Copper contributions to fight climate change 1

Final Project Report

COPPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO FIGHT
CLIMATE CHANGE
ESTIMATES FOR LATIN AMERICA COUNTRIES

International Energy Initiative (IEI) Team
Prof. Dr. Gilberto M. Jannuzzi - Coordinator
Dr. Conrado A. Melo - Technical Consultant

Prepared for International Copper Association (ICA)
and Procobre – Instituto Brasileiro do Cobre

1

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 5
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8
3. Objective ................................................................................................................... 9
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 10
4.1. End-use technologies .......................................................................................... 10
4.2. Renewable generation technologies .................................................................... 11
5. Energy Efficiency and Copper Content of the Evaluated Technologies .................. 13
5.1. Electric motors ..................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Distribution transformers ...................................................................................... 14
5.3. Refrigerators ........................................................................................................ 17
5.4. Air conditioning .................................................................................................... 18
5.5. Renewable energy ............................................................................................... 18
5.6. Solar water heating .............................................................................................. 19
6. Results .................................................................................................................... 20
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 23
8. Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 24
9. Appendix 1 - Electric Matrix and Emissions for the Selected Countries .................. 25
9.1. Brazil .................................................................................................................... 25
9.2. Mexico ................................................................................................................. 25
9.3. Peru ..................................................................................................................... 25
9.4. Chile .................................................................................................................... 27
9.5. Argentina ............................................................................................................. 27
9.6. Colombia ............................................................................................................. 28
9.7. Emission factor of national electrical systems...................................................... 29
10. Appendix 2 - Parameters Used in Estimates of ICA LA Programs Contributions. 30
11. Appendix 3 - Estimates of ICA LA Programs Contributions ................................. 32
11.1. Electric motors .................................................................................................. 32
11.2. Refrigerators ..................................................................................................... 32
11.3. Air conditioning ................................................................................................. 33
11.4. Solar water heating........................................................................................... 33
11.5. Distribution transformers .................................................................................. 34

2

List of Tables

Table 1 – Project Scope: equipment, countries and type of study. .................................. 9
Table 2 – Relation between the use of copper and efficiency of 22kW electric induction
motors ........................................................................................................................... 14
Table 3 – Electric motors’ market in Brazil and Mexico ................................................. 14
Table 4 – Distribution of single-phase transformers according to power in Brazil (2007)
...................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 5 – Distribution of three-phase transformers according to power in Brazil (2007) 15
Table 6 – European parameters for losses and use of copper in distribution
transformers .................................................................................................................. 15
Table 7 – Relation between the use of copper and efficiency for distribution
transformers .................................................................................................................. 15
Table 8 – Copper increment in 15kV single-phase transformers to reduce losses by
20% ............................................................................................................................... 17
Table 9 – Copper increment in 15kV three-phase transformers to reduce losses by 20%
...................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 10 – Additional use of copper, per component, in a 480 liters refrigerator ........... 18
Table 11 – Additional use copper per installed capacity of renewable generation
sources .......................................................................................................................... 19
Table 12 – Installed capacity of renewable generation sources .................................... 19
Table 13 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation per equipment type ...................... 20
Table 14 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation per additional kg of cooper .......... 20
Table 15 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation: renewable generation technologies
...................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 16 – Results of CO2 mitigation: final use of energy technologies (tons of
CO2/year)....................................................................................................................... 21
Table 17 – Results of annual CO2 mitigation program with renewable generation (tons
of CO2/year)................................................................................................................... 22
Table 18 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Three Phase Electric Motors ............. 30
Table 19 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Distribution Transformers .................. 30
Table 20 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Refrigerators ...................................... 30
Table 21 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Air Conditioning ................................. 31
Table 22 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Solar Heating ..................................... 31
Table 23 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for electric motors: in millions of tons
...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 24 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for refrigerators: in millions of tons .. 32
Table 25 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for air-conditioning sets: in millions of
tons ................................................................................................................................ 33
Table 26 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for solar heaters: in millions of tons 33
Table 27 – Estimates for distribution transformers: study of potential ........................... 34

3

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Loss reduction curves due to copper increment in transformers .................. 16
Figure 2 – Brazil: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009 ............................ 26
Figure 3 – Mexico: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009 .......................... 26
Figure 4 – Peru: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009.............................. 27
Figure 5 – Chile: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009 ............................. 28
Figure 6 – Argentina: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009 ...................... 28
Figure 7 – Colombia: Domestic offer of electricity by source type - 2009 ...................... 29
Figure 8 – Average CO2 emissions’ factor of electric systems: 2000 – 2009................. 29

4

1. Executive Summary

This project has the objective to estimate the contribution of the additional use of copper
in electrical equipment and power generation in reducing CO2 emissions. The study was
developed considering the introduction of more efficient electric equipment, solar water
heaters, and the contribution given by electricity generation using renewable sources in
Latin America1 countries. These two components employ technologies that have a
higher copper content when compared to the conventional technologies they replace.
The analysis comprised different periods depending on the start of fomenting and
diffusion activities of the appraised technologies, which, basically, started in 2005. The
results are presented in annual basis.

Estimates were based on indicators relating the copper content and the equipment
energy efficiency. For the renewable sources, we used factors relating the copper
content of selected technologies per unit capacity. Estimates of emissions’ reduction
with the introduction of these technologies were based on sales information of efficient
equipment and on the characteristics of each country electric system. The methodology
and assumptions used are detailed in Chapters 4 and 5 and Appendixes 1 and 2.

Table A shows the different contributions of each additional kilogram of copper applied
in building more efficient electric equipment, solar heaters, and renewable power
generation in the analyzed countries. As could be expected, countries employing a
higher share of thermal generation using fossil sources have the most significant
indicators on impacts’ mitigation. Such is the case of Mexico, Argentina, and Chile.
Electric motors are the items that exhibit the higher reduction of emissions per unit,
followed by refrigerators and air conditioners.

Table A – Technical CO2 mitigation coefficients per kg of additional copper

Solar
Country Electric Motors Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating Wind SHPs Biomass
PV
Tons of CO2/additional kg of copper/year

Argentina 0.491 0.128 0.099 0.224 0.798 1.166 0.048
‐
Brazil 0.126 0.033 0.025 0.004 0.057 0.202 0.295 0.012
Chile 0.471 0.123 0.095 0.033 0.230 0.819 1.198 ‐

Colombia 0.221 0.058 0.044 0.097 0.347 0.507 0.021
‐
Mexico 0.614 0.207 0.159 0.033 0.360 1.282 1.874 0.077
Peru 0.281 0.073 0.056 0.033 0.135 0.480 0.702 0.029

1
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru.

5

Emissions’ reduction for each equipment is given in Table B. The penetration of each
efficient motor in Mexico reduces CO2 emission by 412 kg/year while in Brazil this
factor is 82 kg/year. It can be verified that for each equipment unit, solar water heaters
provide the largest contribution to emissions reductions in countries that, according to
the assumptions, use natural gas for domestic water heating.

Table B – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation, per equipment

Country Electric Motor Refrigerator Air Conditioning Solar Heating1
Tons of CO2/equipment/ year

Argentina 0.31959 0.04867 0.07699 0.66759
Brazil 0.08194 0.01248 0.01974 0.07147
Chile 0.30717 0.04678 0.07399 0.66759
Colombia 0.14366 0.02188 0.03461 0.66759
Mexico 0.41248 0.07852 0.12420 0.66759
Peru 0.18290 0.02785 0.04406 0.66759
1
In Brazil solar heaters replace electric showers, for other countries it was
assumed that this technology replaces direct natural gas burning.

The total annual savings of electric energy, per country and equipment, are presented in
Table C. Brazil is the country where the dissemination of efficient technologies provides
the highest amount of electricity conservation (about 2 TWh/year) stressing the
penetration of efficient electric motors, which accounts for energy savings of 1.2 TWh
yearly. Solar water heating technologies in Mexico represent a total saving of 16,800
tons of natural gas.

Table C – Annual results of energy conservation

Country Electric Motor Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating
GWh/year GWh/year GWh/year
Argentina 16.2 59.4 26.0 ‐
Brazil 1,213.5 580.8 120.1 166.3 GWh/year
Chile 11.7 16.2 6.6 2,321.0 (Tons of NG)
Colombia 29.4 42.6 8.8 ‐
Mexico 723.2 374.9 68.9 16,885.0 (Tons of NG)
2,343.0
Peru 9.4 17.8 1.3
(Tons of NG)

6

Table D shows the annual results of CO2 emissions mitigation. Among the analyzed
countries, Mexico represents 72% of the total CO2 reduction. In both countries, Brazil
and Mexico, the most important equipment was more efficient motors, followed by
refrigerators. However, in other countries, the situation was different, with refrigerators
and solar heaters being more important in Argentina, Chile and Peru.

Table D – Results of CO2 mitigation: energy end‐use technologies (CO2 tons/year)

Country Electric Motors Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating Total
Argentina 5,983 21,901 9,585 ‐ 37,468
Brazil 114,714 54,904 11,349 15,723 196,690
Chile 4,147 5,730 2,353 7,043 19,273
Colombia 4,870 7,055 1,453 ‐ 13,379
Mexico 430,213 222,993 40,987 51,237 745,430
Peru 1,975 3,760 264 7,110 13,110
Total 561,902 316,344 65,992 81,113 1,025,350

The contribution of renewable sources to emissions' reduction is even larger, as can be
seen in Table E. Although Brazil has a very low emission factor compared with other
countries, the country was the largest contributor due to its higher installed capacity.
Generation using biomass is the main source to contribute towards emissions’
reduction.

Table E – Results of annual CO2 mitigation taking renewable generation into account: (CO2 tons/year)

Country Wind SHP Biomass Solar Photovoltaic Total
Brazil 232,165 1,633,169 3,417,274 2,126 5,284,735
Argentina 17,106 606,224 1,007,575 4,198 1,635,104
Chile 11,497 260,485 238,555 ‐ 510,536
Mexico 76,470 966,631 546,539 10,121 1,599,761
Colombia 4,478 327,358 81,523 183 413,542
Peru 236 201,640 64,855 935 267,666
Total 341,952 3,995,508 5,356,321 17,563 9,711,344

7

2. Introduction

Technological innovation of electric equipment and devices have produced significant
improvement concerning energy-efficiency gain, which, on its turn, have an enormous
potential for environmental gain in Greenhouse Gases (GHG) mitigation. These
innovations are, in many cases, directly related to application of additional copper. For
instance, electric motors' gain in energy performance for each additional kilogram of
copper used in them allows the reduction of 3 tons of CO2e emission2, in comparison to
equipment with less intensive copper use. Emissions’ balance is very positive, as in the
production phase of these devices; the use of additional copper is responsible for only 3
kg of CO2e emissions (Keulenaer et al 2006). This means a return factor of 1000 times
in mitigation benefits provided by these applications throughout their lives (Copper
2006). Furthermore, it shall be noted that at the end of the equipment lifetime, its copper
content can be recycled and used in another application.

2
All greenhouse gases are converted into equivalent quantities of CO2 contribution to the atmospheric
warming. Thus, for example, one ton of methane (CH4), which has an effect 21 times that of carbon
dioxide, is equivalent to 21 tons of CO2.

8

3. Objective

This study objective is to evaluate the contribution of using copper, and the consequent
increase in energetic efficiency, to fight climate changes. The study intends to diagnose
and account for the impacts of CO2, the main Greenhouse Gas (GHG), mitigation in
selected Latin America countries, considering: a) the use of more efficient technologies
into electrical equipment manufacturing, b) the use of solar water heaters, and c)
electricity generation by renewable sources, as wind, biomass, small hydropower plants
(SHP), and solar photovoltaic. Furthermore, an evaluation was developed for the
potential impact of an improvement in losses' reduction of distribution transformers.
Table 1 shows the list of evaluated equipment, countries, and type of study3.

Table 1 – Project Scope: equipment, countries and type of study.

Equipment Assessed Countries Type of Study
Electric motors Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru Evaluation of impacts
Distribution transformers Brazil Study of potential
Refrigerators Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Evaluation of impacts
Air conditioners Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru Evaluation of impacts
Renewable energy(*) Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru Evaluation of impacts
Solar water heating Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru Evaluation of impacts
Note: (*) Biomass, wind, solar photovoltaic and small hydro (SHP).

3
Additionally, the likely contribution of the programs fomented by the ICA LA for energy savings and
emissions' reduction was also estimated. (See Appendix 3, page 25).

9

4. Methodology

To develop the project, two analysis steps were taken, as described below.

Phase 1 ‐ Analysis of energy efficiency indicators and copper content
This first analysis stage objective is to evaluate relations between each equipment
energy efficiency and its copper content. The development of this step is based on a
review of national and international literature. This literature covers scientific reports,
research papers, indexed articles and related books. Details of this evaluation are
presented in Chapter 5.

Phase 2 – Accounting of impacts by incrementing copper usage
This step aims at estimating the impact of new equipment sales and increase in
electricity generation from renewable sources in each of the analyzed countries. To
perform this step, the information obtained in Step 1 was used to establish technical
coefficients for CO2 emissions' mitigation for each technology4, besides market-specific
parameters, as explained below. In the study on the available potential for distribution
transformers’ improvement, the energy potential is conserved, and the corresponding
CO2 mitigation is quantified, in a scenario that considers the total deployment of efficient
transformers in Brazil. Two models are used for emissions’ accounting: one related to
end-use technologies and other related to renewable generation technologies, as
described below.

4.1. End‐use technologies

The annual basis model used for accounting CO2 emissions' mitigation, for each end-
use energy technology evaluated, is given by Equation 1.

∗ ∗ Equation 1

Where:
- Me is the annual mitigation of CO2 emissions provided by the introduction of
technology e into the stock in use in year y;
- Pe is the participation of efficient equipment in annual sales;

4
This data is presented in Chapter 5, pages 15-17.

10

- Vae is the sale in year y of technology e;
- CTe is the annual technical mitigation coefficient for CO2 emissions by technology e,
given by Equation 2.
∗ ∗ Equation 2

Where:
- Cep is the consumption of the standard equipment;
- Cee is the consumption of the efficient equipment;
- Pse is the loss factor for electrical power generation of each assessed country; and
- Fme is the electrical system average emissions' factor for each considered country.

It standouts in the electric equipment model that emissions are accounted for at the
electricity generation source; therefore, factors concerning losses in each country
electrical systems are considered in the analysis. Just in replacement of direct gas
burning by solar water heaters, emissions are estimated considering the total gas saved
multiplied by the gas emission factor.

4.2. Renewable generation technologies

A similar procedure is used in the analysis of CO2 emissions' mitigation by renewable
generation (wind, small hydro, biomass, and solar photovoltaic). In this case, the
method used compares energy from renewable generation sources with the electrical
system expansion that would occur using an equivalent power plant representing each
country electricity generation mix. This method is conservative in the sense that it
considers the effects of renewable generation already included in the average emission
factors for the analyzed countries' electricity generation systems. A comparison carried
out against a plant based on fossil fuel (fuel oil, natural gas, diesel oil, etc.) would give a
larger mitigation impact.

Equations 3 and 4 show the method used in accounting for CO2 emissions' mitigation
for renewable generation.

∗ Equation 3

11

Where:
- Mer is the annual CO2 emissions’ mitigation provided by the installed capacity of
renewable technology generation r;
- CIr is the installed capacity of the r generation technology,
- CTe is the technical mitigation coefficient for CO2 emissions of generation technology
r, given by Equation 4.

∗ . ∗ Equation 4

Where:
- FCr is the capacity factor of generation technology r, and
- Fme is the average emissions factor of the electrical systems for each considered
country.
- The constant 8.76 refers to the number of hours per year divided by one thousand.

12

5. Energy Efficiency and Copper Content of the Evaluated Technologies

5.1. Electric motors

Electric motors are widely used in the industrial sector. Application examples are pumps
for liquids’ transfer, gas compressors, and fans. The textile industry has dedicated
machines, either for spinning and weaving of century's old technology. The cement,
pulp and paper, and chemical sectors use a large amount of pumps, compressors and
fans in their processes, as well as large conveyors, mills, agitators, sieves employing
many high-power motors, together with numerous small motors for ancillary services.
The ceramics industries employ large mixers, blowers and a multitude of conveyors.
Mining, steel mills and general metal manufacturing, besides pumps, compressors and
fans, also mills, conveyors and large quantities for specific machinery for activities as
lamination, drawing, bending, and cutting (Garcia, 2003).

According to Keulenaer et al (2006) evaluation of low voltage (22 kW) induction motors,
operating in typical system applications such as water pumping, compressed air, and
ventilation, the benefits of increasing their energetic efficiency would be quite significant
and would directly reflect in reducing emissions, for example, by some 19 tons of CO25
per motor throughout its useful life. It shall be pointed out that the emissions’ balance
between the production of the highly efficient equipment, and the amount that this
equipment shall mitigate throughout its useful life is of the order of 1000 times, i.e., each
kg of CO2 emitted during the motor production represents a reduction of one ton of CO2
emission during its operation.

Table 2 shows the direct relation between electric motors' efficiency and additional
copper usage according to Keulenaer et al (2006), who assessed three types of motors
operating under the same conditions. In this case, with the additional use of 5.1 kg of
copper, the high performance motor efficiency increased by 4.1 percentage points in
relation to the standard motor.

5
In this case, we considered the average emission factor for 15 European countries.

13

Table 2 – Relation between the use of copper and efficiency of 22kW electric induction motors

Parameters Standard Efficiency High Efficiency Premium High Efficiency
Useful life (years) 20 20 20
Load (%) 50 50 50
Efficiency (%) 89.5 91.8 92.6
Copper (Kg) 8.8 12.9 13.9
Source: Keulenaer et al (2006)

Table 3 shows the market share of electric motors per power for Brazil and Mexico.

Table 3 – Electric motors’ market in Brazil and Mexico

Power Range Market share ‐ Brazil Market share ‐ Mexico
1. Up to 1 hp (Frame 63 and above) 33.77% 7.68%
2. Over 1 hp up to 10 hp 50.92% 82.13%
3. Over 10 hp up to 40 hp 11.47% 8.44%
4. Over 40 hp up to 100 hp 2.73% 1.29%
5. Over 100 hp up to 300 hp 0.99% 0.44%
6. Over 300 hp 0.13% 0.02%
Source: Garcia (2003)

5.2. Distribution transformers

Distribution transformers are designed to step voltage up or down to attend specific
needs of electrical grid. However, the use of this equipment introduces power losses
into the system. As an example, these losses amount, approximately, to 30% of the
total losses of the electricity distribution system in Brazil, CEPEL (2008). According to
CEPEL’s (2008) data, in 2007 the number of installed transformers in Brazil amounted
to 1.55 million single-phase transformers plus 1.10 million of three-phase transformers.
Tables 4 and 5 show transformers’ distribution according to power in the Brazilian
Electricity Distribution System.

Table 4 – Distribution of single‐phase transformers according to power in Brazil (2007)

5 kVA 10 kVA 15 kVA 25 kVA Other Total
Units 323,587 904,663 237,600 75,509 10,748 1,552,107
% 20.8% 58.3% 15.3% 4.9% 0.7% 100.0%
Source: CEPEL, 2008

14

Table 5 – Distribution of three‐phase transformers according to power in Brazil (2007)

15 kVA 30 kVA 45 kVA 75 kVA 112.5 kVA 150 kVA Other Total
Units 175,878 231,614 256,125 233,604 113,007 54,717 39,250 1,104,195
% 15.9% 21.0% 23.2% 21.2% 10.2% 5.0% 3.6% 100.0%
Source: CEPEL, 2008

The use of efficient transformers reduces energy losses substantially. Efficiently
operated high-efficiency transformers allow energy conservation gains and consequent
reduction of GHG emissions. According to Keulenaer (2006) a high performance 100
KVA distribution transformer operating at 25% load allows mitigation of approximately
37 tons of CO2e6 in its 30-year useful life. According to the same author Table 6
presents a direct relation between transformer losses and use of additional copper, for
three equipment types.

Table 6 – European parameters for losses and use of copper in distribution transformers

Parameters AA’ CC’ C‐Amorphous
Useful life (years) 30 30 30
Load (%) 25 25 25
Copper losses (kW) 1.750 1.475 1.475
Iron losses (kW) 0.32 0.21 0.06
Copper (Kg) 85 115 155
Source: Keulenaer (2006)

According to studies developed by LAT-EFEI (The High Voltage Laboratory) of UNIFEI
(The Federal University of Itajubá, Brazil) additional copper in transformers should allow
significant losses reduction in power distribution networks of Brazil. Table 7 shows the
difference in losses for 30, 45 and 75 kVA transformers, in MWh/year for standard and
high-efficiency equipment, used in Brazil.

Table 7 – Relation between the use of copper and efficiency for distribution transformers

Transformer Standard (MWh/year) Efficient (MWh/year) %
30 kVA 2.9558 2.1525 27.2%
45 kVA 3.6429 2.7105 25.6%
75 kVA 6.4560 4.7790 26.0%

6
In this case we considered the average emission factor for 15 European countries.

15

Figure 1 illustrates the direct relation between the increment in the mass of copper and
technical losses reduction in distribution transformers.

Figure 1 – Loss reduction curves due to copper increment in transformers
Source: LAT‐EFEI UNIFEI

Tables 8 and 9 show the increment in copper mass for single and three-phase
transformers, for various transformer capacities, according to the LAT-EFEI UNIFEI
study. In this case the copper increment was calculated for a 20% reduction in total
losses.

16

Table 8 – Copper increment in 15kV single‐phase transformers to reduce losses by 20%

Standard Mass Losses Reduction Mass Increment Mass Increment
Power
(kg) (%) (%) (kg)
5 kVA 7.41 20 29.11 2.15
10 kVA 11.88 20 28.91 3.43
15 kVA 20.13 20 24.61 4.95
25 kVA 22.96 20 23.94 5.49
Source: LAT‐EFEI – UNIFEI

Table 9 – Copper increment in 15kV three‐phase transformers to reduce losses by 20%

Standard Mass Losses Reduction Mass Increment Mass Increment
Power
(kg) (%) (%) (kg)
15 kVA 23.68 20 18.72 4.43
30 kVA 27.63 20 21.92 6.05
45 kVA 35.10 20 16.72 5.86
75 kVA 49.75 20 17.81 8.86
112.5 kVA 67.08 20 24.67 16.55
150 kVA 66.64 20 20.27 13.50
Source: LAT‐EFEI ‐ UNIFEI

5.3. Refrigerators

Highly efficient refrigerators concerning electricity usage are manufactured with a larger
application of copper in several components. Compressors are components with
intense use of copper. The difference in usage of this conductive metal in efficient
equipment may exceed by 20% the amount used in less efficient equipment. Table 10
shows, for a standard 480 liters equipment, the use of additional copper per component
of the refrigerator. This equipment with a 22% increase in energy efficiency uses
386.45 g of additional copper.

17

Table 10 – Additional use of copper, per component, in a 480 liters refrigerator

Component Weight (g) Efficiency + 22% (g) Difference (g)
Electric cable   101.42 123.73 22.31
Compressor service tube 25.80 31.48 5.678
Drier filter service  tube   26.34 32.13 5.79
Drier filter 76.12 92.87 16.75
Ground wire 18.32 22.35 4.03
Plastic plug 41.88 51.09 9.21
Evaporator (suction line tip + capillary) 166.72 203.40 36.68
Compressor 1,300.00 1,586.00 286.00
Total 1,757.00 2,143.00 386.45
Source: National manufacturer ‐ Private information

5.4. Air conditioning

Air conditioners are used for treatment of indoor air. Such treatment consists in
regulating the quality of the indoor air, i.e., its temperature, humidity, cleanness and
movement. For this purpose, the air conditioning system may include air heating,
cooling, humidification, renewal, filtering, and ventilation functions applied to the
ambient air.

No studies were found referring the relation between use of additional copper and
energy efficiency of air conditioners. A standard equipment of 17,700 BTU/hr. contains
about 3.64 kg of copper. For its installation there is an additional demand of 1.56 kg,
which totals 5.2 kg of copper per installed equipment.

5.5. Renewable energy

In relation to electricity generation from renewable sources, the following technologies
are considered: wind, small hydropower (SHP), biomass and solar PV. Concentrated
solar photovoltaic technology was not considered, because it is not yet used in Latin
America. Table 11 shows the use of copper per MW of installed capacity for each of
these technologies. Table 12 shows the installed capacity for each considered country.

18

Table 11 – Additional use copper per installed capacity of renewable generation sources

Technology Copper demand per technology

Wind 2.5 tons of copper/MW
SHPs 2.0 tons of copper/MW
Biomass 1.2 tons of copper/MW
Photovoltaic 8.8 tons of copper/MW
Source: Leonardo Energy and KEMA, 2009

Table 12 – Installed capacity of renewable generation sources

Wind SHP Biomass Photovoltaic Total
Country
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
* *
Brazil 1,638 4,043 9,644 20 10,879
Argentina 31 380 720 10 1,141
Chile 20 159 166 0 345
Mexico 85 377 243 15 720
Colombia 18 472 134 1 625
Peru 1 210 77 4 291
Total 1,591 5,641 6,720 50 14,001
*
Source: Jannuzzi et al, 2010 Values updated according to www.aneel.gov.br/

5.6. Solar water heating

Collecting plates are responsible for absorption of solar radiation. Heat from the sun, captured
by the solar heater plates, is transferred to water circulating inside copper tubing.

A basic water heating system using solar energy consists of solar collector plates and a thermal
reservoir (boiler). The thermal reservoir, also known as boiler, is a container to store heated
water. It is built in copper, steel or polypropylene cylinders, insulated with CFC-free
polyurethane foam, which does not harm the ozone layer. It stores the heated water for later
use. The cold water tank feeds the solar heater thermal reservoir, keeping it full. On the
average, it is known that each installed square meter of solar heaters demands 5kg of copper.

19

6. Results

Table 13 shows technical mitigation coefficients for CO2 emissions provided by the
introduction of one end use unit of energy efficient technology. As shown in Equation 2
(Section 4.1), besides depending on the difference in energy consumption between the
so-called standard and efficient technologies, these coefficients depended of the
electrical systems losses and also of the assessed countries' energy matrix. Thus,
these coefficients reflect, to some extent, the carbon content embedded in the countries’
energy matrix. It is noteworthy that replacing direct burning of natural gas with solar
water heaters has the highest mitigation coefficient7.

Table 13 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation per equipment type

Country Electric Motors Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating1
Tons. of CO2/equipment/year
Argentina 0.31959 0.04867 0.07699 0.66759
Brazil 0.08194 0.01248 0.01974 0.07147
Chile 0.30717 0.04678 0.07399 0.66759
Colombia 0.14366 0.02188 0.03461 0.66759
Mexico 0.41248 0.07852 0.12420 0.66759
Peru 0.18290 0.02785 0.04406 0.66759
1
In Brazil, solar heaters replace electric showers and in other countries, this
technology replaces direct burning of natural gas.

From the technical coefficients shown in Table 13 and the assessment of copper
content presented in Chapter 5, Table 14 shows CO2 mitigation coefficients per kg of
copper added to the efficient equipment.

Table 14 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation per additional kg of cooper

Country Electric Motors Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating
Tons. of CO2/kg of additional copper/year

Argentina 0.491 0.128 0.099 0.033
Brazil 0.126 0.033 0.025 0.004
Chile 0.471 0.123 0.095 0.033
Colombia 0.221 0.058 0.044 0.033
Mexico 0.614 0.207 0.159 0.033
Peru 0.281 0.073 0.056 0.033

7
In this case, estimates consider solar heaters with 4m2 of area replace 220m3 of natural gas per year.

20

Table 15 shows CO2 emissions mitigation coefficients for renewable generation, already
considering each country characteristics (Appendix 1) and the considerations
introduced by equations 3 and 4, of Section 4.2.

Table 15 – Technical coefficients for CO2 mitigation: renewable generation technologies

Country Wind SHP Biomass Solar PV
Tons of CO2/Installed MW/year

Brazil 141.7 403.9 354.3 106.3
Argentina 559.8 1,595.3 1,399.4 419.8
Chile 574.8 1,638.3 1,437.1 431.1
Mexico 899.7 2,564.0 2,249.1 674.7
Colombia 243.4 693.6 608.4 182.5
Peru 336.9 960.2 842.3 252.7

Table 16 shows the results of CO2 emissions mitigation estimates resulting from annual
sale of efficient equipment. The major mitigation impact due to the introduction of
efficient equipment among the analyzed countries occurs in Mexico, where every year
some 750 thousand tons of carbon are avoided to be emitted into the atmosphere.

Table 16 – Results of CO2 mitigation: final use of energy technologies (tons of CO2/year)

Country Electric Motors Refrigerators Air Conditioning Solar Heating Total
Argentina 5,983 21,901 9,585 ‐ 37,468
Brazil 114,714 54,904 11,349 15,723 196,690
Chile 4,147 5,730 2,353 7,043 19,273
Colombia 4,870 7,055 1,453 ‐ 13,379
Mexico 430,213 222,993 40,987 51,237 745,430
Peru 1,975 3,760 264 7,110 13,110
Total 561,902 316,344 65,992 81,113 1,025,350

Unconventional renewable generation (excluding hydropower) is still insignificant in
Latin America. In this case mitigation estimates are based on the effective generation by
these renewable sources. The comparison is made against a scenario of absence of
these sources and their substitution by conventional generation (using each country
generation mix matrix).

21

Table 17 shows the results of these estimates for wind power, small hydro, biomass and
photovoltaic generation. According to the estimates each year 9.7 million tons of CO2
emissions are mitigated due to the installed capacity of these types of renewable
generation. Over one-half of this mitigation comes from Brazil, a country that, despite
having an average factor of CO2 emissions lower than other countries, has a higher
installed capacity of these types of sources.

Table 17 – Results of annual CO2 mitigation program with renewable generation (tons of CO2/year)

Country Wind SHP Biomass Solar PV Total
Brazil 232,165 1,633,169 3,417,274 2,126 5,284,735
Argentina 17,106 606,224 1,007,575 4,198 1,635,104
Chile 11,497 260,485 238,555 0 510,536
Mexico 76,470 966,631 546,539 10,121 1,599,761
Colombia 4,478 327,358 81,523 183 413,542
Peru 236 201,640 64,855 935 267,666
Total 341,952 3,995,508 5,356,321 17,563 9,711,344
Note: Values calculated using the technical coefficients (Table 15)

Appendix 1 shows the characterization study of electric matrixes and respective CO2
emission factors of the analyzed countries. Appendix 2 depicts other parameters and
assumptions underlying the estimates. Appendix 3 gives the ICA LA activities
contribution estimates in the markets of studied countries.

22

7. Conclusions

The paper presented a methodology to estimate the impact of CO2 emissions' mitigation
resulting from the diffusion of efficient use of electricity, due to the substitution of natural
gas by solar heaters and also due to the increased participation of renewable
generation sources (wind, small hydro, biomass and solar photovoltaic). This
methodology allowed the elaboration of technical coefficients that can produce
estimates for a market evaluation (for total annual sales or a part thereof) and, for
renewable generation capacity, of CO2 emissions’ mitigation impacts. Also, the study
presented technical coefficients relating mitigation impacts and the corresponding
additional copper for energy end use equipment.

These coefficients and the estimated penetration rates of efficient equipment in
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia and Peru markets were used to estimate the
total reduction in CO2 emissions. These coefficients directly reflect the electricity
generation matrix of the assessed countries. In this sense, a higher coefficient value
indicates a larger participation of fossil sources (oil and oil products, natural gas, coal).

Based on these coefficients, and on annual sales’ market data of more efficient
technologies, annual impacts were estimated in terms of energy conservation. In the
electricity sector, 3.5 TWh is saved annually due to introduction of efficient electrical
equipment. The case of Brazil is noteworthy, for the country participates with about 2
TWh per annum to this total. The substitution of natural gas heaters by solar heaters
also resulted in significant impacts that correspond annually to a saving of about 21,400
tons of natural gas.

In terms of CO2 emissions’ mitigation the results were quite significant, particularly in
countries whose energy matrix is more carbon intensive. The penetration of
technologies for energy-efficient end use is responsible for mitigating annually about 1
million tons of CO2, in the countries analyzed with Mexico alone accounting for 72% of
the total.

The impact of renewable generation is even greater, with some 9.7 million tons of CO2
avoided emissions into the atmosphere annually. Although the Brazilian emissions’
factor is very low compared to other countries, the country was the major contributor
due to its higher installed capacity. Generation from biomass has the larger participation
in reducing emissions.

23

8. Bibliography

BAE. 2010. Balance Anual de Energía 2009 – From web-site:
http://www.gob.cl/informa/2010/11/10/ministerio-de-energia-entrega-balance-anual-de-energia-2009.htm
BEN. 2010. Balanço Energético Nacional 2010 – From web-site: https://ben.epe.gov.br/
BNE. 2010. Balance de Energía del Perú 2010 – From web-site:
http://www.minem.gob.pe/publicacion.php?idSector=12&idPublicacion=418
Copper (2006) ECI. Information site providing up to date life cycle data on its key
products. Available at: www.copper-life-cycle.org
Garcia. A.G.P (2003). Impacto da lei de eficiência energética para motores elétricos no
potencial de conservação de energia na indústria. Dissertação de Mestrado. Programas
de Pós-Graduação de Engenharia da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
(Impact of the Law on Energy Efficiency for electrical motors, on the energy conservation potential of the industry.
MS Dissertation. Graduate Programs in Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro).

Hans De Keulenaer. Constantin Herrmann. Francesco Parasiliti. (2006) 22 kW induction
motors with increasing efficiency. Available at:
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/Files/Case1-22kW-50.pdf
Hans De Keulenaer (2006) 100 kVA distribution transformer designs with increasing
efficiency. Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/repository/Library/Papers/Case7-trafo-100-
25.pdf
INE. 2010. Instituto Nacional de Estadística – Web-site: http://www.ine.cl
IEA. 2011. International Energy Agency. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. IEA
Statistics.
Jannuzzi, G.M.; Rodríguez, O.B.; Dedecca,J.G.; Nogueira, L.G.; Gomes, R.D.M,
Navarro, J. (2010). Energias renováveis para geração de eletricidade na América
Latina: mercado, tecnologias e perspectivas. Relatório de Projeto desenvolvido para
“International Copper Association” (Renewable generation of electricity in Latin America: market,
technology and perspectives. Project Report developed for the “International Copper Association”).

Available at:
http://www.procobre.org/archivos/pdf/energia_sustentable/generacion_de_electricidad_pr.pdf
Leonardo Energy and KEMA. 2009. System integration of distributed generation -
renewable energy systems in different European countries.
Available at: http://www.leonardo-energy.org/files/root/pdf/2009/System_Integration_DG_RES.pdf
POISE. 2011. Programa de Obras e Inversiones del Sector Eléctrico 2011_2025 –
Coordinación de Planificación – CFE – Available at web-site:
http://www.sener.gob.mx/portal/Default.aspx?id=1453#
SEN. 2010. Estadísticas del Sector Eléctrico. Available at web-site:
http://www.sener.gob.mx/portal/industria_electrica_mexicana.html
UPME. 2010. Balances_EnergEticos_Nacionales_30-mar-11 – Colombia - Balances
Energéticos Nacionales 1975-2009 - Ing. Oscar Uriel Imitola Acero. Director General
y Ing. Enrique Garzón Lozano. Subdirector de Información.

24

9. Appendix 1 ‐ Electric Matrix and Emissions for the Selected Countries

In following we present the power generation matrices for countries with ICA LA
actuation to promote the use of copper: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Peru and
Colombia. These countries have different electricity generation matrices, with some with
more intensive use of fossil fuels such as petroleum, coal and natural gas than others.

9.1. Brazil

The electricity generation in Brazil by public plants and self-producers reached 509.2
TWh in 2010, a result 10.0% higher than 2009, according to the 2009/2010 analysis of
the National Energy Balances (BEN). The main source is hydropower, which increased
3.7% in 2010. Figure 2 shows that Brazil presents an electricity generation matrix
predominantly formed by renewable sources, with internal hydraulic generation
accounting for more than 74% of the supply. Adding imports, which are also produced
by renewable sources, it can be stated that some 86% of Brazilian electricity comes
from renewable sources (BEN, 2010).

9.2. Mexico

According to the Statistics of the Mexican Electricity Sector (SEN, 2010) the public
power generation capacity, in December 2009 (51,686 MW) increased 1.14% over 2008
(51,105 MW). The most important hydropower plant of the country, with 4,800 MW, is
located in the Grijalva River and is interconnected to plants as Angostura, Chicoasén,
Peñitas and Malpaso. In December 2009, according to the Planning Coordination
(POISE, 2011), they represented 42.2% of all hydroelectric capacity in operation.
However, in 2009, stand out the reduction in hydropower generation due to drought in
Mexico. This reduction was offset by gas thermal plants using fossil fuel. Figure 3
illustrates the diversity of Mexican electrical matrix in 2009.

9.3. Peru

Peru presents a predominantly fossil-based electricity generation matrix. According to
the NBS (2010) data, natural gas is the main fuel with 45.1%, followed by hydropower
with 22.5%. Figure 4 shows the Peruvian electricity generation matrix for 2009.

25

Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009
Hydraulic (76.9 %)

Coal and derivatives (1.3 %)

Nuclear (2.5 %)

Petroleum derivatives (2.9 %)

Natural Gas (2.6 %)

Wind (0.2 %)

Biomass (5.4 %)

Importation (partly
hydraulic) (8.2 %)

Figure 2 – Brazil: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009

Domestic offer of electricity by source type – 2009

Hydraulic (22%)
Nuclear (2.6%)
Geothermal & Wind (2%)
Carbon Electric (9.1%)
Internal Combustion (0.4%)
Gas Turbines (4.9%)
Combined Cycle (34%)
Conventional Thermo (25%)

Figure 3 – Mexico: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009

26


Natural Gas (45.1%)

Uranium (3.3 %)

Mineral Coal (4.2 %)

Crude Petroleum (11.7 %)

Liquid & Natural Gas (13.2 %)

Hydraulic (22.5 %)

Figure 4 – Peru: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009

9.4. Chile

In Chile, hydroelectric power account for 43% of electricity generation, coal based
generation is 27%, and oil base accounts for 18%. Natural gas contributes with slightly
less than 9%, non-conventional renewable resources contributed with no more than 3%
of generation (wind and biomass) (INE, 2010). Figure 5 shows the electricity generation
matrix of Chile in 2009.

9.5. Argentina

In Argentina about 90% of energy consumption uses fossil fuels, with main sources
being natural gas and oil (BAE, 2010). Figure 6 shows the electric generation matrix in
2009.

27


Hydraulic (43%)
Coal (27%)
Petroleum (18%)
Natural Gas (9%)
Others (3%)

Figure 5 – Chile: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009


Hydraulic (5 %)
Mineral Coal 1%)
Nuclear (3 %)
Petroleum (39 %)
Natural Gas (48 %)
Firewood (2 %)
Biomass (1 %)
Others (1 %)

Figure 6 – Argentina: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009

9.6. Colombia

In Colombia, coal-base electricity generation is predominant with 47.3%, followed by oil
with 33.8% and natural gas with 10.4%. Figure 7 shows the Colombian electricity
generation matrix for 2009 (UPME, 2010).

28


Hydraulic (4.2 %)
Biomass (4.3%)
Mineral Coal(47.3 %)
Petroleum (33.8 %)
Natural Gas (10.4 %)

Figure 7 – Colombia: Domestic offer of electricity by source type ‐ 2009

9.7. Emission factor of national electrical systems

The average emission factor of the national electric systems directly reflects the
composition of countries’ energy matrix. As shown in the previous sections, the majority
of the surveyed countries have generation matrices heavily dependent on fossil-based
generation, what implies in large emission factors. Figure 8 shows, according to an IEA
(2011) study, the average CO2 emission factors for the electric power sectors of the
analyzed countries. These factors are usually calculated based on the average
emissions of all power plants generating energy.

600
CO2 per KWh
Grams of

500

400

300

200

100

0
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Brazil 88 85 79 85 84 81 73 89 64
Mexico 539 559 558 571 495 509 482 479 430
Chile 267 349 279 295 322 318 304 408 411
Argentina 338 258 275 308 313 311 352 366 355
Peru 154 146 152 212 209 183 199 240 236
Colombia 160 154 152 117 131 127 127 107 175

Figure 8 – Average CO2 emissions’ factor of electric systems: 2000 – 2009

29

Source: IEA (2011)
10. Appendix 2 ‐ Parameters Used in Estimates of ICA LA Programs
Contributions

Tables 18 to 22 show, for each evaluated device, the assumptions used in the impacts’
estimation process for the programs developed by ICA LA to promote the diffusion of
efficient equipment.
Table 18 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Three Phase Electric Motors

Country Start End Total Market Efficient ICA influence
Units % %

Argentina 2007 In progress 374,400 5% 100%
Brazil 2002 In progress 2,000,000 70% 90%
Chile 2006 In progress 90,000 15% 100%
Colombia 2007 In progress 226,000 15% 50%
Mexico 2006 In progress 1,490,000 70% 95%
Peru 2007 In progress 540,000 2% 100%
Total 4,720,400

Table 19 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Distribution Transformers


Units % %

Argentina 2007 In progress 1,900 0% 0%
Brazil 2006 In progress 150,000 20% 90%
Colombia 2007 In progress 110,000 10% 60%
Mexico 2007 In progress 127,500 3% 100%
Peru 2007 In progress 450 0% 0%
Total 398,450

Table 20 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Refrigerators


Units % %

Argentina 2007 2011 900,000 50% 0%


Colombia 2007 2011 645,000 50% 0%

Mexico 2007 In progress 3,550,000 80% 5%

Peru 2007 2011 450,000 30% 0%
Total 11,290,000

30

Table 21 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Air Conditioning


Units % %

Argentina 2007 2011 415,000 30% 0%
Colombia 2007 2011 140,000 30% 3%
Peru 2007 2011 30,000 20% 3%
Total 2,501,000

Table 22 – Assumptions of programs coverage: Solar Heating


m2 % %

Argentina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%
Brazil 2005 In progress 880,000 100% 100%
Colombia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%
Peru 2005 In progress 42,600 100% 100%
Total 1,271,800

31

11. Appendix 3 ‐ Estimates of ICA LA Programs Contributions

11.1. Electric motors

Table 23 shows the results of CO2 emissions’ impact mitigation estimate program for
electric motors. Although Brazil is the country with the longer program (started in 2002),
Mexico is the country that showed the highest cumulative mitigation result, with some
11.4 million tons of CO2. This opposition is mainly explained by the large difference
between emission factors for these countries. It is noteworthy that only Brazil and
Mexico present results based on motors' categories market share. For other countries,
estimates use the Brazilian equivalent model. Operation hypothesis consider 480 hours
per month (16 hr. /day x 30 days/month) at 50% load.
Table 23 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for electric motors: in millions of tons

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Accumulated Total
Argentina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 0.030 0.036 0.126
Brazil 0.103 0.206 0.310 0.413 0.516 0.619 0.723 0.826 0.929 1.032 1.136 6.814
Chile ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.017 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.116
Colombia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.002 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.015 0.051
Mexico ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.409 0.817 1.226 1.635 2.044 2.452 2.861 11.444
Peru ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.041
Total 0.103 0.206 0.310 0.413 0.929 1.456 1.982 2.509 3.035 3.561 4.088 18.592

11.2. Refrigerators

Table 24 shows estimates results for refrigerators. Mexico is the country with the
greatest mitigation result, about 234,000 tons of CO2. In Brazil the program cumulative
impact is 77 thousand tons and in Chile, this figure is 60 thousand tons.
Table 24 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for refrigerators: in millions of tons

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Accumulated Total
Argentina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Brazil 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.016 0.019 0.077
Chile ‐ 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.014 0.017 0.060
Colombia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Mexico ‐ 0.011 0.022 0.033 0.045 0.056 0.067 0.234
Peru ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.003 0.020 0.036 0.053 0.070 0.087 0.103 0.371

32

11.3. Air conditioning

Table 25 shows the estimates results for air conditioners. Once again, the greatest
mitigation impact provided by the program goes to Mexico where for the estimated
period of 2007 to 2012 were not emitted into the atmosphere 43,000 tons of CO2.

Table 25 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for air‐conditioning sets: in millions of tons

Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Accumulated Total
Argentina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Brazil 0.00057 0.00113 0.00170 0.00227 0.00284 0.00340 0.00397 0.01589
Chile ‐ 0.00118 0.00235 0.00353 0.00471 0.00588 0.00706 0.02471
Colombia ‐ 0.00004 0.00009 0.00013 0.00017 0.00022 0.00026 0.00092
Mexico ‐ 0.00205 0.00410 0.00615 0.00820 0.01025 0.01230 0.04304
Peru ‐ 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00017
Total 0.00057 0.00441 0.00826 0.01210 0.01595 0.01979 0.02364 0.08471

11.4. Solar water heating

Table 26 shows results for solar heating programs. Here usage impacts of solar heating
were simulated by replacing, in Brazil, the use of electric showers, and in other
countries, the use of natural gas. Despite these programs being recent, the cumulative
CO2 emissions' mitigation impact is significant. In the period ranging from 2005 to 2012
about 2.9 million tons were not emitted into the atmosphere due to the diffusion of this
technology by the program.

Table 26 – Results of the CO2 mitigation program for solar heaters: in millions of tons

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Accumulated Total

Argentina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Brazil 0.016 0.031 0.047 0.063 0.079 0.094 0.110 0.126 0.566
Chile 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.028 0.035 0.042 0.049 0.056 0.254
Colombia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Mexico 0.051 0.102 0.154 0.205 0.256 0.307 0.359 0.410 1.845
Peru 0.007 0.014 0.021 0.028 0.036 0.043 0.050 0.057 0.256
Total 0.081 0.162 0.243 0.324 0.406 0.487 0.568 0.649 2.920

33

11.5. Distribution transformers

For distribution transformers a study was made for the Brazilian potential. Technical
losses data was obtained (total = empty + copper) from the study conducted by the
Electric Power Research Center of ELETROBRÁS (CEPEL) requested by the
International Cooper Association (ICA). Based on data for the various transformers’
categories market share, their efficiencies, and use of copper, the CO2 emissions’
mitigation potential was estimated.

Table 27 shows results of potential energy conservation estimates, use of copper, and
CO2 mitigation with the application of single phase (1Ø) and three phase (3Ø)
distribution transformers with a 20% higher efficiency. In this case, we considered
replacing the current Brazilian stock.

Table 27 – Estimates for distribution transformers: study of potential

Conserved Conserved Additional Total Reduction in Total CO2 Emissions
energy   energy per copper per additional supply need emissions’ avoided by using
Type
(total)   unit unit copper during lifetime avoided additional
copper
GWh/year kWh/year kg Tons GWh Tons of CO2 Tons of CO2/  kg  of
copper
1 Ø 385 248.39 3.5 5,435 13,397 1,083,856 0.1994
3 Ø 1.232 1,116.50 7.9 8,673 42,843 3,466,017 0.3996
Total 1.618    14,108 56,241 4,549,874

34

Copper contributions to fight climate change 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Copper contributions to fight climate change 1

Similar to Copper contributions to fight climate change 1 (20)

More from Gilberto De Martino Jannuzzi

More from Gilberto De Martino Jannuzzi (20)

Copper contributions to fight climate change 1