efficiency energy for the future sustainable development reducing energy intensity by 2% per year...

Efficiency

Energy for the Future

Sustainable DevelopmentReducing Energy Intensity by 2% Per Year

Energy PMP International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies

Erice, Italy 19-8-2003

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

(916) [email protected]

www.Energy.CA.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 2Efficiency


United States Refrigerator Use v. TimeAnnual drop from 1974 to 2001 = 5% per year

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1947

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Ave

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh

per y

ear)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ref

riger

ator

vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit

Refrigerator Size (cubic feet)

1978 Cal Standard

1990 Federal Standard

1987 Cal Standard1980 Cal Standard


2001 FederalStandard



United States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1947

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Ave

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh

per

year

)

Refrigerator Use per Unit

1978 Cal Standard


1987 Cal Standard

1980 Cal Standard

1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal

Standard

Estimated Standby Power (per house)



Electricity Generating Capacity for 150 Million Refrigerators + Freezers in the US

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

at 1974 efficiency at 2001 efficiency

GW

capacity savedcapacity needed



Electricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to Generation from Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables, Three Gorges Dam and ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800B

illio

n kW

h pe

r yea

r

150 M Refrig/Freezers

at 1974 eff at 2001 eff

Nuclear

Conventional Hydro

3 GorgesDam

Existing Renewables

50 Million 2 kW PV Systems

Save

d

Use

d Use

d



The Value of Energy Saved and Produced. This is previous figure re-stated in dollars with generation worth $.03/kWh and savings worth $.085/kWh)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bill

ion

$ pe

r yea

r

Dollars Saved from150 M Refrig/Freezersat 2001 efficiency

Nuclear

Conventional

Hydro

Existing Renewables

50 Million 2 kWPV Systems

3 GorgesDam

ANWR



3 Gorges Dam vs. added Appliances in 20103 Gorges: 18 GW x 3,500 hours/year = 63 TWh at wholesale

Source: David Fridley - LBNL

Conclusion: Optimum appliances could save 35 TWh/year, about one-half of 3 Gorges generation in 2010. Savings at retail at least twice as valuable as wholesale, so economically equivalent to the entire 3 Gorges project.

Refrigerators Air Conditioning TotalEstimated Sales 2003 - 2010 125 Million 100 Million

Today's Useper unit per year 440 kWh 360 kWh 2003-2010 sales at this efficiency 55 TWh 36 TWh 91 TWh

Least Cost Optimumper unit per year 265 kWh 233 kWh 2003-2010 sales at high efficiency 33 TWh 23 TWh 55 TWhPercent Saved 40% 35%

Savings from Least Cost Optimum 22 TWh 13 TWh 35 TWh



20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000Year

Inde

x (1

972

= 10

0)

Effective Dates of National Standards

=

Effective Dates of State Standards

=

Refrigerators

Central A/C

Gas Furnaces

Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances

Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org

75%

60%

25%



Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in California Annual drop averages 4% per year

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,00019

70

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

kWh/

YEA

R

Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office

1992 Federal Appliance Standard

California Title 20 Appliance Standards1976-1982

Initial California Title 24 Building Standards

Estimated Impact of 2006 SEER 12 Standards

100%

33%



Estimated Power Saved Due to Air Conditioning Standards (1974 - 2002) (cont’d)

Peak Power for United States Air Conditioning ~ 250 GW But standards cover only residential and rooftop units ~ 200 GW Avoided GW: 67% of 200 GW = 135 GW Comparisons:

– California Peak Load ~ 50 GW

– United States Nuclear Plants net capability ~ 100 GW Cooler roofs will save another 10% of 200 GW

– Flat roofs, new or replacement, should be white• To be required in 2005 California Building Standards

– Sloped roofs, new or replacement, can be colored but cool– Each strategy saves 10%, so 20 GW total

Just switching a-c equipment located outside to white should save another 1%, or 2 GW



Total Electricity Use, per capita, 1960 - 2001

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000

KWh

12,000

8,0007,000

California

U.S.

kWh


Energy for the Future Source: Mike Messenger, CEC Staff, April 2003

GWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

GW

H

Utility Programs

Building Standards

Appliance Standards

~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 2001



Electricity Efficiency and Renewables in CaliforniaGoals of California Energy Action Plan 2003

California kWh per capita is already flat compared to U.S. climbing 2%/yr. New California goal is to reduce kWh per capita by 1% per year Renewable Portfolio Standard: add 1% of renewables per year Additional peak reduction of 1% per year by Demand Response when power

is expensive or reliability is a problem

In total, goals aim to reduce electricity growth, increase renewables, and grow demand response



The Transition to a Sustainable Future

Past investments in efficiency have reduced growth and saved money In addition, future investments could significantly reduce world

energy demand and carbon emissions We now turn from a discussion of electricity to primary energy



United States Energy Consumption 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Quadrillion Btus



Energy Consumption Per Person 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Million Btus



Energy Consumption Per $ of Gross Domestic Product 1949-2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary

0

5

10

15

20

25

194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Thousand Btus per Chained 1992 Dollar



Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the United States International Energy Agency (IEA) and EIA (Energy Information Agency)

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

IEA data EIA data

- 2.7%Average = - 0.7%- 3.4%



Annual Rate of Change in Energy/Gross State Product for California(Sources: EIA and California Department of Finance)

-7.0%

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Average = -1.0% -4.5% -3.9%



Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for Europe IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) for European Union and

Western Europe EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

IEA data EIA data

- 1.2% Average = - 1.3% - 1.4%



Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for China IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

IEA data EIA data

- 4.8% Average = - 5.0% - 5.3%



Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the World IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

IEA data EIA data

note: Russia not included until 1992 in IEA data and 1993 in EIA data

- 1.3% - 1.3%Average = - 0.7%



0

10

20

30

40

50

The “Conservation Bomb”(World Primary Power or Energy)

TWa

2000 2100

= -1%/yr

= -2%/yr = -3%/yr

6 billion people @ 2 kW = 12 TW

10 billion people @ 5 kW = 50 TW

Year

= Annual % growth in Energy/GDP

Qua

ds/y

r

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

= 0%/yr

GWP = $ 25 Trillion

GWP = $ 250 Trillion



Gross World Product, from IPCC IS 92a9 fold growth in 100 years; ~ 2% year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Trill

ion

US

1990

$

27

240



TW Power Demand in IPCC Base CaseCompared To Other Cases

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

2110

Base Case Assumptions = IS 92a

Improved efficiency case = IS 92a with E/GDP at -2%/yr

EIA International Energy Outlook 2003

Like Improved Case starting with World at current EU E/GDP

1990 to 2000 Actuals from EIA

- 0.8% until 2020then - 1.0% - 2.0 % from 2000 until 2100

Ave

rage

TW



Primary Energy 2000 - 2100Source: IPCC Special Report on Emissons Scenarios 2001, Appendix VII

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100year

Quads



Annual Rates of Change 2000 to 2100 -- Energy Intensity vs. GWPSource: IPCC Special Report on Emissons Scenarios 2001, Appendix VII

-3.0%

-2.5%

-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%Annualized Growth of GWP

Ann

ualiz

ed G

row

th o

f E/G

WP

Conservation Bomb

IS 92a



Change over Century (2000 to 2100) of Primary Energy vs. GWP

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25GWP 2100 / GWP 2100

Prim

ary

Ener

gy 2

100

/ Prm

ary

Ener

gy 2

000

Conservation Bomb

IS 92 a



Primary Energy 2000 - 2100Source: IPCC Special Report on Emissons Scenarios 2001, Appendix VII

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100year

quads

A1 IMAGE A1G MESSAGE A1V2 MINICAM A2-A1 MINICAM B1 IMAGEConservation Bomb A2 ASF



Green House Gas Intensity (GHG/GDP indexed, 2000=1)

y = 6E+24e-0.0285x

R2 = 0.9799

y = 3E+16e-0.019x

R2 = 0.9625

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Green House Gas Emissions per Unit GDP (indexed, 2000=1)

Administration Goal in 2012

21 year trend (1980 - 2001)

Recent trend (1997 - 2001)

efficiency energy for the future sustainable development reducing energy intensity by 2% per year...

Documents