Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Energy End-Use Efficiency
Physics of Sustainable EnergyU. C. BerkeleyMarch 1, 2008
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission
(916) [email protected]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
2
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the United States (1949 - 2005) and France (1980 - 2003)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
tho
usa
nd
Btu
/$ (
in $
200
0)
If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year
Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)
France
12% of GDP = $1.7 Trillion
7% of GDP =$1.0 Trillion
3
How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency
• Some examples of estimated savings in 2006 based on 1974 efficiencies minus 2006 efficiencies
• Beginning in 2007 in California, reduction of “vampire” or stand-by losses– This will save $10 Billion when finally implemented, nation-wide
• Out of a total $700 Billion, a crude summary is that 1/3 is structural, 1/3 is from transportation, and 1/3 from buildings and industry.
Billion $
Space Heating 40Air Conditioning 30Refrigerators 15Fluorescent Tube Lamps 5
Compact Fluorescent Lamps 5Total 95
Two Energy Agencies in California
• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) was formed in 1890 to regulate natural monopolies, like railroads, and later electric and gas utilities.• The California Energy Commission (CEC) was formed in 1974 to regulate the environmental side of energy production and use. • Now the two agencies work very closely, particularly to delay climate change. • The Investor-Owned Utilities, under the guidance of the CPUC, spend “Public Goods Charge” money (rate-payer money) to do everything they can that is cost effective to beat existing standards. • The Publicly-Owned utilities (20% of the power), under loose supervision by the CEC, do the same.
5
California’s Energy Action Plan
• California’s Energy Agencies first adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2003. Central to this is the State’s preferred “Loading Order” for resource expansion.
• 1. Energy efficiency and Demand Response• 2. Renewable Generation,• 3. Increased development of affordable & reliable conventional
generation• 4. Transmission expansion to support all of California’s energy
goals.
• The Energy Action Plan has been updated since 2003 and provides overall policy direction to the various state agencies involved with the energy sectors
6
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,0001
96
0
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
United States
California
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $1975 2005 % change
US GDP/capita 16,241 31,442 94%Cal GSP/capita 18,760 33,536 79%
2005 Differences = 5,300kWh/yr = $165/capita
7
How US and California differ by Sector
For a thorough discussion of differences, see Deconstructing the ‘Rosenfeld Curve’, Anant Sudarshan and James Sweeney, Stanford University, to be published in the Energy Journal (2008)
US and Cal compared in 2005 Per Capita Electricity ConsumptionUnited States (kWh/person)
California (kWh/person)
Difference (kWh/person) % of Difference
Residential 4,586 2,369 2,216 42%Commercial 4,302 3,253 1,048 20%Industrial 3,438 1,391 2,048 39%Total 12,326 7,013 5,312 100%
8
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,0001
97
5
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
GW
h/y
ear
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
9
Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances
Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE,
in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org
75%60%
25%20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Ind
ex (
1972
= 1
00)
Effective Dates of National Standards
=
Effective Dates of State Standards
=
Refrigerators
Central A/C
Gas Furnaces
SEER = 13
10
Air Conditioning Energy Use in Single Family Homes in PG&E The effect of AC Standards (SEER) and Title 24 standards
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
An
nu
al
kW
h p
er n
ew
ho
me
fo
r ce
ntr
al
AC
If only increases in house size -- no efficiency gains
Change due to SEER improvements
SEER plus Title 24
100%
50%
25%
11
United States Refrigerator Use, repeated, to compare with
Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
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
Ave
rage
En
ergy
Use
per
Un
it S
old
(k
Wh
per
yea
r)
Refrigerator Use per Unit
1978 Cal Standard
1990 Federal Standard
1987 Cal Standard
1980 Cal Standard
1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal
Standard
Estimated Standby Power (per house)
2007 STD.
120
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Lumens
Lu
me
ns
/Wa
tt
Improving and Phasing-Out Incandescent Lamps
CFLs (and LEDs ?) – Federal (Harmon) Tier 2 [2020], allows Cal [2018]
Nevada [2008]
Federal (Harmon) Tier 1 [2012 - 2014]
California Tier 2 [Jan 2008]
Best Fit to Existing Lamps
13
California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,00019
76
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Mill
ions
of
$200
2 pe
r Y
ear
Forecast
Profits decoupled from sales
Performance Incentives
Market Restructuring
Crisis
IRP2% of 2004
IOU Electric Revenues
Public Goods Charges
14
Cool Urban Surfaces and Global Warming
Hashem AkbariHeat Island Group
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Tel: 510-486-4287Email: [email protected]
http:HeatIsland.LBL.gov
International Workshop on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Islands August 3 - 4, 2006; Tokyo, Japan
15
Temperature Rise of Various Materials in Sunlight
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tem
pera
ture
Ris
e (
°C)Galvanized
Steel
IR-Refl. Black
Bla
ck P
ain
t
Gre
en
Asp
halt
S
hin
gle
Red
Cla
y
Tile
Lt.
Red
P
ain
t
Lt.
Gre
en
P
ain
t
Wh
ite A
sp
halt
Sh
ing
leW
hit
e A
sp
halt
Sh
ing
le
Al R
oof
Coat.
Op
tical W
hit
eO
pti
cal W
hit
e
Wh
ite P
ain
tW
hit
e P
ain
t
Wh
ite C
em
en
t C
oat.
Wh
ite C
em
en
t C
oat.
Solar Absorptance
16
Direct and Indirect Effects of Light-Colored Surfaces
•Direct Effect- Light-colored roofs reflect solar radiation, reduce air-
conditioning use
•Indirect Effect- Light-colored surfaces in a neighborhood alter surface
energy balance; result in lower ambient temperature
17
and in Santorini, Greece
18
Cool Roof Technologies
flat, white
pitched, white
pitched, cool & colored
Old New
19
Cool Colors Reflect Invisible Near-Infrared Sunlight
20
Cool and Standard Color-Matched Concrete Tiles
• Can increase solar reflectance by up to 0.5
• Gain greatest for dark colors
cool
standard
∆R=0.37 ∆R=0.29∆R=0.15∆R=0.23∆R=0.26 ∆R=0.29
CourtesyAmericanRooftile
Coatings
21
Cool Roofs Standards
• Building standards for reflective roofs
- American Society of Heating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE): New commercial and residential buildings
- Many states: California, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, …• Air quality standards (qualitative but not quantitative credit)
- South Coast AQMD
- S.F. Bay Area AQMD
- EPA’s SIP (State Implementation Plans)
22
From Cool Color Roofs to Cool Color Cars
• Toyota experiment (surface temperature 18F cooler)
• Ford, BMW, and Fiat are also working on the technology
23
Cool Surfaces also Cool the Globe
• Cool roof standards are designed to reduce a/c demand, save money, and save emissions. In Los Angeles they will eventually save ~$100,000 per hour.
• But higher albedo surfaces (roofs and pavements) directly cool the world (0.01 K) quite independent of avoided CO2. So we
discuss the effect of cool surfaces for tropical, and temperate cities, and show that
• Each 25m2 (250 square feet) of cooler roof offsets 1 ton of CO2
each 35 m2 (350 square feet) of cooler pavement offsets another ton.
24
Dense Urban Areas are 1% of Land
• Area of the Earth = 511x1012 m2
• Land Area (29%) = 148x1012 m2 [1]• Area of the 100 largest cities = 0.38x1012 m2 = 0.26% of Land
Area for 670 M people• Assuming 3B live in urban area, urban areas = [3000/670] x
0.26% = 1.2% of land• But smaller cities have lower population density, hence, urban
areas = 2% of land• Dense, developed urban areas only 1% of land [2]• 1% of land is 1.5 x 10^12 m2 = area of a square of side s = 1200 km or 750 miles on a side. Roughly the area of the
remaining Greenland Ice Cap (see next slide)
25
26
Cooler cities as a mirror
• Mirror Area = 1.5x1012 m2 [5] *(0.1/0.7)[δ albedo of cities/ δ albedo of mirror]= 0.2x1012 m2 = 200,000 km2 {This is equivalent to an square of 460 km on the side}= 10% of Greenland = 50% of California
27
Equivalent Value of Avoided CO2
• CO2 currently trade at ~$25/ton
• 10Gt worth $250 billion, for changing albedo of roofs and paved surface
• Cooler roofs alone worth $125B
• Cooler roofs also save air conditioning (and provide comfort) worth ten times more
• Let developed countries offer $1 million per large city in a developing country, to trigger a cool roof/pavement program in that city
28
California cool urban surfaces and AB32
Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
How Much at What Cost?
Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
How Much at What Cost?
US Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative
December 12, 2007
30
31
“Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?” McKinsey&Company, 2007
$90/t
-$90/t
Roughly speaking, the curve can be divided into Savings and Costs triangles each with areas that are ~1/2 x $90/t x 1 Gt.
Therefore each represent ~$45 B/year
Savings/yr
Costs/yr
32
U.S. GHG emissions in 2030 are projected to exceed proposed targets being considered in Congress by a wide margin
•2005 emissions
•Expected growth
•Reference case
*Based on bills introduced in Congress that address climate change and/or GHG emissions on an economy-wide basis and have quantifiable targets
Source:U.S. EIA Annual Energy Outlook (2007) “Reference case," U.S. EPA; Pew Center On Global Climate Change; McKinsey analysis
Projected GHG emissions
Gigatons CO2e
•2.5
Range of proposed reductions*
•1990 level •1990 level•-27%
•2030
•-3.5
•-5.2
4.5
6.2
9.7
7.2
33Source: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2007-09-14_workshop/final_report/2007-10-15_MACROECONOMIC_ANALYSIS.PDF
California Climate Strategy Supply Curve
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Tons of Reductions of CO2 in 2020 from a Baseline of 600 MtCO2 eq.
Do
llar
s p
er t
on
of
CO
2 eq
.
Appliance Efficiency Stds. Standards
Pavely (motor vehicles)
EE Programs
2020 Emissions Reduction Target
40 80 120 160 174
HFC Reductions
Simple Payback in years
1
2
8
Coal Reduction Policy
4
6
(As of October, 2007)
34
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/A_cost_curve_for_greenhouse_gas_reduction_abstract
McKinsey Quarterly
With a Worldwide Perspective
35
8% 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58%
36
Two Technologies for the Developing World to Improve Quality of Life but also delay Climate Change.
• Ultraviolet Water Purification avoids the need to boil water• LED flashlights and task lights, with rechargeable batteries, avoid
the need to burn kerosene (in lanterns) or candles or wood.
37
UV Water Purification for Health, but avoids boiling
Typical interior layout of the WaterHealth
Community System Installation
in KothapetaAndhra Pradesh,
India.
Source: Dr. Ashok Gadgil, LBNL
39
How to Save 40 MtCO2 eq. per year
1. UV Water Purification– An alternative to boiling• Worldwide 3 Billion people have access only to polluted water• 1.2 Billion boil this; the remainder must use polluted water
– Many get sick and children die• Boiling water emits an avoidable 20 MtCO2 eq. per year
– Primarily fire wood is used for this– With heat content = 2 million barrels of petroleum per day
2. Switching from Kerosene Lighting to LED rechargeable Flashlights• 2 Billion people off of electricity grid use kerosene lanterns• Rechargeable LED flashlights now cost less than $20• Worldwide this will avoid another 20 MtCO2 eq. per yearThe total of 40 MtCO2 eq. per year = 1% of reduction target in the
building sector, as estimated earlier in talk by “Design To Win”
40
Switching from Kerosene Lanterns to Rechargeable LEDs
Evan MillsEnergy Analysis Department
Lawrence Berkeley National [email protected]
+ 1 510 486-6784http://www.ifc.org/led
Commercially available LEDs • 0.1 to 1 watt • Lumens/watts > 100 better than kerosene lanterns• Much better directionality adds to this advantage
Indigo
Monk eyhead
Standard Torch
Crank
Glorb XB
Cyberlux
Yage
Mightylight
Tikka XP
CUPP
Thrive (right)
BoGo
Impulse
Casibao
Rechargeable LED Flashlights and Task Lights Already Available
