Why Energy Efficiency for GHG Reduction?

Efficiency in energy use represents a technological approach to reducing energy use and GHG emissions without "sacrifice". Better technology, less energy use, same effect. Increased cost from new technology offset by savings from lower energy use. What's wrong with this picture?

It has been pointed out that there can be a "rebound effect" or "takeback" to implementing energy efficiency, i.e., lower energy cost, greater consumption. How true is this? Let's study the increase in fuel economy of cars in the US between 1978-1984 vs fuel consumption. Here is the CAFE trend between these years: Correspondingly, during this same period in time, total fuel consumption dropped dramatically:. The increase in the CAFE was due to a legislated requirement. During the period after the automakers were required to increase fuel economy, total fuel consumption dropped dramatically.

The point is this. I contend that the GROWTH in energy use is a different phenomenon entirely from the TOTAL EXISTING USE at any point in time. The best way to deal with emissions due to TOTAL EXISTING USE is energy efficiency, due to the savings. It represents the lowest cost per ton of CO2 avoided. However, to stop the GROWTH of new emissions, renewable, non-emitting energy sources are the solution.

Comments

[Zeno Swijtink]

Dave, let’s Stop Wasting Energy on Efficiency Programs!

My claim in earlier postings was that you deal with TOTAL EXISTING USE in a manner, thru improving energy intensity, that leads to lowering costs, that leads to increased demand, that leads to GROWTH. At least that’s what historically has happened. (I’ll need to comment later on you CAFE example, although I can see already that you don’t consider embedded energy in improved car fleet. You need to look at the whole system to discuss energy demand impact of creating more efficient cars.)

“It represents the lowest cost per ton of CO2 avoided.” Not really, since just conservation, not going on that trip to Fort Bragg even in your super efficient Honda Insight, has a lower cost per ton of CO2 avoided.

Apart from that, “lowest cost per CO2 avoided” is a microeconomic and engineering way of thinking: you need to think about the macroeconomic impacts of that extra money, those savings, entering the market place and fueling demand and about the extra consumers that enter the market place since an affordable product is available that satisfies some need, real or imagined.

No, we need conservation, while investing the savings in a completely carbon free economy where the $$ (or a local currency) circulates among trusted entrepreneurs and consumers who are all wedded to that same goal and do not allow their $$ to leak out to stimulate the carbon economy.

As always, Zeno

PS My quip from Andrew Rudin, "Let’s Stop Wasting Energy on Efficiency Programs – Energy Conservation as a Noble Goal." Energy and Environment, 11(5), 2000, 539-551.

[Dave at CPC]

I think Zeno's comment above shows some naivete about the magnitude of the problem we face. Reducing emissions by energy savings from improving energy efficiency is one of the most powerful tools in the toolbox of methods for reducing emissions. Any program for reducing GHG emissions dramatically and rapidly must include efficiency improvement. If this technique is excluded, massive construction of renewable powerplants to replace fossil fuel plants is the only other approach. Efficiency represents the difference between the "soft path" and the "hard path."

Although showing no data to substantiate his claim that increasing energy efficiency does not decrease GHG emissions overall, Zeno asserts that money saved from implementing energy efficiency "...leads to increased demand, that leads to GROWTH." There is no data that supports this claim. Growth in energy demand is not caused by savings in the system being put back into creating new demand. We can see this clearly in the Sonoma County GHG inventory ( http://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/news/documents/AP_INVEN.PDF ) in that the per capita energy use has remained the same since 1990. The overall growth in energy use in the residential sector (and hence the GHG emissions) is identical to the growth in population: 18%. From the Home Energy website: "A recent study by Steven Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), however, found that while takeback does occur, it is not as widespread as generally believed. After reviewing 42 empirical studies that dealt with the issue in some way, Nadel concluded that takeback is a local phenomenon largely limited to a few specific end uses."

So generally, the "takeback" or rebound effect that Zeno alludes to is largely mythical. The issue that climate activists need to address is how to create new development, i.e., housing, commercial development, new transportation requirements, that is zero carbon. That is the crux of the matter, in my opinion. WE MUST STOP THE GROWTH OF GHG EMISSIONS FIRST.

[Zeno Swijtink]

There is actually some evidence of considerable takeback while in other areas there is a lack of studies.

The puzzling fact is that even as our economy has become more energy intense (less energy per dollar GDP) the per capita energy use has increased. You seem to deny this for Sonoma, but you only look at residential use and not at embedded energy in consumer products, say. Also your data about increased transportation mileage seem to contradict the national trend, or is this compensated by using more efficient cars? If so, that would confirm my argument. Maybe you can clarify what the numbers are for Sonoma County vs. the rest of the USA.

(This is similar in the situation around recycling. By one measure recycling programs are a success: people recycle a greater % of their waste (they have become more waste efficient), but they are wasting more and more since their total waste production is accelerating and makes the efficiency improvement nought.)

The problem is partly that people working in the energy field take a narrow engineering point of view (making the gadgets more clever and well designed) but lack attention to economic and social effects.

Others are hindered by blindfolds put on by the particular industry or nonprofit they happen to work for. One would not expect that Steven Nadel would be able to keep his job with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy if he showed that energy efficiency leads to increased absolute energy use. Conflict of interests between the duty of an author to be objective and take many sources and data into concern and towards his family and himself to carve out a decent living are to be expected. In his study Nadel looks at takeback in only the most limited definition.

According to Lorna Greening, et al., 2000, "Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey (Energy Policy, 28, 398-401), rebound can take various forms: 1. Direct effect, a pure price effect (driving a more efficient car is cheaper, so the car may be driven more); 2. Secondary fuel use effects (savings will be used on other energy using expenditures, Diderot effects of energy efficient gadgets, I may add) 3. Economy wide effects (price and quantity readjustments economy wide, bringing in new consumers for these efficient products) 4. Transformational effects (changes in consumer preferences, social institution, the organization of production, say of the more and more efficient micro-processor, introduction of the car).

According to data studied by Greening, et al. 1 and 2 are small to moderate, since energy is a small part of costs in modern economy (but could become more serious as energy prices go up). 3 could be significant but needs further study. 4 could be the greatest but is very hard to study because of the absence of a plausible theoretical model.

Anyhow, the GHG cuts needed for Climate Protection are so steep that independent of the size of takeback, depending on efficiency improvements only is out of the question.

Harold Wilhite of Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo and Jorgen S. Norgard, of the Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark argue exactly that in their paper "A case for self-deception in energy policy." (Proceedings of the ECEEE Summer Study. European Council for Energy Efficient Economy, 2003)

I quote from their abstract: "European energy policy and policy makers have not faced up to something about which there is increasingly little doubt: global reduction, or even stabilisation in energy use will not be achieved unless Europe and the other rich OECD countries aim at significantly reducing their growth in energy services (heat, light, motive power, mobility and so on). The policy and research at the centre of the policy discourse on energy sustainability suffer from a form for self-deception which revolves around the equation of ‘efficiency’ with ‘sustainability’, i.e., the untenable contention that technological and market efficiency alone will offset continued growth in energy services to the extent that deep reductions in energy use are possible. We use results from India and China, with more than one third of the world population, to show how there is likely to be dramatic increases in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in those countries over the next half-century. Much of this increase will be in conjunction with the development of basic services and infrastructure for homes, businesses, transport, health and public services, so that it is neither ethical nor even practical to argue for restrictions in overall energy growth in these and other developing countries. This places the onus for deep reductions in energy use on Europe, North America and the other affluent countries. The paper explores what such a change of focus would mean for policy and research agendas, and why there is friction to moving the policy envelope from ‘efficiency’ to also include ‘sufficiency’."

Applying hybrid technology to add luxury features to SUVs while adding modestly to mileage improvements is a form of feedback for hybrid technology I would say.

At the least we need to study these papers and derive mitigation measures against takeback and growth wherever possible. http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/efficiency_policies.pdf

Efficiency increase is a two edged sword. A moderate view is in http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/ACEEE-Pred.pdf.

http://www.efficology.com/ is an interesting website edited by Andrew Rudin (from Let's Stop Wasting Energy on Efficiency Programs") who believes that the application of improved efficiency in many areas of life has many negative outcomes.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Dave,

To continue this: A significant pair of articles in MIT's Technology Review

http://www.technologyreview.com/TR/wtr_15878,323,p1.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Hardware/wtr_13527,294,p1.html

The first one about Sun Microsystems "eco-friendly" server chip that uses 60% less energy than conventional server chips.

Quote: "The California-based computer maker also is touting its new chip as ''eco-friendly.'' It said removing the world's Web servers and replacing them with half the number of UltraSparc T1-based systems would have the same effect on carbon dioxide emissions as planting 1 million trees.

''It's time the technology industry took a stand -- tripling your datacenter performance shouldn't mean tripling your power bill and needing more coal-fired plants,'' said Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's president."

The other article asks: "What's next? The answer is simple: you set up a home server." Home Is Where the Server Is!

"You've got your high-speed Internet connection, you've wired the house with high-speed cable, and you've installed, or are seriously contemplating, a wireless LAN. (...) What's next? A server in your home allows easy storage, retrieval, and backup of your files-at very little cost."

Is it not likely that the efficiency gains of the "eco-friendly" server chips will be made nought by the expansion in the home server market?

I recently read an article by Tadj Oreszczyn, "Our Innate Ability To Think of New Ways To Use Energy" (Energy and Environment, 15(6), 2004, 1011-1014). It's his inaugural lecture at University College London.

http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/people/GS_oreszczyn.htm

It's an amusing story about how clever people are in creating more comfort for themselves and using more energy in doing so, often exploiting real or imagined energy efficiency improvements.

For instance, in the late 1990s passive solar heating in Britain introduced the idea of an conservatory, a buffer space that could capture the sun's energy to heat the home. What in fact happened was that the conservatory often became one of the most loved rooms in the home, was used all year around, was heated and even air-conditioned. Similar take-back happens in non-domestic glass-covered atriums.

It's worth quoting the concluding paragraph of this article in full:

"In the UK the government is being very proactive in tackling climate change. It is committed to trying to reduce its carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 ... This is a very ambitious project.

Half of this planned reduction in carbon emissions is due to be achieved by energy efficiency alone the other half coming from renewables.

It is hard to see how efficiency alone will achieve this as there is very little evidence that efficiency, although good for many other reasons, can deliver absolute reductions in primary energy consumptions or carbon emissions. As a scientist it has taken me over thirty year to appreciate that the problem is bigger than physics and is one that requires a socio-technical, multi-disciplinary approach."

This is a direct critique of using the von Weizsäcker, Lovins and Lovins approach of "Factor Four. Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use" for Climate Protection purposes.
http://www.wupperinst.org/Sites/Books/factor-four.html

- Zeno Swijtink

[Dave at CPC]

Zeno, I understand you think that efficiency alone will not result in the GHG emissions reductions that are necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2. However, I have not heard you propose an alternative. Are you suggesting that all efforts to improve efficiency in the existing plant be abandoned? Are you saying that efforts to improve efficiency in new appliances, etc. are unnecessary? No one is arguing that efficiency alone can do what is required to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions to avoid dangerous interference with the climate. I think, however, it would be instructive to look at the causes of growth in GHG emissions. Why do annual carbon emissions continue to rise? What is your opinion? What is the best way to stop the growth of emissions?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Yesterday's efficient appliance is today's inefficient one; today's efficient one will be tomorrow's inefficient one.

Given that during all that time average personal energy use and GHG emissions have increased it is not obvious at all why even greater efficiencies should play any role. I am not saying they shouldn't, only that it is not obvious and needs to be explained.

Clear seems to me, given the research on take-back, both anecdotal, statistical, and theoretical, that efficiency improvements do not provide the starting point. They set people, both psychologically, as individuals, and economically, as a group, on a path of further cornucopia, which steers away from GHG reductions.

Goal is absolute reductions. So start with a personal GHG inventory and continued monitoring. Provide people with tools to make that visible for themselves. And ask for conservations, real reductions. Take into account embedded energy and factor in economy-wide multiplier effects of new technology when calculating personal reductions.

The latter is the mirror image of embedded energy: something like implied energy, the energy consumption that my adopting this new technology will stimulate in the greater economy.

This is sketchy, and should be worked out/improved.

- Zeno

[Dave at CPC]

Zeno, I believe that you have conflated the fossil fuel driven growth of the US economy, with a more general, unsubstantiated view that growth in GHG emissions is to some extent caused by efficiency improvements. The key to this distinction is to look at the per capita GHG emissions in the US vs other developed nations such as Japan and Germany. The US per capita is double that of the other industrialized nations. From 1975 to 2001, the GDP per capita growth rate of Japan exceeded that of the US, but its GHG per capita was half. The explanation for this difference is efficiency (and nuclear power). The United States powers its economy by cheap fossil fuel, and the ability of the supply to keep pace with increasing demand. In my view, improving efficiency is the only way to break free of the cycle of dependence on cheap oil. You decrease the demand for oil by improving efficiency and replace remaining energy demand with renewable enery sources. This is the only way you can continue to support a growing population and reduce GHG emissions. For example, the amount of energy that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants in the US as waste heat is equivalent the total energy use of Japan. Efficiency can be the engine of growth, rather than cheap fossil fuel. If this is the case, we can start shifting our energy sources to renewables without sacrificing growth.

[Ernie Rogers]

I think we are sitting on the railroad tracks arguing about how to stop the train. It won't. We need to get off the tracks.

I work each day on the technology of improving efficiency. I believe in it. But I am now convinced that it will be a miracle if somehow greenhouse emissions decrease at all. The few of us in the "developed world" are really not in charge-- others will gladly take up any energy supplies that we don't need.

A more relevant problem for today is to avoid a worldwide economic collapse due to energy shortages, and on that score efficiency can still win.

Ernie Rogers