Rosenfeld, Arthur H.

DSpace@MIT

EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureImproving Energy Efficiency 2-3%/year to save money and avoid Global Warming.Rohsenow Symposium, MIT, 16 May 2003Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission(916) 654-4930ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.UShttp://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.htmlEnd notes follow last figureArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 2EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureCalifornia Peak Power Demand:Planned in 1974, and Actual to 1990Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 3EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureCalifornia Peak Power Demand: Planned in 1974  Compared to Actual010203040506070196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999GW, or Population in millionsProjected Demand + Reserves inCaliforniapopulation in million"Actual" Demand + Reserves 22 GW difference by 1993NuclearHydro & GeoFossil5%/yr1.7%/yr1.8%/yrArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 4EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureUnited States Refrigerator Use v. Time02004006008001000120014001600180020001947194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year)0510152025Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)Energy Use per UnitRefrigerator Size (cubic feet)1978 Cal Standard1990 Federal Standard1987 Cal Standard1980 Cal Standard1993 Federal Standard2001 FederalStandardArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 5EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureUnited States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and 020040060080010001200140016001800200019471949195119531955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year)Refrigerator Use per Unit1978 Cal Standard1990 Federal Standard1987 Cal Standard1980 Cal Standard1993 Federal Standard 2001 FederalStandardEstimated Standby Power (per house)Estimated Household Standby Use v. TimeArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 6EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureElectricity Generating Capacity for 150 Million Refrigerators + Freezers in the US60capacity savedcapacity needed5040GW 3020100at 1974 efficiency at 2001 efficiencyArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 7EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureElectricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to Generation from Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables and ANWR0100200300400500600700800Billion kWh per year150 M Refrig/Freezersat 1974 eff at 2001 effNuclearConventional Hydro3 GorgesDamExistingRenewables50 Million 2 kW PV SystemsSavedUsedUsedArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 8EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureThe Value of Energy Saved and Produced(production @ .03 and savings @ .085 $/kWh)Billion $ per yearDollars Saved from150 M Refrig/Freezersat 2001 efficiencyNuclearConventional HydroExisting Renewables50 Million 2 kWPV Systems3 GorgesDam2520151050Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 9EfficiencyEnergy for the Future3 Gorges Dam vs. added Appliances in 20103 Gorges: 18 GW x 3,500 hours/year = 63 TWh at wholesaleRefrigerators Air Conditioning TotalEstimated Sales 2003 - 2010 125 Million 100 MillionToday's Useper unit per year 440 kWh 360 kWh  2003-2010 sales at this efficiency 55 TWh 36 TWh 91 TWhLeast 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 TWhConclusion: 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.Source: David Fridley - LBNLArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 10EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureEstimated Power Saved Due to Air Conditioning Standards (1974 - 2002)SEER COP EER1975 Average NONE 2 71992 Standard 10 2.5 92006 Standard 12 3.2 11SEER= Seasonal Energy Efficiency RatingEER = Energy Efficiency Rating, 3.415 x COPCOP = Coefficienct of PerformanceSo, Standards have avoided (9/7 -1) or 28% of peakand the new 2006 will avoid (11/9 - 1) or 22% of peak GWFor a Grand Total Savings of 50%Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 11EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureEstimated 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: 50% of 200 GW = 100 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 GWArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 12EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureTotal Electricity Use,  per capita, 1960 - 200102,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000KWh12,0008,0007,000CaliforniaU.S.kWhArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 13EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureGWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 200140,000Utility ProgramsBuilding StandardsAppliance Standards~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 200135,00030,00025,000GWH20,00015,00010,0005,0000Source: Mike Messenger, CEC Staff, April 200319751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 14EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureUnited States Energy Consumption 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary 020406080100120194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Quadrillion BtusArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 15EfficiencyEnergy for the Future Energy Consumption Per Person 1949 to 2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary 050100150200250300350400194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Million BtusArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 16EfficiencyEnergy for the Future Energy Consumption Per $ of Gross Domestic Product 1949-2001Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary 0510152025194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Thousand Btus per Chained 1992 DollarArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 17EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureAnnual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the United StatesIEA  (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)2%198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001IEA data EIA data- 2.7%Average = - 0.7%- 3.4%1%0%-1%-2%-3%-4%-5%-6%Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 18EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureAnnual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for Europe IEA  (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) for European Union and Western Europe EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)2%198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001IEA data EIA data- 1.2% Average = - 1.3% - 1.4%1%0%-1%-2%-3%-4%Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 19EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureAnnual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for ChinaIEA  (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)2%198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001IEA data EIA data- 4.8% Average = - 5.0% - 5.3%0%-2%-4%-6%-8%-10%Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 20EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureAnnual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the World IEA  (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)2%198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001IEA data EIA datanote: Russia not included until 1992 in IEA data and 1993 in EIA data- 1.3% - 1.3%Average = - 0.7%1%0%-1%-2%-3%-4%Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 21EfficiencyEnergy for the Future Green House Gas Intensity  (GHG/GDP indexed, 2000=1) y = 6E+24e-0.0285xR2 = 0.9799y = 3E+16e-0.019xR2 = 0.962500.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.911.11.21.31.41.51.6197519801985199019952000200520102015202020252030203520402045Green House Gas Emissions per Unit GDP (indexed, 2000=1)Administration Goal in 201221 year  trend (1980 - 2001)Recent  trend (1997 -  2001)Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 22EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureThe “Conservation Bomb”(World Primary Power or Energy) Quads/yrTWa15001020304050α = -1%/yrα= -2%/yrα = -3%/yr6 billion people @ 2 kW = 12 TW10 billion people @ 5 kW = 50 TWα = Annual % growth   in Energy/GDPα = 0%/yr1200900600300002000 2100YearArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 23EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureArthur Rosenfeld, Figure 24EfficiencyEnergy for the FutureArthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner, California Energy Commission (916)654 4930; Cell phone (916)205-3965; Arosenfe@energy.state.ca.us Energy Policy should plan to drop Energy Intensity (E/GDP) 2-3%/year;  we’re doing that now in the West and in China, and  if we keep it up we can prevent serious global warming.  Figure 1 – Title and presenter page  Figure 2. This figure dates back to 1975. (Source: Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Volume 24, 1999, page 41). Before the OPEC embargo, Calif. Power demand was growing 6%/year, and population was growing at 1.5%/year, so per capita power was growing about 4.5%/year.    Now, per capita, it is flat, so we’ve shaved  > 4%/year, always with a simple payback time (SPT) < 5 years.    In energy policy, many developing countries today are where the West was in 1974, so they can achieve similar remarkable savings.   Figure 3.  Provides updates to Figure 2.  Actual demand growth over the last twelve years has been at a rate of 1.8% per year.  California’s population has risen at 1.7% per year.  The bar labelled Nuclear, Fossil, Hydro&Geo shows nuclear and fossil plants planned in 1975 but later cancelled.  Figure 4. The most effective path toward energy efficiency has been standards for autos, buildings, appliances, equipment,  etc.  Figure 4 shows the remarkable gains in refrigerators.   The red smoothly rising line is the increase in size, and the unit energy use is not corrected for this, nor the fact that we’ve dropped CFC’s.   Since 1975,  refrigeration labels and standards have improved efficiency 5%/year for 25 straight years.  We have now saved 40 GW of power plants, just due from refrigerators.  Figure 5. Shows the estimated growth of “standby” power, compared to refrigerators.  Standby h use. power is still unregulated, and is already 5-10% of world residential kWhis shows the need for vigilance and an aggressive standards program T igure 6 shows the savings from improved US refrigerators and freezers (40 GW)    F Figure 7 is the same gain, expressed in TWh/year, compared with all US hydro, the Three Gorges am, existing renewables, and nuclear power. d Figure 8 is Figure  7, re-expressed in dollars, noting that refrigerators save retail electric cost, whereas a kWh of supply is worth only its wholesale price, and in the United States the retail/wholesale ratio is nearly three to one.  So, expressed in dollars, refrigerator bill savings, at the meter, will soon surpass the value of nuclear power, at the bus bar. liance  half the output of the dam.    This policy message applies to most eveloping countries. dential United States peak load and the new 2006 standards (EER = 11) will save an additional 22%.  Figure 9 is based on the analysis that if Chinese refrigerators and air conditioning were as efficient as those in the US, they would use 40% less kWh, and a/c would use 35% less.   At today’s rate of Chinese sales, demand from these two appliances will grow to 1.5 times the output of the Three Gorges dam in the decade it will take to fill the dam.    If  China tightened appstandards, it could saved Figure 10. Air Conditioning Standards have significantly improved the performance of resiand package commercial (“rooftop”) units.  To date, we estimate that moving from energy efficiency ratings (EER) of 7 to 9 have saved 28% of the  1/3   Figure 11 continues the discussion of estimated power savings due to air conditioning.  By moving from EER 7 to 11, we will avoid the need for 100 GW of peak generating capability.  This is about twice the California peak load and about equal to the nuclear capacity in the United States.  In addition, cool roofs can save an additional 20 GW.   Figure 12 compares kWh/capita for California, constant for 27 years, with the US, which during the same time grew 50%, i.e. 2%/year.      Figure 13 shows an estimate of the causes of this 2%/year gain.  Each year, the cost of conservation programs, public interest R&D, and standards adds ~1% to electric bills, but cuts 1/2% off the bill.  So an investment of $1 in say 1990 saves $.50 per year for 10 to 20 years.  Although not depicted on this slide, other policies also have led to electricity savings in California.  For example,  California standards allow electric water heating in homes only when it is cost effective: which is seldom the case.  This has resulted in only limited electricity use for this purpose in California.  Per Capita use is just 200 kWh in California for electric hot water heating while in Florida the use is about 1,200 kWh per person.  Figures 14, 15, and 16 show US primary energy (not electricity) use from 1949 to present, for the United States, per capita, and per $ of real GDP.   Note the downward kink in E/GDP (see Figure 16) starting in 1997  Figures 17 through 20  illustrate annual rates of change in energy intensity data provided by the United States Energy Information Agency and the International Energy Agency.  Figures are provided for the United States, Western Europe, China and the entire World.  Recent changes (from 1997 onward) look to me (and to Joe Romm) to be making a permanent change in the rate of decrease of our energy intensity (E/GDP).  The vertical lines divide the time period (1981 to 2001) into three eras.  Era 1 covers the latter years of high OPEC oil prices.  Era 2 starts soon after the collapse of OPEC and the consequent stagnation of CAFE  (Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy) standards.  Era 3 begins with the significant impact of information technologies on business and the economy.  The numbers written above each era reflect the average rate of change in E/GDP (EIA data) for that era. Compare for example, in Figure 17 the United States trend in Era 2 of only – 0.7% per year to the more sudden – 2.7% per year in Era 3.  Figure 18 shows a nearly constant improvement in E/GDP, averaging – 1.3% over the entire time period. Also of note, see Figure 19, are the efficiency gains made by China.  Over the last twenty years hina has averaged  - 5% per year in E/GDP.   10 years earlier.    I think the Administration goal should at ast try to keep up the 5-year trend. s as 2100, mainly for the developing world outside of US, Europe, and Japan.   Population is leveling C Figure 21 shows GHG (GreenHouse Gas) intensity (i.e. per GDP) for the last 26 years.   The Blue21-year fit, which is also the Bush Admin. Target, drops 1.9%/year, BUT the red 5-year fit drops 2.85%/year, and gets us down to 50%le Figure 22 illustrates the 100 year importance of maintaining the 2-3%/year drop in energy intensity, compared to 1%, and is stimulated by Hoffert  (Martin Hoffert (NYU) et al., Nature 395, 29 Oct. 1998, p. 881; www.nature.com), whose 1998 paper in Nature says that 1%/year igood as we can hope for. Hoffert et al. then call for a Manhattan-scale project for getting off fossil fuel.    My cheaper and faster approach is to invest more heavily in negawatts.  In Figure 22, the vertical scale is world energy use, in TWa  (“a” for average) on the left, or Quads/yr on the right.  The blue bar (12 TWa) at 2000 represents today’s energy use.    Now I chose a goal for  2/3  3/3 off, thankfully, so 10 billion people in 2100 seems generous.   Let’s plan to give everybody the standard of living, and the energy use/capita, of W. Europe today (i.e. 5 kWa, compared with 2 kWa worldwide).  Then world TWa would be 10B x 5 kWa = 50 TWa, or about 4 times today.  We plot this as the red bar at 2000, since it’s just 10 B x today’s technology).   But we have 100 years before we are there.   So we introduce Alpha as the rate of growth of energy intensity.    If Hoffert’s right and alpha =  -1%/year, then we’ll drop from 50 to 18 TW (i.e. drop to only 1.5 x today).   But if we can keep up even 2%/year,  then in 100 years we’ll be down to half of today,  and with alpha = -3% ---- no GHG problem.  Of course, even with alpha = -2%,  the energy trajectory during this century will still grow before it levels off.    And the West may have become very energy intensive; but we’re so rich we really can develop wind and other promising renewables.    But I hope I’ve shown the importance of keeping our eye on the greenest energy of all --- negawatts through vigilant efficiency improvement.  Figure 23 shows direct lights, visible from an airplane above Los Angeles.   During the 2000-2001 California electricity crisis, the CEC was given the power to regulate out-door lighting, and thus reduce CA kWh usage by 1-2%.    Thus modern street lights, instead of drawing say 150 watts with half the light going upwards, will need only 75watt if a reflector directs all the light downward.   So seen from the air at night, California cities should gradually disappear.   This slide illustrates how we can add new scope to our energy efficiency standards and policies.   Figure 24 shows how Bermuda homes avoid air conditioning with white roofs.   The California 2005 new building standards will give credit for cool roofs.   Eventually this will save several percent of our peak power demand.    This is another example of adding new scope to our efficiency portfolio.  If we keep addressing new areas (like outdoor lighting or cool roofs) each year, and improving vehicles, buildings, equipment, and industrial and agricultural processes, we should be able to keep alpha at  –2% to –3% per year, thus saving money and capping global warming.          

Improving energy efficiency 2-3%/year to save money and avoid global warming

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/7302/1/ROSENFELD.pdf

Improving energy efficiency 2-3%/year to save money and avoid global warming

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace@MIT