July 29, 2009
America’s Energy Future:
Technology Opportunities,
Risks, and Tradeoffs
http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy
Scheduled Release
December 9, 2009
October 2008
May 20, 2009
June 15, 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
Reports
Phase I
•63 committee &
panel members
•22 consultants
•12 principal staff
•dozens of
workshop
participants
•62 reviewers of 5
reports
Committee on America's Energy Future
Committee Subgroups
Additional Study
Panels
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Panel
America's Energy Future:
Technology and
Transformation
Real Prospects for
Energy Efficiency in the
United States
Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Renewable Energy
Alternative Fuels
Electric Power Transmission
& Distribution
Reference Technology
Scenarios
Phase II
Renewable
Electric Power Panel
Alternative Liquid
Transportation Fuels
Panel
Electricity from
Renewable Resources
Liquid Transportation
Fuels from Coal and
Biomass
The National Academies Summit on
America's Energy Future
December 2009
National Research Council
America’s Energy Future Panel
on Energy Efficiency Technologies
Lester Lave, Chair
Maxine Savitz, Vice-Chair
Public release:
December 9, 2009
4
•Lester B. Lave – (Chair) Carnegie Mellon University
•Maxine L. Savitz – (Vice-Chair) Honeywell Inc. (retired)
America’s Energy
Future Panel
on Energy
Efficiency
Technologies
•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, Davis
5
Potential for Energy Efficiency?
•Replace incandescent lamps with CFL: 6.4% improvement
•Replace CFL with LED (2013): 12.5% improvement
•Conclusion: Tremendous potential for efficiency
6
U.S. Trends in Refrigerator Appliance Efficiency
7
Total U.S. Energy Use by Sector, 2008
(direct fuel use plus purchased electricity & apportioned losses)
8
From the America’s Energy Future report……
Finding 1: Potential for Transformational Change
With a sustained national commitment, the
United States could obtain substantial energyefficiency 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.
2008
2020
“Bucket 1”
2035
“Bucket 2”
2040
2050
“Bucket 3”
9
Potential for Cost-Effective Annual U.S. Energy
Savings (quadrillions of Btus)
Conservative
Optimistic
2020 2030 2020 2030
Buildings, primary (source) electricity
9.4
14.4
9.4
14.4
Residential
4.4
6.4
4.4
6.4
Commercial
5.0
8.0
5.0
8.0
Buildings, natural gas
Residential
Commercial
2.4
1.5
0.9
3.0
1.5
1.5
2.4
1.5
0.9
3.0
1.5
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
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.
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
From the America’s Energy Future report……
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.
2008
2020
2035
2040
2050
15 Percent (15-17 Quads) by 2020
30 Percent (32-35 Quads) by 2030
NOTE: Even greater savings would be
possible with more aggressive policies
and incentives.
12
Levelized Cost of Electricity Generation
13
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
U.S. Energy Intensity (Btu/$ GDP), 1850-2006
60000
Energy intensity (BTU/$) 1850-2006
•1919-2006 75%
reduction in Btu/$ of GDP
•1973-2006 50% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP
• About 50% of reduction is pure efficiency
50000
30000
20000
10000
0
18
50
18
70
18
90
19
02
19
06
19
10
19
14
19
18
19
22
19
26
19
30
19
34
19
38
19
42
19
46
19
50
19
54
19
58
19
62
19
66
19
70
19
74
19
78
19
82
19
86
19
90
19
94
19
98
20
02
20
06
BTU/$
40000
year
25
Energy Use in Selected Countries, 2005
USA
Japan
Denmark
France
Germany
Btu/person
(millions of Btu)
Btu/$ of
GDP
340
177
153
182
176
9,113
4,519
4,845
7,994
7,396
About half of the US-Denmark difference is
efficiency and half is lifestyle (the bundle of
goods & services)
26
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.
27
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, NW
Washington, DC 20001
pblair@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 EnergyEfficiency 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
Plausible LDV Market Share by
Propulsion System
Turbocharged Gasoline SI
Diesels
Gasoline Hybrids
Plug-in Hybrids
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
Battery Electric Vehicles
2020
15-25%
6-12%
10-15%
1-3%
0-1%
0-2%
2035
25-35%
10-20%
15-40%
7-15%
3-6%
3-10%
32