America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities,

Risks, and Tradeoffs

October 2008

Scheduled ReleaseDecember 9, 2009

http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy

May 20, 2009

June 15, 2009

July 29, 2009

America’s Energy Future Project Sponsorship

To minimize any perception of bias, a broad range of sponsors was engaged:

•U.S. Department of Energy

•Kavli and Keck Foundations

•Dow Chemical, General Electric, Intel, General Motors, and BP

•The National Academies

America’s Energy Future: Project Structure

•63 committee & panel members

•22 consultants•12 principal staff

•dozens of workshop participants

•62 reviewers of 5 reports

Phase I

Committee SubgroupsAdditional Study

Panels

RenewableElectric Power Panel

Phase II

Reference Technology Scenarios The National Academies Summit on

America's Energy Future

Nuclear Power

Electricity from Renewable ResourcesRenewable Energy

Alternative FuelsAlternative Liquid

Transportation Fuels Panel

Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and

BiomassElectric Power Transmission

& Distribution

Reports

Committee on America's Energy FutureAmerica's Energy Future:

Technology and Transformation

Energy EfficiencyEnergy Efficiency

Panel Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the

United States

Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas

December 2009

National Research CouncilAmerica’s Energy Future Panelon Energy Efficiency Technologies

Lester Lave, ChairMaxine Savitz, Vice-Chair

Public release:December 9, 2009

4

America’s Energy Future Panel

on Energy Efficiency

Technologies

•Lester B. Lave – (Chair) Carnegie Mellon University

•Maxine L. Savitz – (Vice-Chair) Honeywell Inc. (retired)

•R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago

•Marilyn A. Brown, Georgia Institute of Technology

•Linda R. Cohen, University of California, Irvine

•Magnus G. Craford, LumiLeds Lighting

•Paul A. DeCotis, Long Island Lighting Authority

•James H. DeGraffenreidt, Jr., WGL Holdings, Inc.

•Howard Geller, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project

•David B. Goldstein, Natural Resources Defense Council

•John B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

•Alexander MacLauchlan, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (retired)

•William F. Powers, Ford Motor Company (retired)

•Arthur H. Rosenfeld, California Energy Commission

•Daniel Sperling, University of California, Davis5

6

•Replace incandescent lamps with CFL: 6.4% improvement•Replace CFL with LED (2013): 12.5% improvement•Conclusion: Tremendous potential for efficiency

Potential for Energy Efficiency?

7

U.S. Trends in Refrigerator Appliance Efficiency

Total U.S. Energy Use by Sector, 2008(direct fuel use plus purchased electricity & apportioned losses)

8

Finding 1: Potential for Transformational Change With a sustained national commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy-efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy-supply and end-use technologies.

“Bucket 1” “Bucket 2” “Bucket 3”

2008 2020 2035 2040 2050

From the America’s Energy Future report……

9

2020 2030 2020 2030Buildings, primary (source) electricity 9.4 14.4 9.4 14.4

Residential 4.4 6.4 4.4 6.4Commercial 5.0 8.0 5.0 8.0

Buildings, natural gas 2.4 3.0 2.4 3.0Residential 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Commercial 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.5

Transportation, light duty vehicles 2.0 8.2 2.6 10.7

Industry, manufacturing 4.9 4.9 7.7 7.7

Total 18.6 30.5 22.1 35.8

Conservative Optimistic

NOTE: Savings are relative to the reference scenario of the EIA’s 2008 Annual Energy Outlook or, for transportation, a similar scenario developed by the panel.

Potential for Cost-Effective Annual U.S. Energy Savings (quadrillions of Btus)

10

U.S. Energy Efficiency Potential(Quadrillions of Btus [quads])

• U.S. energy use (2008): 101 quads• EIA projected U.S. energy use (2030): 118 quads• Energy efficiency savings potential: 35 quads saved• Net U.S. 2030 energy use: 83 quads

• 35 quads/yr savings potential by 2030, saving money & energy

11

Finding 2: Energy Efficiency Potential

The deployment of existing energy-efficiency technologies is the nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy, especially over the next decade.

15 Percent (15-17 Quads) by 2020

30 Percent (32-35 Quads) by 2030

2008 2020 2035 2040 2050

NOTE: Even greater savings would be possible with more aggressive policies and incentives.

From the America’s Energy Future report……

12

13

Levelized Cost of Electricity Generation

Overarching Finding:

Energy-efficient technologies for residences and commercial buildings, transportation, and industry exist today, or are expected to be developed in the normal course of business, that could potentially save 30 percent of the energy used in the U.S. economy while also saving money.

If energy prices are high enough to motivate investment in energy efficiency, or if public policies are put in place that have the same effect, U.S. energy use could be lower than business-as-usual projections by 19-22 quadrillion Btu (17-20 percent) in 2020 and by 30-36 quadrillion Btu (25-31 percent) in 2030.

14

Overarching Finding:

The full deployment of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need to add to U.S. electricity generation capacity.

Estimated electricity savings in buildings exceeds the forecast for new net electricity generation in 2030, which means implementing these efficiency measures would mean that no new generation would be required except to address regional supply imbalances, replace obsolete generation assets, or substitute more environmentally benign generation sources.

15

Potential Electricity Savings in Commercial and Residential Buildings, 2020 and 2030

16

Cost of Conserved Energy and Energy Savings Potential for Electricity Efficiency Technologies in Buildings, 2030

17

Potential Natural Gas Savings in Commercial and Residential Buildings in 2020 and 2030

18

Cost of Conserved Energy and Energy Savings Potential for Natural Gas Efficiency Technologies in Buildings, 2030

19

Potential Industrial Energy Savings in 2020 Relative to 2007

20

Potential Reduction in U.S. Gasoline Consumption from Light Duty Vehicles in 2020 Relative to 2007

21

Formidable Barriers to Energy Efficiency

• Pricing doesn’t reflect scarcity & externalities• Lack of knowledge/information• Landlord-tenant, builder-buyer• Enough demand to lower production costs• Imperfect installation• Enacting & enforcing legislation & regulations• Access to credit• Poor second-hand market

22

Per-Capita Electricity Consumption in California, New York, and the United States, 1990-2006

23

Overarching Finding:

Long-lived capital stock and infrastructure can lock in patterns of energy use for decades. Thus, it is important to take advantage of opportunities (during the design and construction of new buildings or major subsystems, for example) to insert energy-efficient technologies into these long-lived capital goods.

24

25

U.S. Energy Intensity (Btu/$ GDP), 1850-2006

Energy intensity (BTU/$) 1850-2006

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

year

BT

U/$

•1919-2006 75% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP•1973-2006 50% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP• About 50% of reduction is pure efficiency

26

Energy Use in Selected Countries, 2005

Btu/person (millions of

Btu)

Btu/$ of GDP

USA 340 9,113

Japan 177 4,519

Denmark 153 4,845

France 182 7,994

Germany 176 7,396

About half of the US-Denmark difference is efficiency and half is lifestyle (the bundle of goods & services)

27

Recap of Overarching Findings

Finding 1: Energy-efficient technologies exist today, or are expected to be developed that could save 30 percent of the total U.S. energy use. With higher energy prices or policy measures U.S. energy use could be 17-20 percent lower in 2020 and 25-31 percent lower in 2030.

Finding 2: Deployment energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need to add to U.S. electricity generation capacity through 2030.

Finding 3: Barriers to improving energy efficiency are formidable. Overcoming them will require significant public and private support, as well as sustained initiative, as demonstrated in some states.

Finding 4: Since long-lived capital stock and infrastructure lock in energy use patterns for decades, it is important to incorporate energy-efficient technologies in the design and construction of new buildings or major subsystems.

Additional Information on the America’s Energy Future Effort

http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy

For more information:

Peter D. Blair, Ph.D.Executive Director,

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001pblair@nas.edu

28

Relative Fuel Consumption of Future Cars

By Powertrain (at 100 Percent ERFC)

29

Potential Reductions in Vehicle Petroleum Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicle Efficiency Improvements Through 2035

30

Estimated Economic Potential for Energy-Efficiency Improvements in Industry Year 2020: Sector-wide & Selected Subsectors/Technologies

31

Plausible Shares of Advanced Light-Duty Vehicles in the New Vehicle Market by 2020

and 2035

Propulsion System 2020 2035Turbocharged Gasoline SI 15-25% 25-35%Diesels 6-12% 10-20%Gasoline Hybrids 10-15% 15-40%Plug-in Hybrids 1-3% 7-15%Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles 0-1% 3-6%Battery Electric Vehicles 0-2% 3-10%

Plausible LDV Market Share by

32