It’s usually
agreed that investing in energy saving measures is the cheapest energy option.
But when it comes to actual programmes,
energy saving is nearly always the cinderella option. Last year, after a
long delay, as part of its target to cut carbon emissions by 40%, the European
Commission (EC) suggested
an energy efficiency target of a 30% primary energy reduction by 2030, to
follow on from the current ‘20% by 2020’ target. That’s pretty limited. One perverse issue was that a higher level
of efficiency would undermine the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme
-the carbon price would fall as there would be less carbon to trade! Greenpeace
saw the 30% target as ‘gutless’. It had come up with its own 2030 targets - a
45% share of renewables, 40% energy savings (compared to 2005) and a 55% cut in
domestic CO2 emissions (compared to 1990). That, it said, would cut annual
imports of fossil fuels dramatically, with by 2030, gas imports cut by 35% and
oil imports 45%. As coal power plants were phased out in the 2030s, coal
imports would cease altogether before the end of the next decade. But it was
not to be, and we’re stuck with a proposed 30% overall reduction non-mandatory target
One
problem is that we are trying to hit a moving target- energy use in most
sectors keeps growing and if
energy use become cheaper, due to the development of more efficient end use
technologies, we may use even more of it. That's’ the so-called rebound effect. Cash savings from energy efficiency are
re-spent on extra energy based goods and services, so that overall energy use
may not fall significantly. Maybe 40% or more of the gains may be wiped out. http://e2e.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/workingpapers/WP013.pdf
One
area of growth is computing and telecoms and the networking systems that enable
it. In a new report the International Energy Agency (IEA)
says electricity demand of our increasingly digital economies is growing at an
alarming rate. While data centre energy demand has received much attention, of
greater cause for concern is the growing energy demand of billions of networked
devices such as smart phones, tablets and set-top boxes. In 2013, a relatively
small portion of the world's population relied on more than 14 billion of these
devices to stay connected. The IEA says that number could skyrocket to 500
billion by 2050, driving dramatic increases in both energy demand and wasted
energy.
Being connected
24/7 means these information and communication technology (ICT) devices draw
energy all the time, even when in standby mode. The IEA probes their hidden
energy costs. In 2013, such devices consumed 616 TWh of electricity, surpassing
the total electricity consumption of Canada. Studies show that for some
devices, such as game consoles, up to 80% of the energy consumption is used
just to maintain a network connection. Implementing best available
technologies could it says reduce the energy demand of network-enabled devices
by up to 65%. But in the absence of strong market drivers to optimise the
energy performance of these devices, policy intervention is needed. Building on
its experience in setting international policy for standby energy consumption
of stand-alone devices, the IEA tries to tackle the much bigger challenge of
network standby. But it’s tough: the IEA says there is a need for international
co-operation across all parts of the ICT value chain. www.iea.org/etp/networkstandby
Another
big area is of course energy use in buildings- for heating lighting and increasingly cooling. There are houses around which can
reduce energy losses and use dramatically via proper attention to insulation
and building envelop design. See the IEAs recent report: www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapEnergyEfficientBuildingEnvelopes.pdf
It's
a booming field with the emphasis often on new build, but there are also
retrofit options for existing and refurbished buildings: http://greenbuildingmagazine.co.uk/
|
However
these technologies cost money and it’s not always easy to assess the real world
cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures. Indeed some say that in some
situations it’s more expensive to rehab an old building with insulation
upgrades than to link it to a district heating (DH) network fed by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant.
It certainly can get pricey for high levels of energy saving, especially for
hard to access high rises, but also, some say, for old terraced houses. More
maybe than from CHP/DH, if available, since that has low marginal costs. A
SETIS JRC study claims that CHP/DH has a lower capital cost/tonne CO2 saved
than renovation. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/JRCDistrictheatingandcooling.pdf
The
superinsulation and Passivhaus lobby however thinks otherwise. And there is
certainly a strong case for this approach: http://energytransition.de/2014/05/the-winner-is-passive-house/
But the debate over who
is right and what to do will run and run! It is true that CHP/DH heat is in
effect free (it’s energy that would otherwise be wasted), but the plants and
the pipes are not, and take time to install, whereas insulation is fast. Though
fully airtight buildings can have air quality/damp problems. And despite years
of monitoring, evidently we actually don't know enough about real house
performance even in simply physical terms: www.bpie.eu/eu_buildings_under_microscope.html#.U0gd2bw2ZO0
There is also the
problem that actual energy use depends on resident’s behaviour and lifestyle
–e.g. in the worst case, they may just open doors or windows when it gets too
hot! Or plug in fires when it gets too cold. And we
have only just got started on smart metering and similar approaches which might
change behavioural patterns. While
for good or ill, full-on domestic energy or carbon rationing/trading approaches
are long off. So it’s perhaps not surprising then that technical approaches are
favoured.
Certainly
gains can be made. In the UK DECC says the costs of household appliance
use has
fallen by up to a half in some cases, due to the various device efficiency
upgrades/standards. www.gov.uk/government/news/dramatic-fall-in-cost-of-running-household-goods And CHP/DH projects are at
last getting going in the UK,
e.g see www.cospp.com/articles/2014/04/2-6m-central-london-district-heating-contract-awarded.html
But there is also a need to build houses
properly. Here’s a good
practice low energy
housing guide: www.gbpn.org/reports/best-practice-policies-low-carbon-energy-buildings-based-scenario-analysis. And
some rehab/ retrofit examples: www.lowenergybuildings.org.uk/projectbrowser.php?fmd=0 And TSB’s
analysis: www.innovateuk.org/retrofit-analysis
However
there is clearly still a long way to go in this sector. It’s similar in other sectors, for
example industry, although the clear economic benefits of saving energy have meant
that action has been taken, especially by companies involved with energy
intensive production like aluminium smelting and steel making. Savings of up to 40% are deemed
possible in some sectors, maybe more long term. There is all to play for. www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/edr/edr.aspx
Germany
and France currently have targets of cutting overall energy use by 50% by 2050,
which means all of the above plus serious attention to transport – the hardest nut to crack of
all. But that deserves a post of its own.
Can it all be done- 50% cuts and even beyond? Probably not without behavioural changes. But that too is
another story!
