1 / 33

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US

Sustainable Development, Step 1 Reduce Worldwide Energy Intensity by 2% Per Year Talk at Global Energy International Prize Presentation and Symposium. University of California at Berkeley, 19 Nov. 2003. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930

flavian
Download Presentation

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sustainable Development, Step 1Reduce Worldwide Energy Intensity by 2% Per YearTalk at Global Energy International PrizePresentation and Symposium.University of California at Berkeley, 19 Nov. 2003 Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US www.Energy.CA.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

  2. TW Power Demand in IPCC Base Case Compared To Other Cases 45.0 40.0 Base Case Assumptions = IS 92a 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 α = Annual change in E/GWP Improved efficiency case = IS 92a with E/GDP at -2%/yr EIA International Energy Outlook 2003 Like Improved Case starting with World at current EU E/GDP α = - 0.8% until 2020 α Average TW then - 1.0% = - 2.0 % from 2000 until 2100 1990 to 2000 Actuals from EIA

  3. United States Refrigerator Use v. Time Annual drop from 1974 to 2001 = 5% per year 2000 25 1800 1600 20 1978 Cal Standard 1400 Refrigerator Size 1980 Cal Standard (cubic feet) 1200 15 Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year) 1987 Cal Standard Refrigerator volume (cubic feet) 1000 800 10 1990 Federal Standard 600 Energy Use per Unit 1993 Federal 400 5 Standard 2001 Federal 200 Standard 0 0 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

  4. United States Refrigerator Use (Actual) and Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time 2000 Estimated Standby 1800 Power (per house) 1600 1400 Refrigerator Use per 1978 Cal Standard Unit 1200 1987 Cal Standard Average Energy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year) 1000 1980 Cal Standard 800 1990 Federal 600 Standard 400 1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal 200 Standard 0 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

  5. Electricity Generating Capacity for 150 Million Refrigerators + Freezers in the US 60 50 40 GW 30 capacity saved capacity needed 20 10 0 at 1974 efficiency at 2001 efficiency

  6. Electricity Use of Refrigerators and Freezers in the US compared to Generation from Nuclear, Hydro, Renewables, Three Gorges Dam and ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) 800 Nuclear 700 600 500 Billion kWh per year 400 Conventional 150 M Refrig/Freezers Hydro 300 at 1974 eff at 2001 eff Used 50 Million 2 kW Existing Renewables 200 PV Systems Used 3 Gorges Dam Saved 100 0

  7. The Value of Energy Saved and Produced. This is previous figure re-stated in dollars with generation worth $.03/kWh and savings worth $.085/kWh) 25 Nuclear Dollars Saved from 150 M Refrig/Freezers 20 at 2001 efficiency 50 Million 2 kW 15 PV Systems Billion $ per year Conventional 10 Hydro ANWR Existing 5 3 Gorges Dam Renewables 0

  8. 3 Gorges Dam vs. added Appliances in 2010 3 Gorges: 18 GW x 3,500 hours/year = 63 TWh at wholesale Conclusion: Optimum appliances could save 35 TWh/year, about one-half of 3 Gorges generation in 2010. Savings at retail at least twice as valuable as wholesale, so economically equivalent to the entire 3 Gorges project. Source: David Fridley - LBNL

  9. Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances 75% 60% 25% Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org

  10. Annual Usage of Air Conditioning in New Homes in California Annual drop averages 4% per year 3,000 Initial California Title 24 2,500 Building Standards 100% California Title 20 2,000 Appliance Standards Estimated Impact of 1976-1982 2006 SEER 12 Standards kWh/YEAR 1,500 1,000 33% 1992 Federal Appliance 500 Standard 0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Source: CEC Demand Analysis Office

  11. 300 GW 200 GW

  12. Estimated Power Saved Due to Air Conditioning Standards (1974 - 2002) • Peak Power for United States Air Conditioning ~ 250 GW • But standards cover only residential and rooftop units ~ 200 GW • Avoided GW: 100 GW • Comparisons: • United States Nuclear Plants net capability ~ 100 GW • California Peak Load ~ 50 GW • Cooler roofs will save another 10% of 200 GW • Flat roofs, new or replacement, should be white • To be required in 2005 California Building Standards • Sloped roofs, new or replacement, can be colored but cool • Each strategy saves 10%, so 20 GW total

  13. GWH Impacts from Programs Begun Prior to 2001 40,000 ~ 14% of Annual Use in California in 2001 35,000 30,000 Utility Programs: at a cost of ~1% of Electric Bill 25,000 GWH 20,000 15,000 10,000 Building Standards 5,000 Appliance Standards 0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Source: Mike Messenger, CECStaff, April 2003

  14. Electricity Efficiency and Renewables in CaliforniaGoals of California Energy Action Plan 2003 • California kWh per capita is already flat compared to U.S. climbing 2%/yr. • New California goal is to reduce kWh per capita by 1/2% to 1% each year • Renewable Portfolio Standard: add 1% of renewables per year • Additional peak reduction of 1% per year by Demand Response when power is expensive or reliability is a problem • In total, goals aim to reduce electricity growth, increase renewables, and grow demand response

  15. The Transition to a Sustainable Future • Past investments in efficiency have reduced growth and saved money • In addition, future investments could significantly reduce world energy demand and carbon emissions • We now turn our discussion from electricity to primary energy • Additional details will be available in Energy Efficiency and Climate Change, Rosenfeld, et.al., in The Encyclopedia of Energy, Elsevier, 2004

  16. 20-year annual growth was 1.7%

  17. Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the United States International Energy Agency (IEA) and EIA (Energy Information Agency) 2% - 3.4% - 2.7% Average = - 0.7% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% IEA data EIA data -5% 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 -6%

  18. Annual Rate of Change in Energy/Gross State Product for California (Sources: EIA and California Department of Finance) 1.0% -4.5% Average = -1.0% -3.9% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% -3.0% -4.0% -5.0% -6.0% -7.0% 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

  19. Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for Europe IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) for European Union and Western Europe EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) 2% - 1.2% Average = - 1.3% - 1.4% 1% 0% -1% -2% IEA data EIA data -3% 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 -4%

  20. Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for China IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) 2% Average = - 5.0% - 4.8% - 5.3% 0% -2% -4% -6% IEA data EIA data -8% 1981 1982 1983 1984 1999 2000 2001 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -10%

  21. Annual Rate of Change in Energy/GDP for the World IEA (Energy/Purchasing Power Parity) and EIA (Energy/Market Exchange Rate) 2% - 1.3% Average = - 0.7% - 1.3% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% IEA data EIA data 1982 1986 1990 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2001 1981 1983 1984 1985 1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1996 1998 2000 -4% note: Russia not included until 1992 in IEA data and 1993 in EIA data

  22. North America World Europe

  23. TW Power Demand in IPCC Base Case Compared To Other Cases 45.0 40.0 Base Case Assumptions = IS 92a 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 α = Annual change in E/GWP Improved efficiency case = IS 92a with E/GDP at -2%/yr EIA International Energy Outlook 2003 Like Improved Case starting with World at current EU E/GDP α = - 0.8% until 2020 α Average TW then - 1.0% = - 2.0 % from 2000 until 2100 1990 to 2000 Actuals from EIA

  24. The “Conservation Bomb” (World Primary Power or Energy) Quads/yr TWa 1500 50 10 billion people @ 5 kW = 50 TW  = -1%/yr GWP = $ 250 Trillion 1200 40  = Annual % growth in Energy/GDP 900 30  = -2%/yr 600 20 = -3%/yr 6 billion people @ 2 kW = 12 TW 300 10  = -4%/yr GWP = $ 25 Trillion 0 0 2000 2100 Year

  25. Primary Energy Demand of The Developing World at 5 KW per person With Efficiency and GDP per capita equal to Western Europe TWa α = - 1.4% / year 40 1200 1000 α 30 = - 1.0% / year extra 800 8 Billion people @ 5 KW Quads 600 20 Current World Demand ~ 13 TWa 400 8 Billion people @ 2 kW 10 200 4.5 Billion people @ 1 KW 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 year

More Related