You are going to see me posting a lot about ways we can increase efficiency -- for example, CyberTran and electric cars.
If you transition to carbon-free sources of energy without adding efficiency, energy as percentage of total GDP increases -- carbon-free sources of energy still cost (on average) more than carbon-emitting ones. This leaves less for everything else (food, clothing, shelter, medical care).
Sufficient efficiency improvements let us phase in non-fossil-fuel sources at no net cost. If we increase GDP per unit of energy, we can pay more for that energy.
To paraphrase Amory Lovins: We don't burn fuel for its own sake; we want warm toes and cold beer.
In homes, for example, if efficient use of power can still run appliances and provide heat and light, we sacrifice nothing and save money. That money will pay for more expensive clean energy. The price per kWh will be higher, but the electricity bill will be the same.
Even at high prices, the potential of renewable energy is great -- more than we are likely to need this century. Still, efficiency would let us take advantage of costlier sources without economic damage.
Comments View as Flat
sunflower Posted 3:44 am
20 Nov 2006
Carbon-free energy is very rare.
Even a clothesline has the carbon content of manufacturing and product transportation. Firewood has the carbon pollution of a chain saw and the carbon content of the chain saw. Efficient lights and appliances contain fossil carbon. Photovoltaic cells have massive carbon content.
Using less energy is still using carbon.
We have a very long way to go before the consideration of more expensive "carbon-free sources of energy". As Amory maintains, "Follow the least-cost path" for energy. That path currently costs less than what we now spend on energy.
I am totally opposed to spending more on clean energy until after we spend less on clean energy -- several hundred billion dollars less on clean energy.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:42 am
20 Nov 2006
Efficiency can be a trap
Very good post and an antidote to the overemphasis on energy production.
Unfortunately, efficiency by itself is not a complete answer and can be a trap.
For example, let's say we build cars with better gas mileage. As the cost of fuel becomes less of a constraint, we could afford to drive more miles. Greater efficiency -> more usage. An increase in efficiency of 50% might result in only a 25% energy savings. In some cases, it might result in zero or negative energy savings.
The technical concept is called the Jevons Paradox or Rebound Effect. The discussions surrounding the Jevons Paradox can get surprisingly complicated, and it doesn't seem that a lot of research has been done on it. The extent of the rebound depends on many variables.
Nonetheless, I think it should be a part of the mental toolkit for environmentalists. Perhaps Gar could post something on it.
For example, I think it explains why we should get away from the idea of personal automobiles. Even with with anticipated advances in technology, the prospect of millions of new autos in China and India will swamp any energy savings from efficiency. In the meantime, the new highways will sabotage the more sustainable transport systems of walking, cycling and trains.(For more of this argument, see the online book Energy and Equity by the late Ivan Illyich.)
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:48 am
20 Nov 2006
We need to do both
Saving energy is cheaper than making energy only if we wait phase in more efficient technology as less efficient wears out. For instance, replacing perfectly good aluminum windows with energy efficiency low-e vinyl or fiber glass windows is very expensive per BTU saved. Putting in storm windows or window boxes or other types of window insulation will pay. And when the aluminum windows wear out (they only last 12 to 15 years and as far as I know, nobody puts aluminum windows in new homes) and you have to replace them anyway, then more energy efficient window pay, because you are only paying the price difference between inefficient and efficient windows. I agree we need to put MORE into efficiency than clean sources. But if you don't think we should be putting money into wind generators, or solar space and hot water heating should not be included along with efficiency packages in doing energy remodeling of existing homes, you are not thinking it through.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:46 am
20 Nov 2006
Efficiency incentives requires more than goodwill
Waiting for solutions to global warming is relative to the observer. I've been waiting a very long time.
Your points on window insulation, solar heat, and wind are most instructive. Window shutters are cheaper than solar heat, which is cheaper than windmills. On a per dollar basis, we can shut down more coal power plants with window shutters than we can with windmills. Huge savings opportunities in new construction are ignored while billions pour into flat plate pv. Energy metrics, economic metrics, and carbon metrics are ignored.
I do not agree with the Jevons Paradox. (Our passive solar house is double efficient, but that did not cause us to use more heat. Our Prius doubled our mileage efficiency, but we do not drive more miles.)
The U.S. consumer has too much power (money) and that has corrupted consumption (big houses and cars). Coal is almost free. We desperately need effective carbon taxes, starting at something like $0.30/lb $0.66/kg.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:49 am
20 Nov 2006
Rebound effect
- The rebound effect has been greatly exaggerated. For example, in California has improved efficiency in both cars and buildings compared to the rest of the nation. But auto consumption and energy consumption in buildings has continued to increase. So a huge rebound effect? Nope. Population has increased in California - and believe California energy efficiency is not the cause. There are many attractive things about the state. If you look at the studies of "passivhaus" dwellers in Europe, you will find that having very low energy bills, they do indeed keep their buildings more comfortable than the European average. But they still end up cutting net consumption by more than half.
- The rebound effect does not matter in terms of the importance of efficiency. (If it were significant it would matter in other ways.) To the extent that it happens, efficiency still saves money. We can do more with less (or perhaps less with less). We will never get so efficient we can do something with nothing. We are going to have to buy a certain amount of more expensive clean energy. With increased efficiency, we can keep energy as a percent of GDP constant or even lower than at present - regardless of whether we increase or decrease consumption.
In rich nations we can cut consumption in absolute amounts, because our GDP is already so high. Even with population growth and normal first world growth rates efficiency can cut our consumption in absolute numbers - though it will still leave substantial enough consumption we need to worry about clean supply. In many poor nations you really need a huge increase in GDP per person just to end poverty. (Yes they need democracy and some redistribution - things we could do with here as well.) They won't get that increase without more energy inputs no matter how efficient they get. But poor nations do have huge room for efficiency improvements. Not only do they have all the efficiency potential we have; they tend to produce much less GDP per unit of energy than rich nations do, which gives them that as potential gain. So poor nations need increased efficiency - even though they will still increase their energy use. Efficiency savings will pay for greener sources.Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:31 am
20 Nov 2006
"less clean energy"
>On a per dollar basis, we can shut down more coal power plants with window shutters than we can with windmills.
In terms of homes - it is cheaper to do everything at once than to have two separate trips. For new buildings this particularly true. There is no reason a new building should use significant amounts of fossil fuel for space heating. Efficiency combined with passive solar ought to be able to provide 99% of needs with an extra cycle from the water heater providing fossil fuel backup for occasional periods when extreme weather overwhelms design. In cool or in dry climate, passive cooling can replace air conditioning too. In hot humid climates, you still will need some air conditioning, but three quarters less. Similarly, there is no reason between 65% and 90% of water heat should not be provided by active solar - with gas powered demand water heaters providing backup. Now the latter is more expensive than putting the money into insulating someone else's building. But we ought to be able to do a basic climate efficiency upgrade to every home in the U .S. within three to five years. Going back after that and retrofitting solar into new homes built during that time would be even more expensive.
In short you have to consider opportunity cost. A new home is going to have a water heater. Low flow showerheads, efficient clothes and dishwashers, sink aerators ought to ensure that new home uses water as efficiently as possible. But that home will have some sort of water heater - better that it incorporate solar heating panels now, rather than just buy a 100% fossil fuel driven heater.
Similarly, existing homes can have insulation upgraded, but unlike new homes they will still have furnaces as well as water heaters. So when those furnaces and water heaters wear out, better they be replaced with solar supplemented models, rather than simply buying new all gas or electric ones. The cheapest time to install more efficient infrastructure is when less efficient infrastructure wears out. But it is also true that the cheapest time to replace fossil fuel power infrastructure with clean infrastructure is when the fossil fuel powered infrastructure wears out.
In short a new home should be both efficient, and powered by low cost solar power for space and hot water heating. When existing furnaces and hot water heaters need replacing , that is a good time to look into solar replacements (though such replacements need to include end use efficiency upgrades as well.)
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:11 am
20 Nov 2006
no trap
Bart, you said "In some cases, [efficiency] might result in zero or negative energy savings." But the Congressional Research Service report that you referenced says this has only happened in very special cases. It gives the examples of the invention of the steam engine that led to greater coal use, the invention of the electricity market around 1900, and the introduction of new technologies to developing countries. These are all situations where new paradigms of technology systems led to radical, complete reorganizations of energy usage patterns of entire societies.
The report goes on to list examples of actual efficiency rebound effects -- 0 to 40% for electricity, 10-30 percent for automobiles. In other words, for the types of policies and practices Gar is discussing, efficiency always reduces consumption.
The people who argue that mandated efficiency measures are useless as part of the greenhouse gas solution are the same academics, think tanks and industry front groups who deny that climate change is even a problem that should be dealt with.
The issue of combining policies for greater synergistic effects is important and should be discussed in more detail.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:41 am
20 Nov 2006
Beyond the global warming debate
The solutions to global warming are likely more complicated that the causes. In macro-economics achieving 50% carbon reduction with efficiency is doable with the many ideas floating around us. But the specifics for individuals are far less clear. Some new construction homes can be nearly 100% heated with passive solar architecture, many can not in cloudy climates. So what to do? District heating? Firewood? Corncobs? And what about existing homes? This is just one example of poor people living on credit with a dimming economic future unable to achieve future self reliance for home heat. Then there is hot water, transportation, industrial process heat, lights, motors, chemicals, farming... The more desperate our economy becomes due to energy and climate the less able we will be to rebuild and retrofit. While it may be more cost effective to replace or rebuild in the future as energy becomes more expensive, it will also become less affordable for the same reason.
Of course, the same did apply for rural electrification, natural gas pipelines, and paved roads. Individuals can not create infrastructure. Clean energy self reliance will require community-wide infrastructure supplying heat to existing and poorly designed buildings (with smart efficiency retrofits). The Swedes discovered that solar heat collectors on roofs and in yards would not solve their problems, so they built city-wide district heating systems and disconnected the solar collectors from the individual houses. Those systems have since been broaden to connect cities together with a country-wide system. The United States can import Swedish engineering and replace fossil fuel heat before that fossil fuel system is broken, before that fossil fuel system destroys our world.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:01 am
20 Nov 2006
Efficiency as enabler
I completely agree, Laurence. You've expressed my thoughts better than I could. Most of the rebounds that have been studied do follow that pattern.
I'm not arguing against improvements in efficiency, but instead saying that they are not enough. The problem is that they can promote the illusion that the present pattern of consumerism is sustainable.
We love to buy new gadgets, to tweak at the margins of an unsustainable way of life.
Instead, I think the big (and necessary) wins are in system changes - changes in transport, consumption, manufacture, culture. For example, I don't see any way to make widespread air travel sustainable. Projected efficiency improvements are trivial, in light of what is needed.
Another reason to think about the Jevons Paradox is that through public policy, we can damp its effects - for example, through a carbon tax.
What scares me sh*tless are those technological revolutions which increase energy use, like the coming of the personal auto to Asia.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:18 am
20 Nov 2006
large scale
>Instead, I think the big (and necessary) wins are in system changes - changes in transport, consumption, manufacture, culture. For example, I don't see any way to make widespread air travel sustainable. Projected efficiency improvements are trivial, in light of what is needed.
Well - absolutely. You are not going to get the improvements you need out of individual choices. Infrastructure transformation always requires huge government involvement - regulations, and either direct public works or massive subsidies.(For example, for 300 billion dollars (at most) we could upgrade the insulation and make other climate control upgrades in every home in the U.S. Of course there are limitations in how much labor and material for this is available all at once. Try to do it too quickly, and you will get sloppy installations, and higher prices due to increased demand. But you could certainly do that over a really short period - ten years at most, perhaps five or three depending on what can be economically sustained.)
Incidentally, sunflower, district solar heating typically provides 40% to 70% of demand. Individual systems can provide the same percent of demand at a lower cost. But you will still need a public works program to get them installed.
In general, individuals demand much faster paybacks then institutions. So even individual solar heaters require collective action.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:40 am
20 Nov 2006
Summer sun, winter heat.
Swedish district heating is powered with industrial waste heat, solar heat, and central heating plants that can burn anything. They have solar-only district heat experiments that supply 100% of required community heat and hot water using seasonal heat storage. Their large seasonal heat storage systems are 80% to 90% efficient.
The Swedes are at the same latitude as the Yukon Territory so the solar collectors only collect sunlight in the summer. The Swedes do not have backup heating system and totally rely on their district heating networks.
Santa Barbara does not need this, but Seattle and NYC could do this and be effectively solar heat self sufficient. China is exploring district cooling.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:00 am
20 Nov 2006
District heating
Can you describe a Swedish experiment that uses 100% solar (or nearly 100% solar). I mean give the name of the utility and project? All the ones I found made use of industrial waste heat or spare biomass.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:24 pm
20 Nov 2006
for the easy math link Google:
5. ground heat storage
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:55 pm
20 Nov 2006
While I strongly agree...
that efficiency gains will be great the fact is that we have about 2-4 billion more people who will soon be driving cars, having refrigerators, and using electronic gadgets- these people will not be denied and there is nothing short of major technological breakthroughs that will lead to aggregate CO2 reductions of 70-80%- efficiency will achieve a few percent globally and eatint less meat could get us a few more but people seem to want to eat more animals as they get richer so even that effect is unlikely. In short, join the technological optimist bandwagon or else you're going to be depressed....
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:18 pm
20 Nov 2006
Bet the farm
we can stop the dust bowl, because you have nothing left to lose.
Think what a hundred years brought forth... all that technology and knowledge. We can do more in fifty years. We have the tools.
We can do this.
Stay in school.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:26 pm
20 Nov 2006
Efficiency and optimism
Again you are missing the point. We have plenty of solar energy with current technology, and probably plenty of wind. It is just that capturing them is expensive, especially if you focus on electricity generation and storage.
If you can squeeze more GDP out of a unit of energy, then we can afford to pay for more expensive technology. I also strongly suspect we are going to see some breakthroughs. But even without those breakthroughs efficiency and renewable combined can supply a large increase in energy consumption.
You need to distinguish between efficiency and conservation. Conservation is turning down the thermostat. Efficiency is insulating the attic. (These are just tiny examples, illustrating a principle,not the whole enchilada).
If we can generate U.S. levels of per capita GDP, with one fifth per capita U.S. consumption of energy then we can afford to pay substantially more per unit for energy. So you can run refrigerators and electric trains for the currently poor nations on much more expensive solar energy - if it is used more cheaply. Even if overall energy use increases (and in poor nations it has to), they can still end up with a rich nation standard of living paying more for energy because they generate economic benefit with it. (Rich nations will also have to generate more GDP per unit of energy. But in their case, the result will be an absolute lowering of energy use.)
I'm not sure that poor nations will use as many automobiles per capita as in the rich nations, or even that rich nations will continue to be as auto dependent. the limit is not operating energy; electric cars can run at the equivalent of 200 MPG; even powered by 25 cents per kWh electricity, their running cost would be comparable to a current gasoline powered car. But will poor nations really have resources to build that many cars, or provide roads and parking for that many?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:16 pm
20 Nov 2006
Seasonal storage
Sunflower:
OK,most of your examples are in the 70% or lower range - when they don't represent component experiments. The Drake Landing does indeed supply 80% to 90% of space heating from the sun. [The development specifically states that it is the highest percent any district heating system has achieved from all solar energy.] However the cost of the district heating system is $61,500 per home.( (A 3.2 million dollar energy facility for 52 homes .) I'm pretty sure, this is not the least expensive way solar energy could have provided this percentage of home heating.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:42 pm
20 Nov 2006
Hmmm
"The price per kWh will be higher, but the electricity bill will be the same."
No the price per kwh will be less.
With fuel costs ever soaring (as with fossil and nuclear power), waste, pollution (think global climate disaster, moving whole cities as ocean levels rise and so forth), and contamination costs soaring (again, fossil and nuclear),and eventually subsidies becoming unsustainable as governments go bankrupt from oil wars...
...the artificially low cost of fossil and nuclear will rise exponentially.
Wind and solar with no pollution or fuel costs will remain stable, only rising with general inflation. Wind is 2 cents per kwh in large installations now.
With mass production solar will come down to similar levels. And electric cars are far less complicated and expensive to manufacture the gas guzzlers.
I see a lot of glossed over mistaken assumptions in your reasoning Gar.
Geothermal heat pumps use seasonal heat storage from the biggest heat storage system we have, the ground.
This big fear tactic of claiming it is impossible for technology to meet energy demands because billions more people will guzzle gas just like we do is bunk.
Buildings, vehicles, and appliances that use a fraction of the energy we now use are just waiting to be mass produced. Birth control we take for granted here will spread faster than gas guzzlers.
Making wrong headed arguments complicated and important sounding doesn't make them right. Jason has demonstrated that. Don't follow in his tracks Gar.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:58 pm
20 Nov 2006
Late night thoughts
Jason Scorsi: "or else you're going to be depressed...."
I wish I were as optimistic as you and Gar seem to be. I don't think renewables can provide enough energy for our current energy usage, let alone for the coming demand from the less developed countries. Renewables supply only a tiny fraction of current energy, and in the best of cases, it would take a long time for them to ramp up.
Efficiency and new technology could be helpful - if we ever got around to investing in them. But even then, I don't think their benefits are on the scale that is needed.
If we weren't beset by global warming and peak oil, then I think we'd have the freedom of action to pursue the renewable-technology vision.
As it is, I expect growing conflict and economic troubles as energy prices rise and global warming kicks in. These are the pressures that will push us to make the "paradigm shifts" to lower energy usage.
Better get your book published soon, Gar, so you can make a Believer out of me.
//BTW, is there an editor in the house who can fix the URL in sunflower's post of at 8:18 PM on 20 Nov 2006 ? I think that's what is distorting the page. Thanks! BA
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:18 pm
20 Nov 2006
Sunny Alberta
The Drake Landing is expensive at $61,000 per house, but experimental, a small system, and with expensive flat plate solar collectors.
Solar energy is free for 25 years after capitalization, $30,000 per house in chilly North Alberta to supply 90% of heat and hot water for 25 years is competitive with fossil fuels over the same time period. And this is in fuel rich frozen Alberta.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:40 am
22 Nov 2006
Drake landing competitive?
The 61,000 does not cover hot water. That is provided by separate hot water heaters that supply 60% of water heating needs. At 5% (I can't imagine fixed mortgages in Canada are less than that) a $61,000 heating system costs $4,328 dollars a year. If it represents 90% of needs, that means a $1,700 square foot home in Alberta would cost $4,800 to heat exclusive of hot water and cooking.
In the average Canadian home, a mid-efficiency oil furnace in a new townhome would have cost around 1,100 a year to run. OK Alberta is colder than the Canadian average. But this was an area where natural gas was available (much cheaper than oil0. So say it would cost $2,200 a year to head a 1,700 square foot alberta townhouse with a gas furnace. That still does not pay for the system.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure you could set up solar panels and natural zeolite storage for each individual home for a lot less that would provide 90% of heat and hot water. Come on, $61,000 for a plant to heat one home is absurd.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:45 am
22 Nov 2006
Seattle sun reins
I wrote that Drake was experimental and expensive, and that $30,000 per home (heat and hot water) would be cost effective over a 25 year time frame (maybe). The net present worth of energy supplied must be discounted by the rate of return from investment alternatives, and adjusted for the inflation of fossil fuel price escalation over that time frame (speculative). What is the cost of oil in 2026?
The Alberta gas lines cause domestic gas to float about the same as the export value of gas, which tracks closely with the world price of oil. Further, the solar resource at that latitude is scant in the winter and one cycle isolated thermal or chemical storage is cost prohibitive. Also, note that seasonal heat storage is not very efficient at this small scale causing increases in per home costs. Flat plate collectors operating at 80 C. are not efficient.
There is much data out there on the economics of seasonal heat storage, mostly from Sweden, which is far more mature than the Drake experiment. I only included Drake as a rare example of an American experience. I also heard on the radio that a seasonal heat storage solar experiment has been installed at a Redmond high school here in WA.
Biomass pellet stoves are a good alternative for isolated solar home seasonal heat storage.
I follow a strict economic regime and only use low-carbon energy systems less expensive than high-carbon energy alternatives. In Seattle the sun reins not during November rains. So my isolated solar home uses firewood in the winter.
Permalink