Some climate strategies are sexy, and energy efficiency is certainly not one of them. Despite this, I am thoroughly convinced that a concentrated push for global energy efficiency is the most productive direction for the climate movement. The opportunities are truly massive: energy efficiency measures could halve US projected energy consumption in 2030. Globally, energy efficiency improvements could profitably reduce 2020 energy consumption by 1/4. And because increased energy efficiency is primarily blocked by political, not technical, barriers, activists could achieve huge results if they unified around this goal.
For now I just want to sketch out some of the potential of energy efficiency, and suggest policy directions to be explored. Further analysis should explore how the low cost of energy efficiency measures could be used to counter republican calls for nuclear and drill,drill,drilling.
Forget what the fossil-fuel industry has told you, energy saved through efficiency measures is cheaper than energy generated.
Resources For the Future has found that energy efficiency programs administered by utilities and the federal government in the year 2000 cost between 3.4 and 3.8 cents/Kwh saved. The average retail rate during this time was 7.4 cents/KWh.
Recycled Energy Development (RED) worked with a carbon steel manufacturer in Indiana to recycle the heat exhaust from their coke ovens. The manufacturer now saves $40 million/year in energy costs, and—as of a few years ago at least–prevented more C02 emissions than all grid-connected solar PV worldwide.
These figures are not aberrations.
Energy efficiency improvements tend to be cheaper than energy generation because they have no associated costs for transmission, distribution, and line-loss.
Forget what those trying to sell energy—both dirty and clean—have told you, the potential for energy efficiency is huge.
If the US took advantage of all industrial waste heat and combined heat and power opportunities, it could profitably supply 200GW of US base load power and reduce domestic GHG emissions by 40% (See “Beyond Coal”)
The US Department of Energy has already demonstrated homes that produce more energy than they use, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is currently deploying large residential developments that use 40% less energy than industry standards. Because buildings represent about 40% of US energy demand, significantly increasing their efficiency could massively reduce our energy use.
There are even larger opportunities for energy efficiency improvement in the developing world. China builds about 2 coal-fired power plants a week, however practices exist that could render many of these plants unnecessary. The Beijing Thermal Energy Company helps industrial firms reduce their energy consumption by as much as 60%, and has prevented the combustion of 1.1 million tons of coal.
The avenues for action are contested and difficult, but clear.
1. Know the facts! In the developed world, increasing energy efficiency is cheaper than building power plants and is a substitute for new energy generation. In the developing world, many more coal plants are going to be built, but increased efficiency can reduce the number of plants it takes to provide for robust economic growth. The International Energy Agency has a great paper on the potential of energy efficiency, which rebuts many common criticisms of it.
2. Fight for better regulation of public utilities! Utility incentives need to be in the interest of energy efficiency, not energy sales. Some US states have “decoupled” electricity sales from profit so that utilities don’t have an incentive to sell more power. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) has even created incentives for the utilities to increase the energy efficiency of their customers’ use. However, these “carrot” efforts need to be expanded and supplemented with a stick. State PUCs should punish those utilities that don’t work to reduce the energy consumption of their customers. The CPUC did this in the 80s when it was enforcing regulations that came out of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, and it needs to bring this practice back.
3. Advocate for aggressive US dissemination of energy efficiency best practices around the globe! As a developed economy, the US has already gone through the stage of dirty development that China is going through now. There is no reason to make China and India re-learn all the lessons that we have about energy efficiency and clean technologies. This isn’t just an issue of being a good neighbor: if China doesn’t build the most efficient coal plants it can, everyone will lose from climate change.
This is a fight for the streets and the legislative halls that will require massive mobilization and coherent argument. We are allied with the facts, as well as the interests of consumers and future generations. So contact your friends, your representatives, and drop me a line too. Let’s start the energy efficiency revolution!
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Great post! I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development (RED), the company you mention and link to above. You’ve got the numbers pretty close, but here’s what we’ve been using: studies done for the EPA and DoE suggest that recycling energy (usually waste heat) at manufacturing facilities would provide 40% of our nation’s electricity while reducing GHG emissions by about 20%. And get this: the generation of power and heat now accounts for over two-thirds of our nation’s greenhouse emissions. It’s not cars, which seems to be the only things we hear about. That means the only way we can really make a dent in global warming is by making power and heat more efficiently. And that’s exactly what energy recycling (also called cogeneration or combined heat & power) does. In fact, recycling energy just for manufacturers (we could do it at many other places too) would reduce GHG by just as much as if we took every single passenger vehicle off the road. Pretty stunning.
Hey,
Thanks for the comment. Am I speaking to Sean Casten? If so then hey Sean, this is Chris Knight with Breakthrough who you were chatting with the other week.
Regardless, those numbers you reference are stunning. The 20%/40% statistics are still shocking every time I see them. What studies were those from again?
And to be a little self-interested, have you thought of funding young persons who would advocate for your cause?
Of course energy efficiency would make a huge difference in the US!
Carbon emissions per capita in the US are huge, here in the UK they are about half of that of the average US citizen.
So what does this mean?
The US can make a big difference by consuming less and becoming more efficient. Other countries would struggle to make similar cuts because they already have higher efficiency standards due to higher energy costs.
It is a well known fact in the UK that insulating the home to a higher standard is not only cheap but also has a big impact on a families carbon footprint when compared to spending a lot of money on reneweables.
But the fact is that micro-renewables are an unavoidable next stage for home improvements after cheaper options such as insulation.
Oh and China is the bad guy???
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/cmu-cmr072908.php
Whose businesses exported manufacturing to China?
Companies like Apple moved manufacturing to China to cut costs and to compete with other businesses that also moved manufacturing to China.
And we demanded that prices remained low or were made lower.
Hey Gooseberry,
My question is, where are the international examples of where policies promoting efficiency have had a major impact on per capita energy use? I need to find concrete case studies where it wasn’t just high energy prices, but standards and/or legislation that have had major effects on energy intensity. Or else people will argue that it was expense energy, i.e. Japan and California, that caused energy intensity to be so much lower.
Hey Chris. This is not Sean Casten. But I’d be happy to show him your reply.
Regarding the sourcing…a 2007 study done by Bruce Hedman suggested 135K mw could come from industrial CHP (small power plants located on site at manufacturing facilities). A Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory study in 2005 found 64K mw that could come from waste heat recovery (recycling heat that’s already being wasted by manufacturers). Combine those numbers and that’s about 200K mw that could come from energy recycling technology (which we think is a conservative estimate). From those studies, you glean the numbers of 40% of the nation’s electricity, 20% of total power, and 20% in GHG reductions.
Last thing, Chris, because I just read your previous comment to someone else. The best example is Denmark. Tom Friedman actually just wrote about this in the New York Times. Denmark made a policy decision to be uber-efficient, and it’s paying off. It actually gets over half its power from cogeneration. More can be found in the Friedman piece.
Hey Miggs,
Yeah, I read that Friedman article. Denmark is great, but they also have real electricity rates that are 3X average US levels, or so I’ve read. I know promoting energy efficiency is many forms is going to be a major part of the solution to the energy challenge, but have lately been dismayed at the relationship between energy intensity (Btu/GDP) and retail electricity rates. The inter- and intranational correlation is very strong!!!! Where is the best evidence you know of showing a causal relationship between efficiency policies and reduced energy use. If I cannot prove this to myself, then I’m gonna have a hell of a time making the case to others that a carbon tax isn’t the true solution to climate change.
I think promoting energy efficiency in the UK has helped in the UK to keep a grips on domestic and some commercial emissions. It has created awareness and a drip by drip education of the issues.
The UK has a long history of using public information ‘films’ or adverts that are used in campaigning. I think the efficiency issue is always tied into economics when it comes to efficiency choices. But i know a lot of people i know are absolutely hopeless at making economic long term judgements, so often they will choose a path that appears cheap initially but turns out to be expensive and environmentally damaging in the long term.
Here in the UK and i think across the EU all ‘white goods’ such as washing machines, cookers etc have an energy rating and most people usually buy at least B rated goods. I think the highest rating now is A++. I assume as things get more efficient than the scale will be altered.
The point i would make is that making goods more efficient is unlikely to reduce emissions without other radical changes, that includes actual reductions in consumption of goods.
eg. 1 TV per home instead of 3 or 4.