results are in accordance with the results obtained by numerical simulations with simplified technology mixes.


3E indicator technology matrix energy technologies carbon-free despatchable 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Steffen B., Weber C., Efficient storage capacity in power systems with thermal and renewable generation. Energy Economics, 2013, 36: 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Wißsel S., Ruth-Nagel S., Blesl M., Fahl U., Voß A., Electricity production cost in comparison, (in German language) Stromerzeugungskosten im Vergleich. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationale Energieanwendung, Bericht Nr. 4. 2008. (accessed on May 6, 2013)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Fürsch M., Nagl S., Lindenberger D., Optimization of power plant investments under uncertain renewable energy development paths–A multistage stochastic programming approach. Energy Systems, 2014, 5(1): 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bareiß J., Helmrich A., Bantle M., Materials specification VGB-R 109 and processing standards–first experiences of a new power plant for quality control purposes. VGB PowerTech, 2010, 90(7): 51–55.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Fouquet D., Nysten J., The role of renewable energy in the changing energy landscape in Europe–Some reflections. VGB PowerTech, 2012, 92(1/2): 38–42.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kosel D., Meyer H., Requirements for cleaning of the flue gas in oxyfuel-process (in German language), Anforderungen an die Rauchgasreinigung im Oxyfuel- Prozess. VGB PowerTech, 2010, 90(4): 56–58.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    United nations framework convention on climate change. (accessed on July 1, 2018)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Kaya identity. (accessed on July 1, 2018.)Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    I=PAT. (accessed on July 1, 2018.)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Grkovic V., Ecology, economy and energy evaluation of electricity generating technologies using 3E indicator, IWEG 2018, Hangzhou, China, Proceedings, pp. 139–144, DOI:10.5220/0007427101390144.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Grkovic V., Marginal share of renewable energy sources of variable electricity generation–a contribution to the concept definition. Thermal Science, 2015, 19(2): 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kather A., Future climate friendly electricity supply with fossil fired power plants (Zukünftige klimafreundliche Stromversorgung mit fossil befeurten Kraftwerken) (in German language). VGB PowerTech, 2011, (9): 44–53.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Capital costs estimates for utility scale electricity generating plants, U.S. Energy Information Administration, November 2016.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Breeze P., The cost of power generation, Business Insight, 2010. Power%20Generation.pdf (accessed on July 1, 2018)Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Entso-e transparency platform. https://transparency. (accessed on July 1, 2018)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parlament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, Official Journal of the European Union, May 6, 2009}.–ojYe ar=2019&page=3 (accessed on May 6, 2018Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kitzing L., Mitchell C., and Morthorst P.E., Renewable energy polices in Europe: Converging or diverging–Energy Policy, 2012, 51: 192–201.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Liu Z., Zeng W.H., Research of optimization framework for China's low-carbon technology development based on 3E model: A case study of electricity industry. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2014, 535: 500–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Liu W.B, Cheng Z.L., Mingers J., Qi L., Meng W., The 3E methodology for developing performance indicators for public sector organizations. Public Money and Management, 2010, 30 (5): 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Deng Y.Y., Du M.H., Lei Z.M., The clean coal technology assessment based on 3E analytic method. Meitan Xuebao/Journal of the China Coal Society, 2007, 32(10): 1088–1092.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Liu G.Z., Wen F.S., Dong Z.Y., Generation investment decision-making at the change of electricity ma rket and CO2 emission policy. Huanan Ligong Daxue Xuebao/Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science), 2010, 38(3): 101–108.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Burkhardt J., Feck N., Böckmann Th.G., Koch M.K., Kruse Ph., Wagner H.J., CO2 emissions in nuclear power - Studies of nuclear electricity generation compared to other power generation technologies (CO2-Emissionen der Kernenergie - Vergleich mit anderen Stromerzeugungstechniken). ATW–Internationale Zeitschrift fur Kernenergie, 2007, 52(7): 488–496.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Kosanic T.R., Ceranic M.B., Ðuric S.N., Grkovic V.R., Milotic M.M., and Brankov S.D., Experimental investigation of pyrolysis process of woody biomass mixture, Journal of Thermal Science, 2014, 23(3): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Kyriakopoulos G., and Arabatzis G., Electrical energy storage systems in electricity generation: Energy policies, innovative technologies, and regulatory regimes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, 56: 1044–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Delarue E., Luickx P., D'haeseleer W., The effect of implementing wind power on overall electricity generation costs, CO2 emissions and reliability. TME Working Paper–Energy and Environment, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Energy Institute, Leuven, Belgium, 2008. (accessed on July 1, 2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Steinbeis Energy TechnologiesNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations