R()", \,
8
~
S.\\t~~..:'iS!j --\rADEMY
OF SCIENCE
I
A JOURNAL OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT
.
.
I
Basic Needs and Much More
With One Kilowatt Per Capita
BY JOSE GOlDEMBERG. THOMAS B. JOHANSSON,
AMUlYA K. N. REDDY AND ROBERT H. WilliAMS
.
~
REPRINT
Reproduced with permission from AMBIO
Basic
Needs
and Much.'
With
One Ki lowatt
Per
BY JOSE GOlDEMBERG, THOMAS B. JOHANSSON,
AMUl YAK. N. REDDY AND ROBERT H. WilLIAMS
Conventional
thinkin
sumption
is a prerequisite
b I. f
IS
e Ie , toget
Th
petroleum
energy
feasible
to
er
supplies
II
supply
I
genera
y,
improve
that
for
h
'
ment.
global
g holds
economic
and
h
h
Wit
t e prospect
and
the
d
high
many
b
to
standards
gy con-
ener
social
.
ea
living
increased
fd
0
costs
of
I .
e
leve
h
developdl .Outside
win
Ing
.
expanding
t
..gree
at
substantially
It
in
IS
not
energy supplies to meet the energy requirements
f<;,r this scen.ario at !easonable
costs and wIthout
major environmental
and/or security problems.
the Middle East and North African countries,
this level of energy use
.~:
could
,.,i
gas.
the
carriers
countries.
and
more
efficient
basic
human
b y ex
p loitin
energy
needs
But
by shifting
g cost-effective
use,
and
to
to
It would
be
P rovide
high-quality
opportunities
possible
energy
for
to
considerable
Increasing
in
living
standards
satisfy
further
without
coal
significantly
b
per-capita
energy
use
a
h
ove
t
present
estimated
the
oil
and
recoverable
oil
and
in developing
Middle
East
l':!1porters,
China,
few
significant
I
e
the
de-
produced
countries
and
o~t-
North
Afnca
I
eve.
major
major
Since,
coal resources
expansion
global
~Ith
the
developing
of
climatic
coal
e~ceptlon
countries
have
(4). Moreover,
use
change
could
in
a
a
cause
matter
of
PerhJlps the greatest challenge facing mankind is to find ways to bring a decent standard of living to the majority of the world's
population who now live in abject poverty.
The poor countries of the "South"
account
for three-quarters
of the world's population but have per-capita incomes averaging
only one-tenth that of the rich countries of
the "North..'
And in the South there are
enormous disparities
between the elites,
who typically account for 10 to 15 percent
of the population and one-third to one-half
of all income, and the much poorer majorities.
It is widely believed that an essential
average annual rate of 3.6 percent per year
during the 1970s (1).
But this energy growth has been very
costly, especially for the oil-importing
developing
countries,
which accounted
for
half of the increment in energy use by developing countries during this period. For
these oil-importing
countries. half the increment
in energy use came from
increased oil imports, which grew at an average rate of 6.3 percent per year in the
1970s. By 1981. low- and middle-income
oil-importing
developing
countries were
spending an average 61 and 37 percent of
their export earnings on oil imports.
re-
decades (5).
To meet half of the developing
countries' incremental energy requirements
for
this scenario with nuclear energy would
require building about 100 large nuclear
power plants a year between 1985 and
2020. Aside from the financial challenges
of this undertaking-owing
to the fact that
nuclear power has proven to be far m.ore
costly than originally expected-such
wldespread use of nuclear power would entail'
major risks of nuclear-weapon
proliferation and nuclear blackmail
by terrorists.
because the plutonium
generated in reactor operations is both a nuclear fuel and a
material from which nuclear weapons can
be fabricated.
By 2020 some 3,5 million
feature
of any development
program
aimed at reducing this poverty must be a
significant increase in the level of per capita energy use. This would seem to be selfevident from the strong historical correla.tion
between energy use and gross national
product (GNP) and the global disparities
in energy use levels, While in 1980 per
capita primary
energy use averaged 6.3
, kilowatts (kW) in industrialized
countries.
spectively (2),
If the per-capita commercial energy demand growth rates of the 1970s were to
persist, the average per-capita
rate of
primary
commercial
energy use in developing
countries
would increase from
0.55 kW in 1980 to 2,3 kW in 2020. Because the population is expected to nearly
double
by then. aggregate
commercial
energy use in developing countries would
kilograms
.of we.ap°!1s-usable
plutonium
~ould be ~lrculatlng.1n
nuclear co~merc.e
In dev~loplng countries each. year w,lth this
scenarIo. Only 5 to 10 kg I~ re9ulred to
!l1ak~ a !1uclear .weapon. It I~ dlffi.cult, to
I~aglne internatIonal
and natIonal InStl,tUlions capable of adequately
s~feguardl!1g
essentially
100 percent of this material
against occasional
diversion
to nuclear
weapons purposes.
the average in developing
countries was
only about 1,0 kW, including 0.4 kW of
noncommercial
energy use, the sources of
which are becoming ever scarcer because
of ongoing deforestation
and the pressures
of population growth.
Indeed. planning efforts in developing
increase from less than two terrawatts
(TW)in
1980 to nearly 15TWin 2020. The
increment in energy use by developing
countries in this period with this scenario is
equivalent to 1,3 times total world energy
use in 1980. or three times world oil production. or five times world coal produc-
Hydropower
and biomass are pr?mising
renewable resources that already In 1980
accounted for nearly half of primary energy use in developing countries.
But without major technological
breakthroughs.
these and
other
renewable
resources
would also be able to make only relatively.
countries have been emphasizing
energy
supply expansion.
and a result of this is
that per-capita commercial
energy use in
d~\eloping
countries
grew at a vigorous
tion, or 7.5 times that for natural gas.
nearly nine times that for bioenergy. and
nearly 60 times that for nuclear energy. It
would be exceedingly difficult to increas~
minor contributions
to the energy supply
requirements
of this scenario.
Although
developing
countries
ha\.e thus far exploiled only seven percent of their hyd-
190
.
could supply energy requirements
for only
about. two decades (3).
.
If, Instead, coal were emphasIzed, many
devel.oping count~ies wo~ld become major
of
improvements
...
as
to a significant
domestically
g.as resources
sIde
developing
not be supplied
with
AMIIIO
\"(11.
.01 ~()
oI-C
.:;
~;.
:::':
,.
.100
Mo
re
C
a
~
.~
P
I
t
60
0
.6
6
a:.
to.
0 60
40
0
AGRIC EXPORTER
.OTHER
a
PRIMARYAGRIC
EXPORTER
0
.OL
~
!:!
20
.INDUSTRIALIZED
COJNTRIES
.6ALANCED
ECONOMIES
;j
~
a
EXPORTEJI
~
Q.
0
o.ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Figure 1. The Physical Quality of Life Index vs. total (commercial
non-commercial)
per-capita energy use (11).
roelectric resources, the total economic
potential is only about 6000 TWhours per
year or 0.7 TW (6). The potential for exploiting biomass resources is limited by
land use constraints dictated by the low
efficiency of photosynthesis. For example,
the total rate of above ground wood production in all the forests of developing
countries is small compared to the energy
requirements of this scenario (on the order
of three to four TW) (7), and only a small
fraction of this resource could potentially
be exploited for bioenergy purposes, as
forests must serve multiple purposes, including the preservation of wildlife
habitat.
Even more modest scenarios for future
energy growth would pose formidable
challenges. The World Bank in 1983 estimated that in order to bring about a
targeted 2.5 percent annual growth in percapita commercial energy use from 1980 to
1995 investments in new energy supplies
for all d~eloping countries would have to
average some $130 billion per year (in
1982 U.S. dollars) between 1982 and 1992.
Half of this investment would have to
come from foreign exchange earnings, requi ring an average annual increase of 15
percent in real foreign exchange allocations to energy supply expansion in this
period. And despite this ambitious
targeted energy supply expansion effort,
the Bank projected that oil imports by oilimporting developing countries would still
increase by nearly one-third, to nearly
eight million barrels of oil per day by 1995
(1). The staggering costs of providing such
Table 1. Per-capita
the Latin American
increases in energy supply would lead
many to believe (but rarely to state) that it
is not feasible to improve living standards
substantially in developing countries.
The gloomy outlook indicated by this
energy analysis is not inevitable, however,
because it arises from the assumption that
major improvements in human welfare require considerable increases in the level of
energy use. This assumption should not be
blindly accepted, because the consumption
of energy is not an end in itself. Increased
energy use is valuable only insofar as it
improves the quality of life by providing
desired energy services such as cooking,
lighting, water heating, space heating and
cooling, personal and freight transport, indust rial process heat, motive power. etc.
How much energy is needed in the future depends on the underlying goals of
developing countries, the energy services
required to meet these goals, and the technological choices available for providing
these energy services-matters to which
we now turn.
ENERGY FOR BASIC HUMAN NEEDS
In the 1950s,when development strategies
were first being articulated, it was generalIy felt that maximizing economic growth
was the best way to eradicate poverty; but
the benefits of rapid economic growth
have not trickled down to the poor to
alleviate their plight. While rapid growth is
a necessary condition for successful development, it is not sufficient. A more
effective way of dealing with poverty is by
energy requirements
ass~iated
with the satisfaction
World Model for future economic growth (12).
1970 Per-Capita
E/GNP correlations
and the use of
in per-caplta
Region
GNP
(1960 $)
Energy use'
(kW)
Commercial energy
intensity in 1970
(Watts per 1960 $)
GNP"
(1960 $)
Energy use"
(kW)
Date by which
BHN could be
setlsfledd
Per-capita energy
use required to
satisfy BHN (kW)
Latin
America
Africa
Asia
440
154
112
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.67
1.83
2.89
369
405
394'
0.6
0.7
1.1
1992
2008
2020
1.7
1.4
1.8
.Includes
an estimated 0.4 kW per-capita of non-commercia!
energy use.
"This is the increment in per-capita GNP. above the 1970 level, required for the satisfaction
World Model.
" Based on the commercial energy intensity in 1970
of basic human needs, as estimated
.As estimated with the Latin American World Model, assuming that implementation
of the BHN policy begins in 1980.
.For the case in which the maximum annual yield of edible products is assumed to be increased from 4 to 6 tons per hectare.
socIety.
A.\IBIO I~~
"-""--~~'---
plus
directly allocating resources to the satisfaction of basic human needs of the poorest
-thereby
ensuring that minimum standards for nutrition,
shelter, clothing,
health, and education are met (8). There is
no empirical evidence that targeting basic
hum~n needs would lead to slower ec~nomic growth (9), and there are theoretlcal grounds for believing that a basic human needs policy would lead to more rapid
growth because of the resulting increase in
worker productivity (10).
The allocation of sufficient energy to
basic needs programs to ensure that the
various needs are satisfied is thus of central importance in energy planning. A high
priority for analysis is to estimate the energy requirements for such basic needs pro-~
grams.
A phenomenological approach to this
analytical problem (11) involves examining the correlation between per capita
energy use and the Physical Ouality of Life
Index (POLl). The POLl is an index that
focuses on three very basic measures of
well-being: infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and literacy. In developing the
POLl every country is first assigned an
index for each of these measures in the
range 1 to 100, with the lowest and highest
values corresponding to the worst and best
performances in the world. respectively.
The POll for a given country is then obtained as the arithmetic average of these
three indices. When the POll is plotted
against per-capita energy use (commercial
plus non-commercial) for a large number
of countries, it is found that on average a
of basic human needs, (BHN) based on historical
Required Increment
.
PER-CAPITA (kW)
with the Latin American
to avoid collapse
of the
191
-~
~
POll of ahout 911(a value typical of inuustrializ~d countrie\) i\ r~acheu ulr per-capita energy u\e ratcs of 1.0 to 1.2 kW. and
that further increases in energy use causc
only very marginal further increases in the
POll (Figure I). It should be noted. however, that there is a considerable scatter in
the data. For an energy use rate of 1.0 kW,
the POll ranges from 60 to 90; for 0.5
kW, from less than 20 to more than 80.
A more fundamental approach to the
pr~blem involves estimating the energy requlrements associated with a future course
of economic growth that targets the satisfaction of basic human needs.
The Latin American World Model advanced by the Bariloche Foundation (12)
can be used to estimate future economic
requirements for meeting basic h.uman
needs. In this model the path of future
economic growth is determined by distributing capital and labor among the various .economic sectors in ways that would
~a~lm~ze lif~ expec~ancy at birth. This o~tlmlzatlon cntenon ISassumed to appro XIma~ethe goal of maximizing output so that
basIc human needs are satisfied as quickly
as possible. The model also involves sectoral targets for nutrition, shelter, and
education: a daily intake of 3,000 kcal and
100 grams of protein per person; seven
square meters of housing per person; and
12 years of basic education for all persons
between ages six and 17.
The increment in per capita GNP required to satisfy basic needs and the time
required to reach this level, as determined
by the Latin American World Model, are
indicated in Table 1 for Latin America,
Africa,
and Asia.
An estimate
of th
.t
b .e henergy requdlreme~ s
f
.
-or
meeting
aslc uman nee s usIng
.this
model is calculated as follows:
Eb/C+ (CEI x 6GNP/C), where Eb/C is
ate that are tieing developeu. as \\~ \hall
ntl\\ sho\\'o
-~rn
ENERGY-EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY
The en~rgy crises of the IlJ70s have led to a
revolution in the technology of energy end
use. New end-use technologies that have
recently become commercially available or
that could become commercially available
over the next several years make it possible to provide energy services with far
less energy input than is possible with technologies now in widespread use.
While some of these developments
-notably those relating to more efficient
cooking stoves (13}-have taken place in
developing countries, most of the innovations have been introduced in industrialized countries and are often perceived as
being relevant only to those societies. Yet
many of these new technologies are of fundamental importance to developing countries, to the extent that emphasizing energy efficienc"J:' in ~evelopment plann!ng
would make It possible not only to provIde
the energy required for basic needs but
also to provide considerable further improvements in living standards. In short,
the pursuit of energy efficiency could free
the developing world from the gloomy
prospect suggested by the above analysis
that energy is a fundamental constraint on
the course of future development.
To indicate in a very dramatic way the
potential importance of energy efficiency
for developing countries, we have constructed an energy scenario for a hypothetical developing country with a mix of ener-
gv-u\ing activiti~s similar to that for \\"~\tEurope (I~) in the IlJ711sI~xcluding
\pace heating. which is not needed in mo\t
developing countries) but is matched to
much more efficient end-use technologies
than those in common use in Europe.
The activity levels for this scenario are
indicated for all energy-using sectors in
Table 2. The per-capita energy use associated with each activity in our scenario is
the product of the activity level shown in
Table 2 and an energy intensity corresponding in energy efficiency to either the
best technology currently available on the
market or to an advanced technologv that
could be commercialized in about IO.vears
(Table 3). The resulting total final energy
use per capita, obtained by summing overall activities, is about 1.0 kW (Table ~), or
only about 20 percent more than the average final energy use rate in 1980!
It is possible to achieve large improvements in the living standards characterizing t~is scenario without increa~ing energy
use, m part because enormous Increases in
energy efficiency arise simply by shifting
from traditional, inefficiently used. noncommercial fuels (which at present
account for nearly half of all energy use in
developing countries) to modern energy
carriers (electricity, liquid and gaseous
fuels, processed solid fuels, etc.). The importance of modern carriers is evident in
Western Europe, where non-commercial
fuel use is very small. Per-capita final energy use for purposes other than space heating in 1975 was only 2.3 kW, about 2.5
times that in developing countries. even
Table2. Activity levelslor a hypotheticaldevelopingcountryIn a warmclimate,with amenities(except
lor spaceheating)comparableto those in the WE/JANZ'region in the 1970s.
Activity
Activity Level
the tota~ (commercial p~usnon-commercia.l)
per-capIta energy use m the base year [m
(say) Watts per capita], CEI is the present
average commercial energy intensity of the
( .lights
economy
In Watts per dollar), and
6GNP/C is the increment of per-capita
GNP (in dollars per capita) required to
Residential"
Cooking
Hot:.vater.
R.efrlgeratlon
IV
ClothesWasher
Commercial
4 persons/HH
Typicalcooking levelw/LPGstoves.
50 liters 0,1hotwater/capita/day"
One315 liter relrlgerator-!ree~er/HH
NewJersey(US)level01lighting'
1 color IV/HH 4 hours/day
1/HH,1 cycle/day
5.4m2of floor space/capita(WE/JANZav, '75)
satisfy basic human needs, as determined
via the Latin American World Model. The
per capita enerresults of this exercise are
gy ,:,serates of 1.7,1.4, and 1,8 kW, for
Latm America, Africa, and Asia, respectively (Table 1) or a population-weighted
,
ave~age energy u~e rate of 1,75 kW per
capita,
nearly twIce the present average
f d
I ..anu
or eve Oping cou."tnes:
, .Raw
One problem WIth this analysIs IS that
the energy intensity of an economy
g basic human needs ma y
oriented
t to
d ffservin f
h
f h
b
e quI e I erent rom t at 0 t e present
economy, so that the use of present energy
intensities
in the calculation is questionable.
TranspOr1ation
Automobiles
IntercityBus.
Passenger
Train
UrbanMassTransit
Air Travel
Truck Freight
Rail Freight
WaterFreighl
0.19autos/capita,15,000km/auto/year(WE/JANZ
av,'75)
1850passenge~
(p)-km/capita(WE/JANZav,'75)
3175p-km/caplta(WE/JANZav,'75)'
520p-km/capita(WE/JANZav,.75)"
345p-km/capita(WE/JANZav, '75)
1495ton (t)-km/capila(WE/JANZav,.75)
814t-km/capita(WE/JANZav, '75)
1/2OECDEuropeav,'78"
I acturlng
Steel
Cement
PrimaryAluminum
P~perand Paperboard
NitrogenousFer1li1zer
Agriculture
Mining,Construction
320kg/capita(OECDEuropeav, .78)
479 kg/capita(OECDEuropeav, '80)
9.7 kg/capi~a(OECDEuropeav,'~O)
106kg/caplt.a(OECDEuropeav, ~9)
26 kg N/caplta(OECDEuropeav, 79/80)
WE/JANZav, '75
WE/JANZav, '75
.
A
.
fu
more
ndamental
problem
.'
wIth both
this analysis and the POLl analysis now
being used is that the estimate of energy
re uiremen .b
d
...Equivalent
<;I
ts IS. ase .o~ ~xlstmg e~ergyusIng technologies. This ISInappropnate m
l~oking toward the future, because today's
high energy prices have rendered many of
h.
t ese, techn.°logles obsolete and because
there ISa wIde range of new. more energyefficient end-use technologies that would
M
Notes.
-
.
Here WE/JANZ stands for Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The
WE/JANZ 1975 average values for activity levels and energy intensities given in this table are
from Relerence20.
" Activitylevelsfor residencesareestimates,owing to poor datalor the WE/JANZ
region.
in termsof healdeliveredto the cookingvesselsto usingone 13kg canister01LPG/
monthlor a familyof 5, correspondingto per-capitafuel consumptionrateof 49Watts.
.For waterheatedfrom 20 to sooC
; Seetext, ...
In 1975the diesel/electricmIx was!n the ratio 70/30.
" In 1975the diesel/electricmixwasIn the ratio60/40.
" Theton-kmper-capitaof waterfreightin 1978in OECDEuropeis assumedto be reducedbyhall
becauseof reducedoil use (58~'oof WesternEuropeanimpor1tonnageand 29% of that of
exportswereoil in 1977)and emphasison selfreliance.
be more cost-effective and more appropri192
A~IBIO\Ol !':-;O ,-~
-though per capita
.larl!e.
GDP
was 10 times as
The
importance
of modern
energy
carriers can be illustrated
via an end-use
analysis of cooking,
which accounts for
most non-commercial
energy use in de...Cooking
velopmg countries. The per-captta energy
use rate for fuelwood stoves, some 0.25 to
0.6 kW (0.4 to 1.0 tons of wood per year),
. f .
f h 0 05 kW
-.TV
tS ar m e~cess.o t e.
.per-~aplt.a
rate that IS typical when cooking with 11quid propane gas or natural gas (Figure 2).
The much lower energy use rates for cooking with modern energy carriers
reflect
both the better efficiency (40 to 50 percent
..Passenger
versus 12 to 18 percent for traditional
fuelwood stoves) and the better controllability
of stoves fueled
with
modern
energy
.
S
ffi
..
d fi d h
Table 3. Technological opportunities for a developing country in a warm climate to use currently best
available or advanced energy utilization technologies.
Activity
.
ResIdential
Hot Water
Refrigeration
Lights
Clothes Washer
Commercial
Transportation
Automobiles
Intercity Bus
Train
Urban Mass Transit
Air Travel
Truck Freight
Rail Freigbt
Water Freight
Technology, Performance
70% efficient gas stove'
heat pump WH, COP = 2.:;"
Electrolux Refrigerator/Freezer, 475 kWh/year'
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs.
75 Watt unit
0.2 kWh/cycle"
Performance of Harnosand Building
(all uses, ex. space heating)'
Cummins/~ASA Lewis ,Car at 3,0 1/100km.
3/4 energy !ntens!ty !n ,75
3/4 energy IntenSIty In 75"
3/4 energy intensity in '75"
1/2 US energy intensity in 'SO;
0.67 MJ/ton (t)-km'
Electric rail at 0,18 MJ/t-kmk
60% of OECD energy intensity'
carrIers.
tove e .Iclency IS e ne .ere as
the total heat delivered to the cooking vess I'd. .d d b
h h
.
I
f h
Manufacturing
e
..V1 e
y t e eating va ue 0 t e
Raw Steel
AI/, Plasmasmelt & Elred Processes.
cooking fuel.
Cement
Swedish ave in 1983"
In addition to the energy savings associPrimary Aluminum
Alcoa process".
.
ated with the shift to modern carriers conPaper and Paperb?ard
Av of 1977 SwedIsh designs.
' .Nitrogenous
Fertilizer
Ammonia derived from methane"
slderable .addltlonal savings can .be gained
Agriculture
3/4 of WE/JANZ energy intensity"
by adopting more energy-effiCIent
techMining, Construction
3/4 of WE/JANZ energy intensity"
nologies that have recently become available.
Notes
ies assumed here
' Compared to ~n assumed 50% efficiency for existing gas stoves. 70% efficient stoves having
Some of the technolo (T
g bl 3) . 11
low NO, emiSSIons,have been del/eloped by Thermoelectron Corporation for the Gas Research
f
h d
.
or t e omestlc sector
a e
I ustrate
Institute in the United States (36).
how large increases in amenities can be
" The assumed heat pump performance is comparable to that of the most efficient heat pump
achieved without approaching
the present
.water heaters available in the US in 1982(37).
. I eve I s 0 f Western
See text.
energy co~sumptlon
" Typical value for US washing machines.
Europe. It IS assumed that each household'
The Harn{)sand Building was the most energy-efficient commercial building in Sweden in 1981,
has a refrigerator/freezer
with energy perat the time it was built. It used. 0.13 GJ of electricity per square meter of floor area for all
formance eq uivalent to that of the most
purposes other than space heating (18).
..'"
.f
A 25-percent reduction in energy intensity is assumed relative to the 1975 average of 0.60 MJ/pefficIent 2-door Unit available In Europe In
km for intercity buses, owing to the introduction of adiabatic diesels with turbo-compounding.
1982, a 315-liter unit requiring
475 kWh"
A 25-percent reduction in energy intensity is assumed r.elativeto the 1975 average of 0.60 (0.20)
per year which is less than one-third of the
MJ/passenger (p)-km for diesel (electric) passenger trains, owing to the IntroductIon of adlabaI
,. '
.tic
diesels with turbo-compounding (electric motor control technology).
e .ectnClty requlre.d
by .the average. r~" A 25-percent reduction in energy intensity is assumed relative to the 1975 average of 1.13(0.41)
fngerator/freezer
In use m the U.S. SlmtMJ/p-km for diesel buses (electric mass transit), owing to the introduction of adiabatic diesels
larly. compact fluorescent
bulbs, which
; with turbo-compoundin~ (electric motor controltechnolog¥).
can be screwed into ordina ry incandescent
A SO-percentredu~tlon In energy Intensity IS assu~ed relative to the 1980 US average value of
3.8 MJ/p-km for air passenger travel, owing to various Improvements (38).
sockets and which have a light quality Slmli The assumed energy intensity is 1/3 less than the simple average today in Sweden for single unit
lar to that for incandescents,
draw only
trucks (1.26 MJ per ton-km) .and 70mbinatio'! trucks (0.76 MJ perton-km), to take into account
one-fourth
as much
Improvements
via use
of adiabatIC
diesels
turbo-compoundIng.
o a
m
th
.electricity
I t f fi' Our
75
k The
average energy
intensity
for electric
railwIth
in Sweden,
with an average load of 300 tons and an
scenari
.ssu
es e equlva en 0
ve
-average
load factor of about 40%.
watt Incandescent bulbs burned four hours
I A 40-percent reduction in fuel intensity is assumed, reflecting innovations such as the adiabatic
per day.
diesel and turbo-compounding.
While most of the technologies
indi,. Assumin~ an energy intensity of 3.56 GJ of fuel and 0.40 GJ of electricity per ton, the averagefor
Sweden
1983.
" AssumingInan
energy intensity of 84 GJ per ton of fuel (the US average in 1978) and 36 GJ of
The LPG stove (below left) is in an urban slum in
Sao Paulo. The fiv&-pot stove (below right) serves
a slngl&-family household in Xinbu, a rural village
in Guangdong Province In southern China, The
three units on the left are for wood firing. The two
electricity-the requirements for the Alcoa process now being developed (39).
.Assuming an energy intensity of 7.3 GJ of fuel and 3.2 GJ of electricity per ton, the average for
1977 Swedish designs (17).
" Assuming an energy intensity of 44 GJ of tuel per ton of nitrogen in ammonia, the value with
.steam ~eforming of natural gas in.a new fert!lizer plant (40)..
.
AssumIng a.25-percent reduction In energy IntensIty, owing to InnovatIons such as the use of
advanced dIesel engInes.
on the right have been modified for firing with gas.
.-:::..:.?:.
~
AMBIO l"~~
.
-::..:..-
:-,.-'~-.~-~.--
-=--:.-
-.
193
.:.
'..:
,.i
:.
-
:i7.
. ,.
cated in Tahle ~ are commerciallv availahle todav. a few are still in an advanced
stage of development.
The average automotive fuel economy
specified for this scenario is 3.0 liters per
100km (79 mpg). This fuel economy could
PERCAPITA
ENERGY
USERATES
FORCOOKING
12
-~
I
be achieved by installing an advanced
adiabatic diesel engine with turbocompounding in an average-sized new U.S.
automobile (1,300-1,400 kg), along with
other energysaving features based on existing technology (reduced aerodynamic
drag, low rolling resistance tires, and continuously variable transmission). Researchers at the Cummins Engine Company
have advanced a design for a 1,360 kg,
f
.II>
our to five passenger car with these features (15)-a car that could be commercially available within a decade. Alternatively, a lighter weight (775 kg) four to five
passenger car with this fuel economy could
be built using only present-day technologies-reduced aerodynamic drag, low.,
rolling resistance tires direct injection
diesel eng'
d
i.
1
.bl
e
t
..Ine ('I~ )n con Inuous y vana
raTh
nsmlsslon
,
e energy performance assumed for
steel-making in our scenario is also characteristic of advanced technologies. Specifically, it is assumed that the energy per-
00
~ 0
~
a:
~ 0
g
~
u.
a o.
--~
z
~
~
-.=.
'"
case.s
th
.1.
ot.
n.
)
d
fonnance
.RaIl
.
1
values
.
could
cooking
LEVELS
ANING OF THE ACTIVITY
FOR OUR
...would
SCENARIO
<?ur an~l~sls here IS not Intended to estabIIsh activity level targets for developing
countries, to be achieved at some future
date. Indeed, the appropriate mix and
194
~
-~
-
'"
'"
00
<t
00
is expressed
in watts. The wood-consumption
rate is also given in tons
of dry wood per year,Assuming1 ton = 18 GJ,1 ton per year = 570watts(31).
-
in a warm climate, with amenities (except for
in the 1970s, but with currently best available
or advancedenergyutilizationtechnologies.
Actl Vlty
Residential
Cooking
HotWater,
RefrIgeratIon
Lights
TV
ClothesWasher
Subtotal
Commercial
Transportation
Auto~obiles
IntercityBus,
TraIn
UrbanMassTransit
Air Travel.
Truck FreIght
FreIght
WaterFreighl(incl. bunkers)
Subtotal
Manufacturing
RawSteel
'.
for developing countnes? Is the strong emphasis on energy efficiency a desirable goal
for developing countries? And is it desir..Other"
a ble or even realistiC
to suggest that developing countries seriously consider the
development
of technolo g ies not Y et com...Mining.
merclally avatlable anywhere In the world?
These are questions to which we now turn
our attention.
~
-~
a
ffi
~
i
.
Figure2. Per-capltaenergyuse ratesfor cookIng.For both wood stovesand
stovesinvolvinghigh-qualityenergycarriers,the per-capitaenergyuse ratefor
be commercialized
scenario provide meaningful insights regarding the future course of develo pment
-'"
l;j
~
~
~
ffi
~-
0
In a matter of a decade or so.
But is this scenario relevant to the situation in developing countries? Does this
THE ME
~"in
-.n
sTable
4. Final energy use scenario for a developing country
Ihn energy.sa l vfl g aspace heating) comparable to those in the WE/JANZ' region
suc. .a
er, It IS In t e potentia or re
duCIng overall costs and environmental
pr?blems associated with steelmaking: by
beIng able to use powdered ores (concenh
h .
I
-rates
Irect y, Wit out avlng to agg omerate the ore into sinter or pellets; by being able to use ordinary steam coal instead
of the much more costl y coke. and b y in..'
t~gratlng what are now separate operatlons.
The other technologies highlighted in
this scenario are described elsewhere (18).
While not all these technologies are yet
commercially available, no "far-out" technologies requiring major technological
breakthrou ghs are involved We believe
...Passenger
that the entire set of technologIes or a set
of technologies with similar energy pert
<:I
0
fonnance for steel-making is the average
for the Elred and Plasmasmelt processes
under development in Sweden (17, 18).
Despite the potential for energy savings of
50 percent or more with these advanced
technologies, the major industrial interest
in either
h R
l;j
~
&
Cement
PrimaryAluminum
PaperandPaper~ard
NItrogenousFertIlizer
S~btotal.
~rl,culture,
Construction
TOTALS
AverageRateof EnergyUse(Wattsper Capita)
EIectrI City
.
ue
0a
F
29
14
4
3
2
51
22
5
2
I
T
t
I
34
34
-22
85
107
26
32
8
21
32
5
50
12
276
28
77
6
54
11
11
-36
65
121
4
-59
210
288
26
24
.
212
429
550
41
45.
59
839
1049
Notes
.Here WE/JANZ stands tor Western Europe. Japan. Australia. New Zealand. and South Africa. For
the activity levels indicated in Table 2 and the energy intensities given in Table 3.
.This is the residual.
.It
has been estimated that at Sweden's 1975 level of GDP. final energy demand in manufacturing
have been 1.0 kW (half the actual value), had advanced technology been used (17). The
valueassumedhereis 45%less.sincethe averageper capitaGDPwas45%lessforW. Europe
than tor Swedenin 1975.Also. 22% of final manufacturingenergy use is assumedto be
electriCIty.the Swedishvaluefor 1975
~IBIOVOL I' ~o -1-5
.able
5.
2030
in
Per-capita
the
activity
IIASA
levels
for
selected
activities
in
developing
.Activl1y
Activlly
Index
1975
Activily
for
Domestic
Hot Water
Liter
per
Service
Sector
Development
m'
of
Floor
Auto
Number
of
per
Capita
Use
Air
Travel
Truck
Freight
Steel
Commercial
Space
per
9"
Capita
per
14
1)er
Year
545
1495
Capita
per
Year
189
814
320
479
Nitrogenous
Kg
of
t!:enilizer
Production
per
Contained
Capita
per
population-weighted
Celsius.
Reference
Steel
activities
to
is
the
for
countries
different
the
the
values
IIASA
IIASA
only
the
may
be
sho:""
the
that
basIc
basic
it
is
analysis
are
in
have
beyond
the
without
significant
energy
for
as
The
experimenr'
living
overall
need
development.
value
of
in
if
it
sive
activities
tant
for
decades
out
that
l.evels
in
In
using
a
sectors
stances
in
known
be
a
to
Ity
40
excess
to
for
of
be
of
for
energy
developing
associated
ev<:n
able
to
our
values
the
or
for
with
though
In
centrally
to
planned
for
the
liters
125
N.A.
(d)
N.A.
(d)
N.A.
(d)
N.A.
(d)
of
Asian
centrally
hot
economies
planned
water
per
Unless
Asian
capita.
indicated
economies
assuming
otherwise,
in the
the
water
of
1..0
is
industrial
six,
use,
percent
and
1.75
as
(Figure
as
these
in
~
a:
h.
g~
t
t
certainly
largely
of
our
as
of
its
for
it
in
the
development.
period
construction
of
this
steel
factories,
the
is
wh~t
e economies
AMBIO 1"~'
wl?uld
I
be
IS
of
now
commercial
bridges
modern
etc.
production
and
~
FUEL
1
II
ELECTRICITY
~
INDIA
..:
use
1049
~
TANZANIA
~
BRAZil
j
90S
the
~
the
~
800
~
1
~
KW
600
58
5S7
1
I
400
200
99
<9O)
;6
use
~
6S)
~
.
for
ase
d
0
for
required
I
eve
more
to
Europe.
inter'"in-
.
0
INDUSTRY
RESIDENTIAL
TRANSPORTATION
I
T
enersupport
B
1
TOTAL
(33),
Figure Brazil
3.
left,
op-
37)
88
363
par-
average
for
the
f
.~1
SCENARIO
Austhan
at
~.
.
U")
a.
in
value
country
1.7.kW
need
ce-
blocks
80
(Table
the
whetherintensive
P
and
building
railroads,
period
rapid
consumption
as
the
roads,
During
and
such
provide
of
by
production
which
has
build-
characterized
materials
buildings,
is
Europe
infrastructure
own
is
basic
ment,
in-
Western
the
infrastructure-building
growth
this
attention,
period
The
ener-
considerable
close
that
development
Nevertheless,
deserves
true
completed
ing
alterna-
that
with
building.
sec-
()
by
com
the
h
I
ere
an
by30
~
ffi
activthe
energy
are
than
frastructure-bu.ld.ng"
th
study.
heated
scenarios.
per-
countries
3)-indicates
consistent
IIASA
Tan-
much
same
the
to
India,
or,
times
in
58
compared
for
respectively,
capita
is
for
energy
37
Brazil,
26,
today
the
in
Sys-
scenario
and
and
per
of
indicated
IIASA
low and hIg h scenanos, respec. 1
tlve
y.
mediate
A
critical times. question
during
ment
IIASA
~
well-
less
final
higher
final
and
1000
require-
2030
scenarios
much
role
ac-
in-
in
Laxenburg.
far
capita
zania,
explicitly
scenario-accounting
total
1200
far
Applied
our
per
IIASA
scenario-developing
for
2030
1063
be
most
the
over
for
(IIASA)
at
are
generally
leve1s
in
countries
terns
tria
of
four
are
those
energy
Institute
5),
217
2993
64
out
capita
energy-
example.
countries
International
those
82
625
for
implicit
future
For
our
28,
activi-
are
and
projections
Analysis
(19,
20)
the
carried
per
levels
prominent
in
cent
impor-
all
levels
5)
tor
question
coming
by
than
In
values
50 years.
developing
levels
1981
not
kcal
demand
frastructure
"thought
would
the
higher
(Table
forecasts
?ext
ments
28"
energy-inten-
likely
activity
today
except
was
from
scenario
capita
excess of average values for developing
countries
Scenario
con-
as
point
scenario.
the
needs,
of
those
assumed
most
instances
not
our
far
fundamental
countries
in
are
characterized
excess
that
in
go
per
which
gy
availabili-
are
are
,,:,ould
IndIcated
in
there
developing
and
that
tivity
levels
this We scenario.
believe
countries
analysis
convened
tively
im-
basic
supply
be
meet
that
our
scenario
making
this
turned
to
to
provide
of
not
on
less
to
standards
energy
is
only
also
increases
Thus
such
developing
The
be
analysis
not
but
satisfaction
use.
straint
our
possible
in
IIASA'
High
20"
26
End-use
de-
to
with
of
needs
provements
all
(20).
material
future
well
consistent
purpose
human
for
study
goals.
Rather
the
41.
available.
of
for
Year
average
from
in
Levels
Scenario
N
3'
presented
Low
1378
77'
parameters
Actlvily
2-4
345
Capita
per
are
the
0.081
per
shown
for
Tables
0.047
21'
are
of
0.19
Year
parameters
Levels
0.0107
Year
levels
for
Capita
per
veloping
projected
3.2
per
Not
as
2.6
Capita
d
and
54
Capita
degrees
From
here,
1.1
per
,
developed
Automobiles
per
The
scenario
50
Kg
"
hypothetical
Scenario
Kg
the
the
Actlvlly
Countries
Ton-km
Production
Notes
.These
~y
for
Ton-km
Production
Cement
ty
1975,
Levels'
Developing
of Hot
Water
Capita
per
Day
Passenger-km
per
Year
Freight
Rail
countries-for
scenarios.
the
numbers
columns
on
Brazil
(B),
while
the
these
Final
in 1982
energy(34),
the
and
at the
right,
the
tops
which
1 kW
numbers
columns
use
and per-capita
the 1 kW
on
give
are
give
scenario
the
the
the
scenarIo
by sector
sectoral
total
(1),
columns
non-commercial
final
the
are
presented
and
ener~y In carrier,
Table
shares
energy
numbers
the
(in
use
at the
carrier
shares
energy
share
percent)
per
4. for
For India
the
of
capita
tops
are
by
the
(in percent).
(in
percent)
total
three
in 1978sets(32),of
final
carrier
total
for
final
The
of
energy
total
India
energy
numbers
final
columns
Tanzania
use.
For
(I),
Tanzania
use
the
per
in parentheses
energy
onin 1981
the
four
~.:
:
.
(T),
capita,
on
use.
195
~
co'
~ ,1'
~
~te,
J~n
0
2-
6J
500
5a
I
~
...:
600
Thonumb't. ., the r"" ..f O,1thh.,r
repr"..nr the """trIIM'tl..". '0 m..,,f."""i".
fi".1
pe",.nt) ,
en.,s:y d"',1nd (In
STEEL
400
0
.c
.../-
~
:J
'"'300
Co
0
0
~
.c
lsn
.oJ
~.,
>
(D
-<
~
'6 100
a:
-,
---'
"
-
CI.y, (:1...
.,.,., ,
100.../
,
,.."
'"
..'
:
"""
/ '..7'
40
~
-:-\
.".-:-".,
".
C)
"0
..
.30
..,
.'
~
~
J
...
ET~E
20
»-
~
L
-
-
PAPE;J
10
~-"" ~-::;:.:.::'
Inn
~
0
:J
0
C;c.ORtNE
,J
lsn
/
'r:'
:::'f
...' /
,-'
Q.
ffi
(/I
/
'
,
",.".'
'
0
0
/
200
:5
.oJ
;
A""O~;;A
W JOO
1950
5
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
a
1985
Food
~
S
~
~
0.1
Orher
:n
'.j)
,n
'.n
CONTRIBUTIONTO MANUFACTURINGVALUE ADDED (PERCENT)
Figure 5. Basic materials use in Western Europe. The data are three-year
running averages of aggregates.of apparent consumption for France, Germany. and the U.K. The ammonia data are for France and Germany only
(35). The arrows point to the scale to be used in quantifying each curve,
Figure4. The final energy intensify of manufacturing vs. manufacturing
value-added for the United States in 1978. Here the value-added measure used
Is Gross Product Originating (GPO) by Industry. The sum of GPO values for all
activities in the economy equals the Gross National Product (21).
of these materials will tend to grow much
faster than the economy as a whole (21).
Because the basic materials processing
industries
are so energy-intensiveaccounting for most industrial energy use
even in highly industrialized countries like
the U.S. (Figure 4)-industrial
energy use
-would typically grow much more rapidly
than GNP during this period.
However, the absolute levels of basic
materials production and use are not likely
to be higher during the infrastructurebuilding period than in the beginnings of
the post-industrial phase (e.g., the mid1970s for Western Europe), because although basic materials playa diminishing
relative role in economic activity as the
economy matures, these materials continue to play an increasing absolute role for
a long time thereafter, as wider uses are
found for these materials (21).
The history of the per-capita use of seven important basic materials (both traditional and modern) for some Western
European countries is shown in Figure 5.
The values chosen for the per capita consumption rates of basic materials in our
scenario are from the period near the
peaks of these curves.
This analysis thus suggests that it is feasible to achieve a standard of living in developing countries anywhere along a continuum from the present one up to a level
of amenities typical of Western Europe
today, without departing significantly from
the average energy use per capita for developing countries today, depending on
the level of energy efficiency that is emphasized.
THREE QUESTIONS RAISED
To date most new energy-efficient end-use
technologies have become available main-
Iy in industrialized countries with market
economies. Their relevance to developing
countries is an issue of considerable controversy. Three questions have been raised
concerning such technologies: First, can
emphasis on energy conservation be justified in countries that are so poor that
they have little energy to save? Second,
even if there were significant energy conservation opportunities in poor countries,
would not the pursuit of these opportunities imply technological dependency
on industrialized countries, since much of
the needed energy-efficient technology is
not now manufactured in developing countries? Third, in light of the extra investment usually required to obtain improvements in energy efficiency, is not more
energy-efficient end-use technology inappropriate for developing countries, where
capital is so scarce?
We now address these questions and
show why we believe that investments in
energy efficiency are not only relevant to
developing countries but essential to
bringing about rapid development.
What Is There To Save?
While it is true that the rich industrialized
countries can save far more energy than
developing countries, it does not follow
that there is little energy to save in developing countries. The elites, who account for most commercial energy use in
developing countries, have energy-wasting
habits very similar to those of citizens of
industrialized countries-and
often there
is even greater waste in the developing
country.
Consider two-door refrigerators that are
now becoming popular among the elites in
Brazil. The new Brazilian units of this type
are smaller (340 to 420 liters) than typical
units in the US (about 500 liters) and con-
sume between 1,310 and 1,660 kWh per
year (22). By comparison, the average
consumption of new units in 1983 in the
US was 1,150 kWh per year, and the most
efficient model available in the US, introduced commercially in March 1985, was a
490-liter unit requiring 750 kWh per year
(23).
Even poor households dependent largeIy on non-commercial energy and having
few if any modern amenities tend to use
energy inefficiently. As we have already
pointed out, the poor who depend on
wood for cooking consume three to 10
times as much energy as those who have
access to modern energy carriers (Figure
2). For the urban poor who buy wood or
charcoal for their cooking, this inefficiency
implies a large expense. In Bangalore, India, for example, the poorest 15 percent of
all households spend 17 percent of income
on fuelwood (24). For the rural poor, fuel
inefficiency implies a great deal of time
committed to wood gathering (especially
by women and children) that could other.
wise be occupied more productively and.
that is increasing in many parts of the
world, as deforestation makes wood supplies scarcer.
.
Where WIll The Technology Come From?
To the extent that energy-efficient end-use
devices are not now available in deve10ping countries, these devices must either be
imported, or a local manufacturing capability must be established.
Those developing countries with little
industrial infrastructure may have to rely
on imported technologies, at least for a
while. But these countries would have to
import the conventional. less-efficient
technologies anyway. For these countries
the issue is whether the increased foreign
exchange expenditures often required for
196
A~IBIO VOL 1.1~o
---
.1-5
.the more efficient end-use technoll)gies
, can be justified, In this instance it is impor-
,'eloping count~' should he distinguished
from the prohlem of the o"erall limited
THE RELEVANCE OF ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGIES
tant to calculate the fo~e,ignexchange impacts of the more effIcient technologies
'fro,m the perspective of the entire system
of Improved end-us~ technology plus energy s~pply. because In ~any cases the extr,a
f?relgn exchange !equ~red for a more efflclent end-use devlce,wllI he more than ?ffset by redul:ed foreign exc~ange requlrements f,or new energy supplies.
The Imp?rtance of a systems approach
~o the forel~n exc,hange problem may b.e
Illustrated ~,Ith a,IIgh~ bu.lb. In an analysIs
of the BrazIlian sltuatl?~ It has been shown
.~hat for each d.ollar a citIzen spend~ on ':1~w
Inc~n~escent IIg~t bulbs, the e.lectnc ~tlilty
~ust Invest $10 In hydroelectrIc supplies to
light t.he bulb (25). For a country that
.must, Instead, rely on the more costly th.ermal. power sources, the correspondIng
energy
costs would level,
be larger.
At thesupply
macro-economic
newener-
supply of capi,tal,
,
Under a wide range of cIrcumstances.
the extra capital requir~men~s for improved end-use te~hnolog,les will be more
than offset by capital sa,:,lngsfor lowered
energy nee~s. An anaIY~I~by Geller of t~e
~nergy-sa':lng opport~mtles for ~he BrazllIan, electrIcal s.ector IS suggestive ,of the
savings pot~ntlal. Geller h,as estimated
that for a (dl,sco~nted) totall~vestment of
some $4 ~llIton In more efficlen~ end-use
te,chnologles (for, ~ore. ef~cle~t refnge~ators: st.reet lightIng. lightIng In commerclal bulldlng~, and motors, and t~e deployment of van.able speed motor dnv~s),
It would be f~aslble to defer construction
of some 21. gIgawatts electric .(GW(e)] of
new .electrlcal. supply cap.aclty, .correspondlng to. a discounted caplt~1 ~avl~gsfor
new supplies
some(22),
$19 The
billionresulting
m the
period
1986 toof 2<XX>
There are good reasons to believe that in
some instances it would be desirable for
developing c~untries to commercialize
advanced energy-saving technologies such
as those highlighted in our l-kW scenario,
The energy savings potential of advanced
technologies is often far greater than what
can be achieved through the modification
of existing technologies.
Those technological innovations that
society adopts must be attractive to compensate for the dislocations that often
accompany the introduction of new technology. Historically, this has been such a
powerful phenomenon in the industrial
sector that process innovations generally
have led to marked improvements in energy efficiency even during periods of constant or declining energy prices, when
energy has not been a major concern .
gy supplies for developing countries required $25 billion of foreign exchange in
1982-over one-third of the foreign exchange required for all kinds of investments (1). Clearly, to the extent that net
foreign exchange requirements can be reduced by importing more efficient end-use
technologies, as alternatives to conventional end-use technologies, a developing
country would be better off.
In more advanced developing countries,
the manufacturing capability for many efficient end-use devices could be readily developed, if manufacturers believed there
were sufficient markets.
In India this has already happened in the
case of automobiles. High efficiency oilusing technoiogy is of crucial importance
to India, which spent more than 80 percent
of its foreign-exchange earnings in 1981 on
oil imports (2). This high cost has motivated a shift to more fuel-efficient cars.
While typical five-passenger cars on the
road in India have a fuel economy of 10 to
capital savings could be used to speed up
the development process in other areas. ."
Not only are investments in energy efflciency relevant for developing countries,
but also they are often even more relevant
than for industrialized countries. This
perhaps counter-intuitive result is illustrated in Figure 6, which compares, for the
Brazilian situation, the cost of saving one
kW with investments in efficient compact
fluorescent light bulbs with the cost of the
extra hydro-electric supply expansion that
would be required if incandescent bulbs
were used instead (25). The cost shown in
each case, as a function of the discount
rate, is the discounted present value of all
required investments over a 50-year life
cycle. This figure shows that at a 10-percent discount rate the supply expansion
cost per kW is about three times the cost of
saving one kW by investing in more efficient bulbs. What is perhaps more interesting is the fact that the higher the discount
rate the greater the benefit of the energy-
new, domestIcally manufactur.ed fivepassenger.ca~shave fuel economIes of the
order of SIXliters per 100 km (40 mpg).
for ~hlSresult:.
.electric
FIrst, efficient .lIght bulbs, lI.ke most
other energy-effiCIent technologIes, tend
powersystemand the cost01saving
electricityvia the Installation01 efficientcompact
fluorescentIIghtbulbs.
In the case of Brazil there is strong evidence that Brazilian manufacturers would
be able to manufacture a wide range of
energy-efficient,
electricity-using
technologies (refrigerators, efficient lighting
to have lifetimes much shorter than energy
supply facilities-typically
in the range of
two to 20 years, versus 20 to 50 years for
most energy supply facilities. Investments
in conservation equivalent to new supply
Thecostsarefor electricitydeliveredto or saved
at tha household.
All capitalInvestmentsoverthe estimatedsoyearIIle of the hydroelectricpow~rplentareInCIUded
technologIes, heat pumps, motors, motor
control devices) in just a few years, if there
were sufficient markets for such devices
0 (22). Moreover, it is ironic that the most
efficient refrigerator/freezer available in
the U.S. achieves its efficiency in large
pan by the use of a compressor imported
expansIon are spread out over tIme.
Therefore, the present value of the needed
investments over the life cycle of the energysupply facility they would displace tends
to decline rapidly with an increasing discount rate (25). In sharp contrast, the investment required for energy supply ex-
InBrazil.Specifically It Is assumedthat the "overnight" construction~ost01the hydroelectriclaclllty Is $1,170per kW01Installedcapacity,thattha
plantIs constructedovera 6-yeerperlod,andthat
the plantIs paidlor with six equalpaymentsover
this construction.P8r1od.
To provide1 kW01peakIng demandr~ulres 1.16kW01 Installedhydro-
.from
pansion
electric capacity, ~o allow lor a 16-percent reserve
margin. The total Installed capacity required to
11 liters
per 100 km (21 to 24 mpg)
.'.
typical
...arec
Brazil
(26).
.
I d
The
Brazilian
manufac-
t:urer mvo ve exports a hIgh efflctency
line an~ markets.a less efficient product
domestIcally, partially because of the wide
range of design operating voltages and the
~onsiderable voltage fluctuations at BrazilIan houses. Ti)e less efficient compressor is
more tolerant of voltage variations.
Th
Pr
bl
r C
.
Sc
.We
e..resu
0 emo
apltal
arclty
It IS certaInly true that consumers must
usually.pay mor.e for the purchase of energy-efflclent de:-'lces. But the difficulty the
consumer has m obtaining capital in a de-
efficient
light
tends
bulbs.
There
to increase
are two
with
h
reasons
the discount
rate, bec~use of Interest c arg~s accu~ulated dunng th~ long constructIon perIod.
The net result IS that the benefits of conservation investments tend to increase
rapidly with the discount rate. This means
that from a societal perspective, investments in energy efficiency improvement
look better the higher the discount rate.
are
I
.'
led
therefore
to
.,
..It
surprising
a rather
ffi
'
"
t, Investments In energ) e Iclenc~ Improvement will often make even more
sense in capital-short developing countries
with many pressing needs than in industrialized countries.
4000
~:;
;,
3
~
.;:
~ 2
.".
1000
00
20
DISCWNTRATE("toPERYEAR)
.
Figure 6. The dIscounted
cost 01 peaking electricity
h arB
.Th
ct
e ersa iss t l ucomed
newpen
hYdr
f
present values 01 the
produced via a hydro-
loel
tect
s
thrlc a t powe
wou
ldr Cbe°s
.
.::
-
ts u lit
b
provide1 kW01 residentialbaseloaddemandIs
1,45kW,when allowanceIs madelor 20 percent
transmissionand distributionlosses.
It is assumedthattransmissionlacilitieslasting
30yearscost $710per kW,Some01this transmlsslon costcouldbeavoidedII newgeneretlng
capaclty.couldbedelerredvia InvestmentsIn
moreefficientlight bulbs.
IS assumed
that
13-watt
compact
fluorescent
li
ght bulbslasting 6 000hoursandcosting $9 20
eachreplace4O-wattIncandescentbulbslasting
1,000hoursandcosting$0.50each. It Is assumed
that the lightbulbsareusedlive hoursperday,
includingtheearlyeveninghours,so that they
contributeto the peak electricitydemand(25).
,
"~IBI() I'/!\~
.,
197
-_c_--
-
Tahle f1illustrates this phenomenon for the
~.S. v;here energy prices were generally
constant or falling in the decade~ immediately preceding the 1973 oil cri~is.
In this era of high energy costs it can be
expected that this phenomenon will persist-that the pursuit of socially attractive
innovations will often lead to significant
energy efficiency improvements, even if
the new technologies are not selected specifically for their energy-saving features. Indeed there is a wide range of promising
advanced energy end-use technologies that
could be brought to commercialization
over the next decade or so and offer major
advantages of capital savings, environmental protection, materials savings, etc., in
addition to energy savings (18).
Despite the promise of major energy
savings associated with the adoption of
advanced technologies, it is generally
thought that the process of commercializing advanced technologies is an inappropriate activity for developing countries,
which do not have the institutional infrastructure needed for technological innovation and which cannot afford the risk-taking of innovation when there are so many
pressing development needs to attend to.
Yet, as we shall now argue, there are many
reasons to question this conventional
wisdom.
Rationale For Seeking New Technologies
While less risk would be involved if the
technologies adopted by developing countries were those that have already been
commercialized in industrialized countries, several considerations weigh against
this alternative.
First, many of the industrial tech~ nologies now being commercialized in the
North are capital-intensive and laborsaving-characteristics
that are not wellsuited to industrial activity in most of the
South, where labor is cheap and abundant
and capital is costly and scarce.
Second, the comparative advantages in
natural resources are often quite different
for many countries of the South from those
of the North. In energy, many developing
countries are blessed with largely unde-
veloped and relatively low-cost hydroelectric resources. v;hile most industrialized
countries must turn to more co~tly thermal
po\\.er sources for increased electrical
capacity. Similarly. biomass is a promising.
source of chemical fuels for many developing countries. requiring decentralized development strategies quite unlike the centralized strategies that have been pursued
by the fossil-fuel-rich countries.
Third. human needs are quite different
in the South from those of the North. because of climatological differences, because of different cultural aspirations, and
especially because the satisfaction of basic
human needs and infrastructure-building
must be given prominent focus in the economic planning of the South, dictating
patterns of production markedly different
from those of the North.
Developing and industrialized countries
are at different phases in their industrial
development. In the industrialized countries, areas of greatest growth and innovation are electronics, information tech nology. communications, medical technology,
etc.-generally areas involving high valueadded fabrication and finishing activities.
Both a shift in consumer preferences away
from materials-intensive goods and the oil
price shocks of the 1970s have curbed
growth in the demand for basic materials
in industrialized countries (21), as shown
for Western Europe in Figure 5. This stagnation in demand provides a poor climate
for innovation in the basic materials industries, even though existing capital stocks
have been made largely obsolete by the
energy price increases of the last decade.
Thus in industries of crucial importance
for infrastructure-building, the North is
not innovating at a pace sufficient to provide for the needs of the South.
Finally, the potential for rapid growth in
the demand for basic materials in the
South suggests that some countries of the
South may be more promising theaters for
innovation in these areas than the countries of the North, where demand is stagnating.
For all of the above reasons, developing
countries should not retrace the develop-
ment path of the North hut should pursue
new directions and assume the risks of innovating in some area~ of pt)tentially high
pay-off.
.
ExIstence ~roof of Technological
LeapfroggIng
While there are many theoretical arguments favoring "technological leapfrogging," whereby new technologies are introduced first in developing countries. the
idea is still contrary to the conventional
wisdom that new technology must be introduced in the industrialized countries.
because only these countries have the infrastructure and the risk-absorbing capacity that is needed for introducing new t,echnology. But technological leapfrogging is
not just a theoretical construction. It has
been tried on various occasions in the past-sometimes with success,and other times
not. There are lessons in the historical record, some of which we now review.
Ethanol-Success in Brazil and Failure
in Kenya: The Brazilian alcohol program
in 1984produced about 10 billion liters of
ethanol from sugar cane and replaced
about 60 percent of the gasoline that
would have been required in the absence
of the program. Brazil has also developed
cars that run on pure alcohol, nearly
600,000 of which were sold in 1983.
The cost of ethanol has been estimated
to be $50-56 per barrel (1983 U.S. dollars)
of gasoline replaced (27), when the subsidies are remove~ and a true exchange
rate is used (that IS, a rate based on the
parity value of exported goods). This cost
is co.mpetitiv~ with gasoline produced in
BrazIl from Imported crude at the 1981
world oil price, although it is six to 17
percent higher than t~e c<;>stof &asoline
based on the 1984 oil pnce dunng. ~he
world-wide oil glut.. But t~e. Brazilian
ethanol program provides additional benefits of rural development,. employment
generation, incr.e~sed self-rellan~e, a!1dreduced vulnerability to futu~e roses In the
worl? oi~ mark.et. Also, ~hlle. alco~ol productlon IS cam~d out pnmanly ~Ith loc~l
currency, gasoline has to b~ paid for In
hard currency. Because Brazil has a nega-
Table6. Historicalenergyrequirementsper unit of output for selectedmalerialsproduced in the U.S.(42).
SodaAsh
(SolvayProcess)
Ammonia
(Haber-BoschProcess)
Chlorine
(DiaphragmCelis)
HydraulicCement".Raw
(Wel and Dry Processes)
Steel".
(ChangingProcessMix)
Date
Energy
(GJ/ton)
Date
Energy
(GJ/ton)
Date
Electricity
(kWh/ton)
Dale
Energy'
(GJ/ton)
Date
Energy"
(GJ/ton)
1868
1894
1911
1925
60
31
28
17
1917
1923-50
1965
1972
93.0
81.0
52.0
46.5
1916
1947-73
1980
4400
3300
2400
1947
1955
1960
1965
10.3
9.0
8.5
8.2
1947
1954
1962
1971
37.5
32.4
30.0
27.8
.
1942
1970
15
14
1978
41.2
1980
27.0
.
1971
1978
EthyleneDichloride
EthyleneOxide
Polyethylene
Date
Index
Date
Index
Date
Index
1967
1973
100
15
1970
1973
1974
100
85
79
1956
1973
1975
100
40
18
7.5
6.8
,
Notes
.Data for ali but the last entry are from reference43.
1978data
for cement
are
from Reference
,.The
Electricity
requirements
are
counled
at 3.6 MJ44.
perkWh.
.The 1980data for steel are from Reference45.
.
198
A\IBIO VOL 1-1NO -1-5
-
.
.'Iive halance of pa~ments that is expected
to persist for a numher of ycars. this means
that oil imports must he financed \\.ith forc:ign debt.
The Brazilian ethanol program is especially efficient in generating jobs-requiring an investment of only $6.()()() to
$28.000 per job. \\.hich compares with an
average of $~2,OOOfor the Brazilian industrial sector. and $200.000 for the oil-refining, petrochemical complex at Camarcari.
It is estimated that a total of 475,000 direct
full-time jobs (700.000 at the peak of the
harvesting season) in agricultural and industrial activities will be generated by
.1985. along with another 100,000 indirect
jobs in commerce. services. and government (27).
In short the Brazilian program has been
, successful in meeting its technical objec-
is no\v hased on coke. 37 percent of Brazilian steel production (i.e.. ~.Ij million tons)
was has~d on charcoal in 191;3.This anomaly reflects the scarcit~. of high quality coking coal in Brazil. Coke-based steel production in Brazil is based on mix of 80
percent imported coal and 20 percent high
ash content domestically produced coking
coal. Though charcoal-based steel production is widely viewed as anachronistic, it
produces a better quality steel because
charcoal has less impurities than coke.
Brazilian charcoal-based steel is competitive in world markets because the industry
is far advanced in relation to the ancient
charcoal-based industry abandoned by the
now industrialized countries some 200
years ago.
That charcoal-based steel with blast furnaces processing hundreds of tons of steel
\vith the local resourcc hasc and to he
supportive of the achievement of hroad
development goals (e.g.. enhanced employment generation. increased self-reliance, rural development. etc.) as well as
to offer opportunities for direct cost reduction.
Despite its bj:nefits, leapfrogging should
not be regarded as a universal strategy for
industrialization.
It is appropriate only
where a unique set of circumstances and
capabilities offers great enough benefits to
justify the taking of risks. The challenge to
planners in developing countries and to
the international assistance community is
to identify and facilitate the exploitation of
promising opportunities for leapfrogging
and to support the development of the infrastructure needed for innovation.
Promoting innovation in this manner
tives, reducing oil imports, and supporting
the development process.
Successin this instance is more a reflection on the Brazilian technological development process than on ethanol as an
energy source. An abundance of land resources. a climate very favorable to sugar
cane, financial incentives to alcohol producers, a high tax on gasoline, and a longterm history of experience with ethanol on
a modest scale were ingredients that
helped foster technological success.
The Kenyan experience with ethanol
has not been as positive (28). Because of
potential serious conflicts with food production, Kenya cannot readily dedicate
significant amounts of agricultural land to
sugarcane as an ethanol feed stock. Instead, Kenya has utilized the residual
molasses of the sugar inudstry. This choice
is a dubious one, however, not only because the economics of ethanol production
based on gtolasses are much less favorable
than for sugarcane, but also because
molasses is a strong foreign-exchange
earner and there is strong domestic demand for molasses in cattle and pig production. In short, the Kenyan program is a
case of transfer of inappropriate technology, with the situation made worse by poor
planning.
Charcoal Based Steel-Making in Brazil:
In the industrialized countries coke began
!o replac~ charcoal as a reducing agent for
Iron-makIng at the middle of the 18th century, as a response to rising charcoal costs
(29). The shift to coke led to much largerscale.iron-~aking blast furnaces than were
possible wIth charcoal, as coke has much
, ¥reater mechanical strength to resist crushmg under the load of the blast furnace
chargcc:.
While most of the world's steel industry
per day can compete with coke-based furnaces processing thousands of tons per day
is of great importance to developing countries generally.
The technology is labor-intensive; it is
well-matched to the resource base of the
biomass-rich, fossil-fuel poor developing
countries; and the scale of its installations
often provides more appropriate increments in productive capacity in relation to
the size of local markets than giant cokebased facilities.
The major cost item in charcoal-based
iron making is charcoal, which accounts
for 65 percent of the total pig-iron production cost in Brazil. Charcoal for steel making is produced mainly from planted
forests, primarily of eucalyptus and pine.
The total plantation area exceeded five
million hectares in 1983.
Technical developments relating to
charcoal-based steel production are advancing at a rapid rate (Table 7). Plantation yield has roughly doubled over the
last decade, and a further 50 percent increase in yield is expected. Over the last
decade charcoal yields from wood have
improved about 20 percent, and still
another 10 percent increase is expected in
the near term. At the same time charcoal
requirements for iron making have been
declining. The net result of these improvements is that in the near future. the land
area required for a given level of steel
production is expected to fall to just onefifth of what was required in the 1970s
(Table 7).
...siderable
Formulating LeapfroggIng StrategIes
The above examples show that it is feasible
to have technological leapfrogging in developing countries, but new technologies
must be chosen carefully to be compatible
could greatly broaden the technological
choices available to developing countries
to meet their development goals. And
while technological success in one developing country will not necessarily be
relevant to all developing countries, on balance it is likely that innovations generated
via leapfrogging will be more widely applicable in the South than innovations
coming from the North, since the countries
of the South are often more similar to each
other in terms of their needs and
capabilities than they are to countries of
the North.
CONCLUSION
Per-capita energy use in developing coun-'
tries near the present level would be adequate to support a standard of living
ranging from the present all the way to
that of Western Europe today, depending
on the extent of the shift to modern energy
carriers and the emphasis on energy-efficient end-use technology now available
and on the commercialization of advanced
energy-saving technologies.
Modernization of the energy end-use
system along the lines discussed in this article is technically and economically feasible and strategically desirable for poor
countries.
An emphasis on energy-efficiency improvement and modern energy carriers
would make it possible to satisfy basic human needs, to radically expand the industrial infrastructure, and to allow for conimprovements in living standards, beyond the satisfaction of basic
needs, with little change in the overall percapita level of energy use. This use should
not obscure the challenge of bringing this
about, however. Large amounts of capital
i
Table7. Parametersrelatingto the annualproductionof one milliontons of steel basedon charcoalin Brazil.(46)
19705
WoodYield on
Plantations
(tons/ha/vr)"
12.5
Wood-to-Charcoal
ConversionRate
(m'/ton)
0.67
SpecificCharcoal
Consumption
(m'/ton pig iron)
3.5
RequiredArea
for Plantations
(1,000ha)
336
1980s
Near future
25
37.5
0.80
0.87
3.2
2.9
128
71
InvestmentRequired
to EstablishForest
(1,000US$)
201.600
..
76.800
42,600
Notes
.Air dry tons (25-percent
moisture).
AMBIO. 1'1115
199
u'ulunt:rt:quirt:utonringan"uta,hiftt,'
mout:rn
t:nt:rgy
t
I
h
~-
carrit:r,
1
I~ 'Ir",I"r",ll.ln~ln."I,'llh"",'I",II""""""h,,r,,
and
,I
to .:fficit:nt
1..
11
I
.,n" ,"."'n
I\'Z
..' Fr"nk '.'n IlirPCI. I .\ (r.m'I',.r',I1I"n fno'r::,
IJo',nunol.Pl.,EESR"
"
I"
""
r"!".""""'I"rnur..,,,,.lr,ln.lI'tr,II.1
,.nJ ","
Z,:,Ii.lndl
.:nu-u't:.:crn'ogyanul""ulltl.:rt:-
qulrt:u
.\nn',uIR""o".,'/I:"'o'rll,!I.::""-.~.~::'I"'~'
In 1.1"1":: .1' """'~ "h.,r,":I"rNI",~1
\\"'I..',nl'ur.'pc.lr.:.I.."ra""',II'I",mrth,,\\I:
Infrastructurt:.
J
,
lower
the
level
I I
of aggregate
demand,
of flexibility
.stllul.:
the
in supply
planning,
With lower demand levels it be."
comes possible to avoid ove~dependence
on the more troublesome
optIons.
Indeed. we have shown elsewhere that
P
't
f
f f ..'
via the
,
,U,rSUI
0,
energy
e ICle~C}
strateg.les In IndustrIalIzed
and developIng
CountrIes alike (18, 30) it is feasible to
remove energy as a constraint to developt
men
an d
to
evo
I ve
I ong
term
go I
b a I -ener-
for Appllcd Systcm' Analys,s. En..r~v In u
Finir.. IVorld A Global S_..SltlnSAllalvsis. (Ballin-
gcr. Camhrid~c. l'Jt!I),
,is. L",.:nhurg. Austria, April. I'IK2} Th.: comp"ri",n,
indical.:d in Tahlc 5 ar.: fur thu,.: acli..ity
1.:\.:1, ,uffici"ntl~ di,aggr"gal"d in Ih" IrASA
anal~,is10 pcrmit a .cump.rison with o.ur ,c.:nariu
For Ihcothcr actlvlll':' Ilsl"d In T.hl~ ).an .:'pllclt
comp"nSl,n
sibl.:
wIth
thc
IIASA
sc.:nant'S
"
nul
P',s-
R f
e erences and Notes
I. Th.: World B"nk. Tht EJltrgy Tra/lSilion in Otvtloping CounTries.(World Band W.,hinglon DC.
191!3,
2. Thc World Bank. World Dtv..lop"'tnl Rtporl
1984.Oxford University Press. 19!14
3. In Tables2.6 and 2.7 of R.:fcrencc19. thc rcmaining ultimatcly rccovcrablc oil and n"tural gas rcsourccsin dcvcloping counlrics olh.:r than thosc in
the Middlc Easl/Norlh African rcgion "rc csli-
22. Ho"ard S Gellcr. Tht Potential for Eltctricil...
Cons..nalionin Bra:il. Companhia En.:rgclica u.,
Sao P"ulo, SaoPaulo. Brazil. 19K5.
23, Th.: Amcrican Council for an En.:rgv-Efficicnl
Economy, Tht /~/oSIEntrg Efficitnl Appliancts,
W"shinglon DC, Summcr 19M5.
2-1 Amuly" K, N R.:ddy and B, Sudhakar R"ddy.
Energy in a Slralificd Socicly: Ca'cstud~ of
FIrewood.n Bangalorc. Economic and PolItIcal
IVttkl.v. XVIII. October 8. (19M3).
25 Ju-.;Goldcmberg .nd R. H William,. Th.. Econo,nlCSof Entrgy ConservatIon In Dtvtlopmg
Counlnts: Iht CoJlSumtrVersustilt SocIetalPtrsp..cti,t. PU/CEE.S Rcporl No, Itl9. Ccnlcr for
Encrgy and Envlronm.:nlal Sludlcs. Pnncclon
., Unl..crsllY,Pnn~cto.n.N.J.. 1985,..
matcd (as of Ihc laIc 197Us) to be somc 133 TWY,
-I. World Energy Confcrcncc.
World Entrg,' Rt-
~6. Pn..alc communIcation to R, H. W,lliams from H,
S G.:llcr. Apnl. 19t15,
sources1985-2000. (IPC Scicncc and Tcchnology
27 H".""rd S. G':!".:r. Annual Rtvit',' of Entr.I:)'. 10.
Prcss. 197t1),Gcological coal rcS('urccs in L.tin
13)-16-1(19t1)
Amcrica and in Asia outsidc of China arc cSli- 2t1. Phil O~Kecfe "nIl Don Shakow. A,nbio. 10.
mated10 be insignificant, Thosc in Africa arc c'li213-21) (19t11),
malcd to be only 1.\5TWY. whilc coal rcscf"CSin
29. Charlcs K, Hydc. Ttchnologlcal Changeand the
Africa arc cslimatcd to amount tu only 29TWY
Brilish Iron Indl"tr),. 1700-1870.(Princcton Uni5. Thc Carbon Dioxidc As",ssmcnl Commill':':.
,.:rslty Prcss.Pnncclon. Ncw Jcrscy. 1'177).
Changing Climalt. (Nalional Acadcmy of Sci- 30. Robert H Williams. Potential Roltsfor Bioentrgy
cnces.'..W"shinglon DC 19t13
)
In an
World.
,
P
. I R I (Amblo.
' B ' thIs
E Issue).
3I... R
H Entrgy-Efficltnt
W.II .'
6, Ellis L, Armstrong, Hydraulic Rcsourccs. In RtI lams, Oltnfla 0 esJor 10- ntrg,v In
ntwable Energy Resourcts:Iht Full Rtports to Iht
an Energy.Efficitnl World. PU/CEES ~eport No,
Conservation Commission of Iht World En..rgy
1:13,(Ccnlcr for Encrgy, and Envlronmenlal
Conference, IPC Scicncc and Technology Pr.:,s.
Studl':s. PrInceton UnlvcrsllY. Pnncclon. N,J.
1978,
19t15).
7. D, E, Earl. FOrtSI Entrgy and EconoJllicDtvtlop32. Amul~a K N, Rcddy. An End-Ust .\t..thodology
mtnl. (Clarcndon Prcss. Oxford. 1975),
for Dtvtlopmtnt-Oritnltd Entrgy Planning in Dt8. D, p, Ghai. A. R. Khan. E. L, H. L"c. and T,
"tloping Countries. with India as a Cast Srud_\'.
Alfthan. Th~ Busic Nt~ds Approach, 10 D~vtlopPIJCEES R.:port No .ltll. (Ccnter for Energy
mtnl. (Intcrnallonal Labor OrganIzation. G.:n.:va.
and EnvlronmcnlalStud,.:s. Prlncclon IJnl"ersIIY.
1977).
Princcton,~J,. 19M5).
9, P. Slrcclcn. S, J, Burqi, M, U Haq. N. Hicks, and
33, ~I J. ~lwandosyaand M, L. P. Luhanga. Entrg.v
F, StCW"rt,FirSI ThiJlgsFirSI: MttliJlg BasicNttds
Us.. Patltrns in Tan.:ania.(Alnbio. t~is.jssu.c),
In DtvtlopiJlg Counlrit.'. (Oxford UnivcrsilY
3-1,R.:publlca F.:deratlva du Brasli Mlnlslcno das
Prcss. N"w York. 19t11)
~Ijnas .: Energia. BalaJI"o Entrgtlico .Valional.
10, M. Q, Quihria. World D.."tlopm..nl. 10. 2t15-291
Br"silia, Br"zil. (19M3)
(19M2)
35. ~I. H Ross. E, D. Lar"'n. and R. H, William,.
II. P F, Palm.:dotr al.. Entrgy N ds aJldR..sourc.."
En..rgyDtmand antl/Wal..rialsFlo,,'sin Ih.. EconoIn D..vtlopiJlg Countries. (Bnx,kha..cn
Nal"mal
Lah.,ralt)rv R':p',rt No, BLN 5()784, March, 197:11
2(XJ
Asst. s.:crclary for Conserv"llon and R.:n.:wahlc
Encrgy, (U,S. D.:partm.:nt of Encr~.., DOE:;CS'
Fcbru"ry, 191!3).
..
20 Arshad ~I Khan and AIt'IS Holzi. E,'oilitloJI 1).1 -13 Th.: Confcrcnc.: Board. Elltrg." Consulnp'ion in
Fuulrt Entrg.v Dtmallds ull 1030 In DI.ff..rt'"
,\Iullufaclur/ng. a rep"rt to the Encrg~PolicyProjlI'orld R..gions All Asst'SSJn..'11
;lla,lt for Ih.. T"o
':CI of Ihc Ford Foundation. (Ballingcr, CamII.-ISA Sc..narios,(R.:port No. RR.M2.1-I01 thc
hridgc. 197.\).
Int.:rnationalln'tilut.: for Appli.:d Sy'tcms An"I~'-1-1J T. DiK"ou. 1978-79 .\Iilltrals Yearbook,Vol-
.
12. Amilcar o. H.:rr"ra tl ai" ClllttStrtJph..or N..,,'
Soci..,_\':A LtJtin Am..ri.'an World ,~/I)d..l..r':p'.rt
uI th.: Fundaclun BanltlCh". (Inl"rn.t",nal 0,,'.:Iupm"nl R"",arch C.:nl"r. Ollaw., 1'17/1)
13 How.rd S G"II"r, Saln Baldwin, Gaulam S Dull.
and ~ II R""indran.lh, "Impn'",d C""k"lo\""
Sign,ufSu"c"":'(,4,"hi'J.lhi,i,,uc)
1111("nl.:rmr
.14 Th""u..ro R B".:k, Imprl"""""'"
/II f.n,'rll' 1-:/1/.
..",n..,' "f Inolu"rial 1-:1"..,r"..h,',n,..,,1
I'r;,;'..,"',.
tR"p"rlpr"par"dfl'rlh"Olli.:"..IEI"ctr...:h"mi.
car Proj"cl ~Ianalt"m"nl. Are,mn" :';ali..nal
La""ralor~, A~L 6EP~I-77-2. J:'nu.r~, 1'177)
,/(1 D A W.ilzm.n.., ai" F..nili:..rfra," Coal.P.pcr
pr"par"dh..th" Di..isionuICh"micaID".."I..pm"nl. T"nncss"cV"II.:.. Aulhoril.., ~Iuscl.:Shual"
Alahama. and pr.:s.:ntcd"t th.: Facull\ In'titut" un
C".I ProductionT.:chnultllt.. and L'tiiizalion. O.k
Ridg.: A,s'lCiatcd Uni"'.:.rsili.:.. Oak Ridg",
T.:nn.:""c,(Jul..21-Aueu'tll.I'I7XI
-II l:nit.:d Nations. 11/79/811
S,a,i"ical ",arho"k.
(Unitcd N"liuns, N.:wYork. 19XI).
-12 Roh.:rt V. Ayrcs, Final R':p',rt un Futur" En.:rg~
Consumpllonhythclndu,triaICh"micalslndustrv
(SIC 2M), Appcndix 10 Th.. Cht/llicals IndILSrr':.
..ul. 5 of 'I. in IndlLSlrialEntr,~.' Prodllctivit.vPro/"
Final Rtporl: I?r.:parcdby.En.:rg~a~d En..ironmcnl,,1 AnalysIs. Inc.. Arlln~lon, \", for th"
../()151-1.
gy strategies that are economically
and en21. E D. Larson. R. H William" and D. Bi"nkow,vironmentally
sound and strategically
seki. .l/altrial CollSump'ion Pau..rllSUJldInt/rL"rial
g
t t .
th t
h t .En..rg.'.
D..mandill Induslriali:..d COIIJllri..s,PUt
cure-ener,
y.S ra egles,
a, In s or , are
CEES R.:pon No. 17-1.C.:ntcr for Encrgy and
compatIble
wIth
the
achievement
of
a
susEn,,'ironmcnlal
tainable world.
Princcton,~J.. Sludic,.
19t1-1 Princ.:ton Uni".:rsilv.
.
,
.'rt'"
:.
.cn"rg,;ondEmlr..nm""lal~ludl",.Pnn""t.."
l:ni'"r,il...141'11
But our analvsis suggests strongly
that
I.' R R ~k.lr and R..~ Kam.. I(.ummln, I:ngin"
for a widt: range-of plal:i~ible sets of-'lctiYity
,,'mr..n, <...,Ium"u', In,dianal and J , \Y..,..I
1.1
'
.'."'.I:';ASAL""i,R"",ar.:hC"nl"r,('I"""land.Oh"'I.
e\e s and for a wide r .Inge of end-use
.-Id,.",..,,01
.-Id",h"".. /)/..,..1 /:nll""" ftJr 1"1"..nll"r
technologie~, it would be less costly to pro(""r,. P"p"r:';.. X-II)'I.1-1,.in
s..ci"t~,ol Aut~'moli.."
vide energv services using the more effiEng,n""r'., .-IoIlaha/u EJIIi/n.." II'Jrld.ll,d.. R...
,
d'
hi'
h
'd
,"..",SP-:-7I,(I'IX-I),
clent en -use t.ec no, ogles t an ~o provi e
In Frank ",m Ilipp.:1 and Barhara L"..i. R..,vurc..s
the same servIces wIth conventional.
less
and Cons..r..atiOJI,
10, 103-12-1( 1'!II3)
efficient
end-use
technologies
and in17 P SI.:.:n,T B Johansson.R Fr.:driks",n. andE.
creased energy su pplies.
B,'gr.:n. E.n..r~'.-for "'hat a/III Ho" .1/1.'ch:'
(~i".:r
,
..Forlag.SI'lCkhulm,
I'IXI) (In Swcd.,hl Sum.While we have not dealt explIcitly here
mariz.:din T. B Johan,son, p, Stc.:n. E Bogr.:n,
with the energy supply implications
of an
.nd R Frcdriks,on. Scitnct, 219, 355 (191'3)
energy.efficient
future
for
developin2
IX J~)s':,Gold.:mh.:rg.
Thomas B J.','hanssun.Amul~a
(,
't'
If'd
h'
h'
~
K~R.:ddy."ndR()hcrtHWlillams,En..r~."for
~oun nes. I, IS se -evi ent t at t e ~eemt' S,."ainablt
World. "'x,k
m.nuscripl
Ingly formidable
supply
problems
deSumm.rizcd in Annual R..,i.." of En..r~v, 10.
scribed at the outset would be greatly
/113-/1&'1
(19t15)
.tCI
eased in an ener gy -effic'ent
world
The
1'1 En.:rg~S~'slemsProgram
Group. In!.:rnalll,nallngreater the degree
r
"
I
\
In" PL' CEES Rcp"rt No. 193, (C.:nt.:r for En.:rIt.. and En"in,nm.:ntal Studi"s. Prin"clon Univ"r-
S;I~,Princ':lon. N"w J"rs.:y. July. 19K5)
3/1 K. C: .~hukla .nd J. R, Hurl.:~. D..v..lopm"'~IIJf
tlndEJ/I",..""Lol,'NO.Oom..sucGasRanli...Cook
Top. R':p"rl pr"par"d h~ Th"rmtlCl,,"lron <'urp')r.tion, Walth.m, ~I",sachus""', fur Ih" I G", R,,",.r.:h In'lilul", Jul~, I'/X.'I.
.1" R II \Yilli.m" G S Dull. .nd II S (;"II"r,
UJllt I: ,\Ittals
~Iin.:s. I'I!!II}.
and j\1intrals,
(U.S
Burcau of
-15 En.:rgy "nIl En"ironm"ntal Anal~si" IndlLSlriul
Producril'i~' PrOjecTFinal Rtport-l, pr.:parcd for
th.: ASSI,Sccrclar~'for C,m"'f""IIOn "nd R.:n.:w.hlc
En"rgv.
CSi-ilJt51-1.
(US,
Dcpartment
Februarv.
191!3).
of
Energv. .
DOEI
-16 Rodrigu.:s dc Almcid.. (Florcslal Acesita. S.A.,
Bclu Hurizont.:. Brazil). prc",nt.tion at thc Second EI,d-Us..Oriented Global EJltrg). Workshop,
Sao Paulo, Br"zil. (Jun.:. 1984).
Jose
Goldemberg
is a professor
.
at
the Institute of PhYSICS, Un I verslty
.f
0
Sao Paulo and president of the energy companies of Sao Paulo (CESP.
ELETROPAULO
CPFL COMGAS).
"
He may be reached at Alameda Mlnlstro Rocha Azevedo 25-8th
floor,
01410-Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Thomas B.0J h ansson IS Pro f essor
.
of Energy Systems AnalysIs at the
University of Lund. His address: Environmental
Studies Program Ger'
dagatan 13, S-22362 Lund, Sw~en.
Amulya K. N. Reddy is Vice-Chairman
of Karnataka State Council for Sllence and Technolo
and is a ro.gy,
p .
fessor at the Indian Institute of SCIence. His address: Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry, Ind. I t' t t
f S
Ian ns I u.e 0
clence, B anga Iore,
560012, India.
Robert H. Williams is a senior research scientist at the Center for
.
.
Energy
,
and Environmental
..
StudIes
In
Princeton, New Jersey. His address:
Center for Energy and Environmental
.,
n
New Jerse
Studies,
Prlnceto.
Y.
08544, U.S,A.
-\~18IU\Ol
t~ NO ~-5