Improving Energy Efficiency 2-3%/year to save
money and avoid Global Warming.
Rohsenow Symposium, MIT, 16 May 2003
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner
California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4930
ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
End notes follow last figure
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
California Peak Power Demand:Planned in 1974, and Actual to 1990
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 2
California Peak Power Demand: Planned in 1974
Compared to Actual
70
22 GW
difference by
1993
Projected Demand + Reserves in
California
60
Nuclear
50
Fossil
"Actual" Demand + Reserves
5%/yr
1.8%/yr
Hydro & Geo
40
30
20
1.7%/yr
10
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 3
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
0
1965
GW, or Population in millions
population in million
United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
25
1800
1600
1978 Cal Standard
Refrigerator Size
(cubic feet)
1200
1980 Cal Standard
15
1987 Cal Standard
1000
800
10
600
Energy Use per Unit
1990 Federal
Standard
1993 Federal
Standard
400
5
2001 Federal
Standard
200
19
49
19
51
19
53
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
0
47
0
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 4
Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)
20
1400
19
Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year)
2000
United States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and
Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time
Estimated Standby
Power (per house)
1800
1600
1400
Refrigerator Use per
Unit
1978 Cal Standard
1200
1987 Cal Standard
1000
1980 Cal Standard
800
1990 Federal
Standard
1993 Federal
Standard
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
1959
1957
1955
1953
1951
1949
0
1995
2001 Federal
Standard
200
1993
400
1991
600
1947
Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year)
2000
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 5
Electricity Generating Capacity for 150 Million Refrigerators + Freezers in the US
60
50
GW
40
30
capacity saved
capacity needed
20
10
0
at 1974 efficiency
at 2001 efficiency
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 6
Electricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to
Generation from Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables and ANWR
800
Nuclear
700
500
400
150 M Refrig/Freezers
200
100
at 1974 eff
Conventional
Hydro
at 2001 eff
Saved Used
300
Used
Billion kWh per year
600
50 Million 2 kW
PV Systems
Existing
Renewables
3 Gorges
Dam
0
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 7
The Value of Energy Saved and Produced
(production @ .03 and savings @ .085 $/kWh)
25
Billion $ per year
20
Nuclear
Dollars Saved from
150 M Refrig/Freezers
at 2001 efficiency
50 Million 2 kW
PV Systems
15
Conventional
Hydro
10
5
3 Gorges
Dam
Existing
Renewables
0
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 8
3 Gorges Dam vs. added Appliances in 2010
3 Gorges: 18 GW x 3,500 hours/year = 63 TWh at wholesale
Refrigerators
125 Million
Air Conditioning
100 Million
Today's Use
per unit per year
2003-2010 sales at this efficiency
440 kWh
55 TWh
360 kWh
36 TWh
Least Cost Optimum
per unit per year
2003-2010 sales at high efficiency
Percent Saved
265 kWh
33 TWh
40%
233 kWh
23 TWh
35%
55 TWh
Savings from Least Cost Optimum
22 TWh
13 TWh
35 TWh
Estimated Sales 2003 - 2010
Total
91 TWh
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.
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Source: David Fridley - LBNL
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 9
Estimated Power Saved Due to Air Conditioning
Standards (1974 - 2002)
1975 Average
1992 Standard
2006 Standard
SEER
NONE
10
12
COP
2
2.5
3.2
EER
7
9
11
SEER= Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating
COP = Coefficienct of Performance
EER = Energy Efficiency Rating, 3.415 x COP
So, Standards have avoided (9/7 -1) or 28% of peak
and the new 2006 will avoid (11/9 - 1) or 22% of peak GW
For a Grand Total Savings of 50%
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 10
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: 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 GW
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 11
Total Electricity Use, per capita, 1960 - 2001
kWh
14,000
12,000
12,000
U.S.
10,000
8,000
KWh
8,000
7,000
6,000
California
4,000
2,000
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
0
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 12
GWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 2001
40,000
~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 2001
35,000
30,000
20,000
Utility Programs
15,000
10,000
Building Standards
5,000
Appliance Standards
0
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
GWH
25,000
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Source: Mike Messenger, CEC Staff, April 2003
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 13
United States Energy Consumption 1949 to 2001
Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary
120
100
60
40
20
01
99
20
97
19
95
19
19
93
91
19
89
19
19
87
85
19
83
19
81
19
19
79
77
19
75
19
19
73
71
19
69
19
67
19
19
65
63
19
61
19
19
59
57
19
55
19
53
19
19
51
19
49
0
19
Quadrillion Btus
80
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 14
Energy Consumption Per Person 1949 to 2001
Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary
400
350
300
200
150
100
50
01
99
20
97
19
95
19
19
93
91
19
89
19
19
87
85
19
83
19
81
19
19
79
77
19
75
19
19
73
71
19
69
19
67
19
19
65
63
19
61
19
19
59
57
19
55
19
53
19
19
51
19
49
0
19
Million Btus
250
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 15
Energy Consumption Per $ of Gross Domestic Product 1949-2001
Source: Table 1.5 Annual Energy Review; data for 2001 is preliminary
20
15
10
5
01
20
99
97
19
95
19
19
93
19
91
89
19
87
19
19
85
19
83
81
19
79
19
19
77
19
75
73
19
71
19
19
69
19
67
65
19
63
19
19
61
19
59
57
19
55
19
19
53
19
51
19
49
0
19
Thousand Btus per Chained 1992 Dollar
25
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 16
Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the United States
IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)
2%
- 3.4%
- 2.7%
Average = - 0.7%
1%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
IEA data
EIA data
-5%
-6%
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 17
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0%
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)
2%
- 1.2%
Average = - 1.3%
- 1.4%
1%
-1%
-2%
-3%
IEA data
EIA data
-4%
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 18
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0%
Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for China
IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)
2%
Average = - 5.0%
- 4.8%
- 5.3%
-2%
-4%
-6%
IEA data
-8%
EIA data
-10%
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 19
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0%
Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the World
IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate)
2%
- 1.3%
Average = - 0.7%
- 1.3%
1%
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
IEA data
EIA data
note: Russia not included until 1992 in IEA data and 1993 in EIA data
-4%
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 20
Green House Gas Intensity (GHG/GDP indexed, 2000=1)
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Administration Goal
in 2012
1.1
1
21 year trend (1980 - 2001)
0.9
-0.019x
0.8
y = 3E+16e
Recent trend (1997 - 2001)
0.7
2
R = 0.9625
-0.0285x
y = 6E+24e
0.6
2
R = 0.9799
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
0
1975
Green House Gas Emissions per Unit GDP (indexed, 2000=1)
1.6
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 21
The “Conservation Bomb”
Quads/yr
(World Primary Power or Energy)
TWa
50
1500
10 billion people
@ 5 kW = 50 TW
α = 0%/yr
1200
40
α = Annual % growth in
Energy/GDP
900
30
α=
20
α=
6 billion people
@ 2 kW = 12 TW
10
α=
-1%
/yr
600
-2%
/yr
300
-3%
/yr
0
0
2000
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
2100
Year
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 22
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 23
Efficiency
Energy for the Future
Arthur Rosenfeld, Figure 24
Arthur 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
power is still unregulated, and is already 5-10% of world residential kWh use.
This shows the need for vigilance and an aggressive standards program
Figure 6 shows the savings from improved US refrigerators and freezers (40 GW)
Figure 7 is the same gain, expressed in TWh/year, compared with all US hydro, the Three Gorges
dam, existing renewables, and nuclear power.
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.
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 appliance
standards, it could save half the output of the dam. This policy message applies to most
developing countries.
Figure 10. Air Conditioning Standards have significantly improved the performance of residential
and package commercial (“rooftop”) units. To date, we estimate that moving from energy
efficiency ratings (EER) of 7 to 9 have saved 28% of the United States peak load and the new
2006 standards (EER = 11) will save an additional 22%.
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
China has averaged - 5% per year in E/GDP.
Figure 21 shows GHG (GreenHouse Gas) intensity (i.e. per GDP) for the last 26 years. The Blue
21-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% 10 years earlier. I think the Administration goal should at
least try to keep up the 5-year trend.
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 is as
good 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
2100, mainly for the developing world outside of US, Europe, and Japan. Population is leveling
2/3
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 20002001 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.
3/3