We’re crazy to ignore slowing efficiency!
Posted by phenshaw on December 17th, 2007It’s hard to understand how natural systems grow, become so complex and work so very well with so many independent parts, so discussing how they approach limits is hard too. We can measure and draw some very ordinary conclusions though. All the world’s economies are approaching limits of energy use efficiency. The efficiency measures are clearly following consistent long term decay curves directly exposing relative resource exhaustion. We’re applying greater and greater effort and making less and less progress, making it ever harder to produce more for less.
There’s wonderful new science to explore behind it, providing both good new kinds of choices as well as new challenges. The rub is that all the climate models, and the sustainable development models, contain the complete opposite assumption, that efficiency gains will get easier and easier over time. The authors even seem committed to never questioning that assumption. This is completely disastrous. That the subject is apparently taboo too, explains some of how it happens we didn’t notice. I can make it presentable for almost any audience but need someone to show interest to know who to write for,… and that’s not happening. The problem’s legit, and proves that the general idea for solving the impact growth problem conceived in the 70’s is deeply flawed. We’re still following it and not wondering why it’s not working. pfh
Says:
Hi,
The “law of diminishing returns” applies to efficiency also.
I agree that the potential benefits from conservation measures are typically overstated. I have seen projections of huge energy savings from ever more efficient home heating and better insulation. Not considered was that during the “energy crisis” of the 1970’s, energy efficiency standards were increased and existing housing had added insulation, weather stripping, and new windows with double panes and Argon gas between the panes, etc. Most housing has already achieved most of the benefits from added insulation, because indoor air quality suffers at some level of insulation: less exchange with outside air results in the build up of pollutants inside, from smoking, cooking, formaldehyde emissions from glue, etc., and even breathing. We can’t live in perfectly insulated air tight houses.
Gas furnaces with 50-60% efficiency were replaced by newer 90% efficient ones. Sure, now 96% efficient ones are available, but the gain in going from 60 to 90 is a lot bigger than going on to 96%.
Improved gas mileage in cars is offset by both more cars and more miles driven per car.
Compact florescent light bulbs are touted as huge energy savers based on their lower energy consumption per light emitted. But the story is more complicated. Yes, during times when neither heat or air conditioning is used, that is the case. And in hot weather with AC on, the gains from them are even larger: the added heat from an incandescent bulb makes the AC draw even more energy to maintain the same temperature. But in a northern climate, the gains from the florescent light bulbs are reduced. The “waste heat” they release warms the house and reduces the energy used to maintain temperature. If the house were heated by electricity, there would be no benefit from replacing incandescent bulbs with florescent during the heating season. I estimate that in my Wisconsin house, the AC is run about 1 to 2 weeks a year (bonus time for the florescent bulbs), about 5-6 months of neither heat or AC (expected gain for the florescent bulbs) and 5-6 months of cold enough weather that the incandescent bulbs produce no “waste heat”.
I close with a story I heard some years ago from (I think) New Jersey. The power company wanted to delay construction of a new coal plant for a few years, and new more efficient refrigerators had just come on the market. Someone calculated that if just X% of their customers switched to the new refrigerators, the improved efficiency would reduce power demand enough to delay the need for the new power plant. But the new refrigerators were more expensive than the less efficient ones. But they estimated that given a $Y cash rebate, enough people would buy
the new one instead. So they offered the rebate, and as predicted, enough new refrigerators were sold. But the expected reduction in demand did not materialize, instead demand for electricity actually increased faster than projected.
To determine why, they conducted a survey of some of the rebated customers. The reason became obvious: people who bought a new efficient refrigerator then moved their old one to the basement or garage and continued to use it as their second one.
# December 19th, 2007 8:46 pmSays:
Jim,
Yes, those are just the questions the energy planners don’t seem to be asking. I hadn’t thought of the ‘cogeneration loss’ from switching incandescent bulbs to more efficient lighting. Thanks.
Perhaps the best example you offer is of replacing 60% efficient gas furnaces with 90% and then 96% efficient ones. Maybe there’s still another 1% to gain as you approach the hard limit. The sequence of waste reduction gains is then 30/40, 6/10 & 1/4 or .75%, 60% & 25%. Because you can’t get to zero it always tapers off. That’s what one naturally expects when any system is approaching its limits. It seems to be a reliable indicator of system maturation, so I’m wondering why people don’t use it. In the case of furnaces its the thermodynamic limits of the technology, but the principle applies widely beyond thermodynamics to nearly all forms of natural limits. Sometimes it’s that increasing complexity causes waste in trying to reduce waste. The technology life-cycle ending with limits of development and maturation, for example, are fairly well studied.
That the world economy’s energy efficiency trend, for example, has been following a decay curve for a long time (1,2). The primary reference data for total building energy efficiency (CBECS data)(that I’ve seen but don’t have a link to) shows the same thing. Commercial electricity use/sf is even still strongly and steadily inceasing(3). Despite that data, the economic & climate models, built to suite economic hopes, all confidently project that impacts of growth can all be compensated for (i.e. unbounded economic efficiency gains)(3,4). Some think that’s realistic, but the good comprehensive data shows the complete opposite. I’ve been watching this and studying the alternates for years and wondering why I wasn’t able to find people to discuss it with. I guess it’s the concepts or something…
1) http://www.synapse9.com/design/DOE-World%20energy%20IntensityTrend.jpg
- overlaying two curves from (2)
2) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter1.html
- 20 yr global energy & economy study published in 2004
3) http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-16820.pdf
- DOE funded 40 yr study to 2006 of commercial electricity intensity/sf
4) http://www.synapse9.com/design/ClimateLags.pdf
- figure from a DEFRA study showing the long term assumptions of the IPCC models with zero impact from continued growth.
5) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41347.pdf
- the Mar 2007 DOE comprehensive US alternative energy plan showing as on p8 unbounded benefit growth in all sector efficiencies (as well as alternate energy sources).
..DOE sci & tech library fyt ..
# December 20th, 2007 10:58 amhttp://www.osti.gov/bridge/index.jsp
Says:
Hi,
I started reading your reference #3, but wonder if I am understanding it. It compares commercial energy use as measure by a survey with actual data from the energy providers? But isn’t it clear that the survey is just an estimate while the providers know what they provided (and charged for)?
And both show energy use/area increasing (Figure S1). Does that mean decreasing effeciency?
At any rate historic data on building energy effeciency cannot be projected into the future. A limit is reached as insulation approaches “perfection” and the building becomes air tight and people inside convert the O2 to CO2.
Building in the past were far from that limit, but today many are approaching it.
But building can become more “energy effecient” by other means: more passive solar, PV solar, or geothermal are some ways they can use more energy but draw less from the power grid and natural gas supplier. And of course there are several ways to generate electricity without emitting CO2, which is the real goal, isn’t it?
# December 21st, 2007 10:41 amSays:
Jim,
Good questions, I can only guess ref (3) is just comparing what they consider the better sources of data to see if they are consistent. The survey data seems much more continuous and varying much more smoothly, and the CBECS data much more spotty. They conclude that with an justified adjustment they are measuring the same thing, and I included it because the CBECS data shows energy efficiency for all American building types improving slower and slower. I don’t yet have a graph of that to show but saw it in a presentation.
That all the measures in (3) show energy/sf increasing does indeed show increasing energy use, but that is just electricity, and doesn’t show the ‘value added’ for it. That means there are two parts missing from the question whether the trend fits with the main question of whether energy efficiency/$ is increasing faster than economic product is. With residential uses you can guess that the use of the building/sf remains the same, but with industry I don’t think you can. It’s just a guess on my part that the increased electric/sf indicates an increase in ‘value added’/sf (i.e. econ growth within the same footprint)too, and maybe a shift away from other fuels that are less efficient.
Measuring the whole effect,.. of producing more in the same area using more electricity.. From (1 & 2) the whole economy is improving btu/$ efficiency slower and slower.
I disagree that you can’t project a regular process clearly approaching an asymptote. That one of the easiest things to project. If you predict something other than what is evidently the consistent behavior of a large complex system you need to offer a theory of system change that is more credible than the evidence of continuing regular behavior.
Your third question is the important one. Does improving efficiency reduce impacts on the earth? The answer is clearly yes IF you’re talking about stable things, but the economy is a multiplying thing.
Say you only want to change yourself and not the world. Even for the local case of a sophisticated climate design home with many features to reduce it’s local impact, it still probably costs more money to build and run. That unfortunately translates into increased impact on the earth through the services throughout the world that contributed to building and running it, at 8000btu/$. That’s the big one we keep skipping over, for some reason, that the energy consumption of delivering our goods and services needs to be counted. From my comparison of several high quality whole building energy footprint metrics, the unaccountable fraction contributing to what we buy is roughly a factor of 10 larger than the accountable part of your fuels and other local consumption that you have records of. Even the sophisticated life-cycle impact models appear to be off by that same factor of 10 or more for the same conceptual error reason. … it’s a bummer!, but I still think we should deal with it.
Phil
# December 21st, 2007 12:06 pmSays:
Hi,
I realize from your reply that I made a mis-statement. Above where I said:
“At any rate historic data on building energy effeciency cannot be projected into the future.” I should have added “in a linear way.”
I agree that it can be accurately projected using the proper asymptopic curve. Many people just assume that projection means “linear”.
Your point that the increasing energy/area shown in Figure S1 probably correlates with greater GDP produced per unit area is likely correct. But the problem is that CO2 is “absolute”, correcting it for greater wealth creation does not reduce its impact on climate.
# December 22nd, 2007 12:44 pmSays:
Phillip, I’m intrigued by your ideas. They make a lot of sense and I believe they may have a place in the documentary I’m producing. We’d need to keep it brief and simple, but to have an expert interview on the subject would be a plus. And any fan of Kenneth Boulding is a friend of mine. I’d like to explore the idea with you.
Dave Gardner
# December 28th, 2007 11:09 amProducer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com