↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Primary Energy Attributed to Renewable Energy with Primary Energy Equivalent to Determine Carbon Abatement in a National Context

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, June 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 584)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing Primary Energy Attributed to Renewable Energy with Primary Energy Equivalent to Determine Carbon Abatement in a National Context
Published in
Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, June 2006
DOI 10.1080/10934520600614561
Pubmed ID
Authors

BRIAN P. Ó GALLACHÓIR, FERGAL O'LEARY, MORGAN BAZILIAN, MARTIN HOWLEY, EAMON J. MCKEOGH

Abstract

The current conventional approach to determining the primary energy associated with non-combustible renewable energy (RE) sources such as wind energy and hydro power is to equate the electricity generated from these sources with the primary energy supply. This paper compares this with an approach that was formerly used by the IEA, in which the primary energy equivalent attributed to renewable energy was equated with the fossil fuel energy it displaces. Difficulties with implementing this approach in a meaningful way for international comparisons lead to most international organisations abandoning the primary energy equivalent methodology. It has recently re-emerged in prominence however, as efforts grow to develop baseline procedures for quantifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided by renewable energy within the context of the Kyoto Protocol credit trading mechanisms. This paper discusses the primary energy equivalent approach and in particular the distinctions between displacing fossil fuel energy in existing plant or in new plant. The approach is then extended provide insight into future primary energy displacement by renewable energy and to quantify the amount of CO2 emissions avoided by renewable energy. The usefulness of this approach in quantifying the benefits of renewable energy is also discussed in an energy policy context, with regard to increasing security of energy supply as well as reducing energy-related GHG (and other) emissions. The approach is applied in a national context and Ireland is case study country selected for this research. The choice of Ireland is interesting in two respects. The first relates to the high proportion of electricity only fossil fuel plants in Ireland resulting in a significant variation between primary energy and primary energy equivalent. The second concerns Ireland's poor performance to date in limiting GHG emissions in line with its Kyoto target and points to the need for techniques to quantify the potential contribution of renewable energy in achieving the target set.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 35%
Student > Bachelor 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 18%
Energy 3 18%
Engineering 3 18%
Psychology 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,706,253
of 19,430,502 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering
#42
of 584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,601
of 329,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,430,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 584 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.