Analysis of the structure of production costselectricity shows that at the current stage of industrial development, the trend of decreasing energy intensity prevails over the trend of growth in power capacity. A significant influence on the energy intensity is due to climatic conditions, which can be characterized by such an indicator as the number of degree-days (SES). This indicator is defined as the product of the duration of the heating season by the average temperature difference.
Without taking this circumstance into account, the cost analysis forthe production of products in the electric power industry, made on the basis of a comparison of energy intensity in different countries, may turn out to be incorrect. The analysis of the volume of production confirms that the equality of these indicators in two of some countries does not necessarily reflect the level of development of the economies of these countries. For example, in Latin American countries have a low energy intensity, but also a low value of per capita GDP. This can be explained by the mild climate of this region, which excludes the use of a large amount of energy for heating. At the same time, the analysis of costs for the production of electric power products, cross-country comparisons, allow us to assert that the increase in the economic level of countries is accompanied by a decrease in energy intensity. It can be said that increasing the energy efficiency of the economy is objectively necessary.
Link to less favorable climaticconditions should not have a calming effect on the country's energy efficiency work. If the analysis of the cost of production shows that, for example, the potential for energy saving in the country is 30% of the volume of energy consumed. This means that the current energy intensity can be reduced by at least 30%, which will bring the value of this indicator to its level in advanced countries. Reserves for improving energy efficiency also lie in the fact that the industry may have a specific structure. If the industry has a machine-building focus, then its structure should objectively reorient to high-tech non-energy-intensive production. The analysis of production costs clearly makes it possible to argue that GDP growth is mainly based on the development of such enterprises and the service sector, and this further favors the reduction in the energy intensity of GDP.
It should be noted that the value of the indicatorenergy intensity is not fully a characteristic of the level of energy efficiency, i.e. one cannot say whether its value corresponds to a high or low level of energy efficiency. It can be used to characterize the dynamics of energy efficiency over a number of years, to compare energy efficiency for a number of similar enterprises. It can be used for comparison and not for enterprises of the same purpose, if the volume of production is measured in monetary units. In this case, more energy-intensive enterprises will have higher values of the indicator, although much depends on the size of the monetary unit of production.
If we consider absolutely similarenterprises, the values of energy intensity can vary significantly depending on the extent to which energy saving measures are implemented on them. However, not any energy saving measures should be taken into account when assessing the energy saving potential. First of all, organizational and economic measures that do not require costs and low-cost measures, such as the use of secondary energy resources, should be implemented. But there are activities related to the replacement of the existing energy-saving technology. The use of energy-saving technologies can often require serious reconstruction of the enterprise and economically this may not always be justified, since the effect achieved may be completely insufficient for the recoupment of investment costs. In such cases, improving energy efficiency may not be economically feasible. However, the new company, which has installed modern energy-saving equipment, will have a higher level of energy efficiency.
