slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 ARosenfe@Energy.State.CA.US

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

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


  • 177 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

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

slide2

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

slide3

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

slide5

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

slide6

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

slide7

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

slide8

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

3 gorges dam vs added appliances in 2010
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

slide10

Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances

75%

60%

25%

Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE,

in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org

slide11

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

slide12

300 GW

200 GW

estimated power saved due to air conditioning standards 1974 2002
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
slide15

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

electricity efficiency and renewables in california goals of california energy action plan 2003
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
the transition to a sustainable future
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
slide22

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%

slide23

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

slide24

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%

slide25

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%

slide26

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

slide27

North America

World

Europe

slide29

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

slide30

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

slide31

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