|
Post by Barry Brook on Jul 13, 2012 18:51:18 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/energy-efficiency-peak-demandThis post summarises the findings of a paper just published in the peer-reviewed journal Sustainability by Graham Palmer, entitled “ Does energy efficiency reduce emissions and peak demand? A case study of 50 years of space heating in Melbourne“. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Jul 13, 2012 20:45:50 GMT 9.5
One remark one could make is that a switch to a less carbon intensive fuel has had a real effect on CO2 emissions. In fact, I will go as far as writing that total energy used has little importance so long it's from a carbon-free source.
Gains in efficiency help making new systems more affordable. It's a blessing: without that we may still be using coal for heating. It's a curse: as living standards increase we use more and more energy.
I broadly agree with the conclusion of the article: in electricity baseload should be the focus of any effort at chasing carbon. However, that's the easy part. In France & Sweden decarbonisation of electricity has succeeded, but heating is not really a baseload even it's there 5 months per year: it's also variable following the outside temperature. That's why it's difficult to make heating less carbon intensive. Some kind of heat storage would be deisrable, but I know no technology that allows storing heat over months.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 13, 2012 21:21:28 GMT 9.5
One remark one could make is that a switch to a less carbon intensive fuel has had a real effect on CO2 emissions. In fact, I will go as far as writing that total energy used has little importance so long it's from a carbon-free source. At some point we'll end up producing enough waste heat to cause global warming without needing the greenhouse effect but we're quite far away from that (by the time we approach it we'll probably be a space-based civilisation). Gains in efficiency help making new systems more affordable. It's a blessing: without that we may still be using coal for heating. It's a curse: as living standards increase we use more and more energy. I see no problem when people allow for White's law to be followed. Energy is after all the ability to do work. I broadly agree with the conclusion of the article: in electricity baseload should be the focus of any effort at chasing carbon. However, that's the easy part. Easy if you don't have much in the way of a domestic fossil fuel industry. In France & Sweden decarbonisation of electricity has succeeded, but heating is not really a baseload even it's there 5 months per year: it's also variable following the outside temperature. That's why it's difficult to make heating less carbon intensive. Some kind of heat storage would be deisrable, but I know no technology that allows storing heat over months. It'd probably be more intermediate load. Though ground source heat pumps do some storage of heat from summer to winter.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 14, 2012 2:31:04 GMT 9.5
Does energy efficiency reduce emissions and peak demand? Not according to Jevon's efficiency paradox when operating in growth mode. If we get out of growth mode then nonfossil fuel energy substitutes including efficiency negawatts can make a serious difference quite obviously. Staying in growth mode creates serious problems as this link from my Jevons Paradox thread indicates. Or to put it better, putting the economy on a sustainable basis which essentially means no growth or negative growth since we are in ghg overshoot right now and need to reverse course.
|
|
|
Post by Asteroid Miner on Jul 14, 2012 5:37:00 GMT 9.5
What the coal companies know that most people don’t: Efficiency, like wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, is nothing more than a time-wasting loop. They [not me] have already wasted 2012-1960=52 years. If we had converted all big fossil fueled power plants to nuclear in the 1960s, we would still be below 350 ppm CO2. The coal industry could be behind all the efficiency nonsense, just as the coal industry is behind the scare tactics on nuclear. As long as you keep messing around with efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal and wave power can replace coal, and they know it. Hydrogen fusion could, if it worked. Hydrogen fusion has been “hopeful” for half a century so far. I don’t expect that to change any time soon. If you quit being afraid of nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy. ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die when [not if] civilization collapses or when Homo “Sapiens” goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and live. Which do you choose? Nuclear is the safe path and we have factory built nuclear power plants now. A nuclear power plant can be installed in weeks. See: www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htmlThe US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified 4 reactors for factory production. More certifications for factory production may be made. See: www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.htmlWhy does the security check keep on asking yet another question? Must be BNC no longer likes comments. MODERATOR I see you are listed as a guest. In order to avoid the annoying check you need to register as a member. You will still have to sign in with your name and password unless you opt to stay logged in.
|
|
|
Post by podargus on Jul 14, 2012 11:08:26 GMT 9.5
The debate about efficiency is just another move in the dance of futility around the central pole - baseload electricity generation.
There are other parts of this dance including carbon tax/trading and the renewables mirage.Nothing will be acheived in serious GHG emissions reduction until one fundamental fact is accepted - we have only one readily available and practical technology to replace fossil fuel generated electricity and most forms of heating.That technology is nuclear.
Outside of vested interests the blockage is in the psychology of a significant part of the general population - namely,an inability to confront reality.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Jul 14, 2012 13:51:42 GMT 9.5
In France & Sweden decarbonisation of electricity has succeeded, but heating is not really a baseload even it's there 5 months per year: it's also variable following the outside temperature. Any large-scale shift away from gas heating in Melbourne to electricity would incur very large costs to network upgrades, so it becomes relatively more economic to consider local energy storage to reduce the peak demand and use low-cost off-peak electricity, as already happens in Melbourne for off-peak hot water systems. Hot water storage needs only be daily and is already economic. The main point is that the demand occurs twice daily throughout winter, so the reliance on baseload (and intermediate as Anon points out) would permit lower cost energy. proteos, what forms of electric heating do France and Sweden use?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 14, 2012 15:26:49 GMT 9.5
Does energy efficiency reduce emissions and peak demand? No, but it does improve does to improve the living conditions of the population (emissions is best dealt with by making the low emitting technology cheaper). All it really means is that Negawatts aren't a solution to any environmental problem. Not according to Jevon's efficiency paradox when operating in growth mode. If we get out of growth mode then nonfossil fuel energy substitutes including efficiency negawatts can make a serious difference quite obviously. Getting out of growth mode means not increasing the standard of living of the population, that would be worse than any realistic environmental problem we're causing. Thus we need to find a way to continue to grow the economy without causing the problems we're currently causing. Staying in growth mode creates serious problems as this link from my Jevons Paradox thread indicates. So we build a nuclear power plant a day (at least once the majority finally accepts that we need to solve global warming, not merely provide tokens to cover up for methane burning). "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually -- approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy." Boeing can build one airliner a day so I see no scientific, technological or engineering reason we can't get the kind of production rates we'd need (it's only politics which is preventing it). Or to put it better, putting the economy on a sustainable basis which essentially means no growth or negative growth since we are in ghg overshoot right now and need to reverse course. Only growth or extinction are sustainable, choose one. Any large-scale shift away from gas heating in Melbourne to electricity would incur very large costs to network upgrades, so it becomes relatively more economic to consider local energy storage to reduce the peak demand and use low-cost off-peak electricity, as already happens in Melbourne for off-peak hot water systems. Hot water storage needs only be daily and is already economic. The main point is that the demand occurs twice daily throughout winter, so the reliance on baseload (and intermediate as Anon points out) would permit lower cost energy. What kind of network upgrades would we be looking at? I understand that obviously we'd need more baseload power plants but in terms of transmission infrastructure could we get by with upgrading what we've got to HVDC or would we need to build new transmission lines?
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Jul 14, 2012 16:13:32 GMT 9.5
What kind of network upgrades would we be looking at? I understand that obviously we'd need more baseload power plants but in terms of transmission infrastructure could we get by with upgrading what we've got to HVDC or would we need to build new transmission lines? Current peak electricity demand in Victoria is about 10,200 MW and winter about 8,200 MW. Current peak gas demand in winter is 83 TJ/hour (23,000 MW gas). Assuming that half of this is due to space heating and the equivalent load was replaced with heat pump with a COP of 3, this equates to an additional electrical load of 3,000 to 4,000 MW. The impact of heat pump defrost cycling on cold mornings would likely increase this as would other factors. Hence winter demand would overtake summer and the entire distribution and transmission network would require upgrades. One of the points the paper makes is that energy efficiency alone won't substantially alleviate this.
|
|
|
Post by BrianH on Jul 15, 2012 1:52:47 GMT 9.5
The Jevons take-away is that efficiency gets channelled into increased standards of living, not reductions of consumption (except incidentally, through discovery of superior substitutes).
|
|
|
Post by ender on Jul 15, 2012 10:19:43 GMT 9.5
Maybe you just needed to search a bit further afield: "The agency's survey of more than 12,000 residences representing every geographic region and climate in the country showed that the average U.S. household had $2,024 in energy expenditures, up 11.8 percent from $1,810 in 2005. Oddly enough, the agency says that energy consumption has remained relatively stable for many years as increased efficiency has offset growth in the number and average size of housing units and the increased use of electronics." There is more to energy efficiency than just reducing the amount of electricity consumed. If there are no thermal changes to the building as it seem happens in Melbourne of course increased affluence, larger houses and more electronics will overwhelm energy efficieny gains. Where there is cheap energy there is no incentive to reduce energy bills. How did the flat energy increase happen? "Why? Improvements in efficiency for space heating, air-conditioning, and major appliances have all led to decreased consumption per household. Newer homes also tend to feature better insulation and other characteristics, such as double-pane windows, that improve the building envelope." You have to improve the building envelope and make low energy lifestyle changes to reduce overall energy use. Also what is the point of rubbishing energy efficiency? Surely in a nuclear utopia you don't want to be be building nuclear power stations just so people can waste the energy. You want households and business at peak efficiency so the minimum number of plants need to be built. Ref: www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/home/sns-mct-home-economics-u.s.-study-says-energy-consumption-20120713,0,1172351.story?page=1
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Jul 15, 2012 15:18:10 GMT 9.5
Brian H -Denial of the scientific consensus on AGW/CC is not permitted on BNCDF on any thread other than the dedicated SCEPTICS THREAD on the CLIMATE CHANGE board. Consequently your comment here has been deleted. Please repost it there.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 15, 2012 15:33:10 GMT 9.5
The problem with this approach is, that it is using the USA as an example. other places in the world do have a declining power per capita number. an example is Denmark, which has a pretty stable 6800kWh per capita since 15 years. : www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/electric-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita-wb-data.htmlthe potential can be seen, when we make a comparison with other countries. Sweden has a serious decline, but from a very high base level of around 16000kWh per capita. www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/electric-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita-wb-data.htmlso: we need to look at countries, that are really trying to reduce the electricity use (the USA are not such a country). then a (local climate adjusted) comparison with other countries allows for an estimate of the very high potential in saving energy, if we look at the top achieving countries.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Jul 15, 2012 17:29:05 GMT 9.5
Also what is the point of rubbishing energy efficiency? Where is energy efficiency "rubbished" in the paper? I'll quote the conclusion for reference here (page 28) www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/7/1525The rebound effects of Melbourne’s space heating efficiency gains have been significant, nearly always understated, and appear to be bound up with evolving notions of comfort, sufficiency and lifestyle. Policy prescriptions based around the “soft-energy path”, which capture the public’s imagination, can easily overlook the practicalities of the provision of affordable and reliable heating. In the context of capped emissions, energy efficiency could play a valuable role in maintaining consumer utility while reducing emissions; however the focus on technical efficiency as a greenhouse mitigation strategy in itself distracts from other efficacious greenhouse mitigation measures based on conventional energy supply, and avoids the more challenging social debates around population, sufficiency, and comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jul 15, 2012 18:09:25 GMT 9.5
"such is the... intuitive appeal of the idea of energy efficiency that it has been almost universally adopted as... sustainability project"
Intuitive appeal? Romantic appeal, perhaps. However it is a contradiction in terms, and was so in 1976. A moment's thought shows that no matter how undesirable a quantity is, it cannot be reduced to zero by repetitive "reductions".
True, in 1976 the public generally was unaware of the techniques miners etc would use to ensure a limitless supply of resources. The same public remained confident that we could continue to dump our wastes into limitless air, land and sea. Yet climate scientists of that day were already warning the public that it is our waste that will define our limits to growth.
The environment is filling up, we already have resources which can destroy it many times over. So renewability is irrelevant. Sustainability requires us to deal with our waste, most urgently our waste gases. No greenie should be dodging that priority with the pretence of "reduction".
Already outdated at the time of its publication, this (Lovins) document continues to provide "thimble trick" excuses to those who wish to delay the total replacement of carbon fuels.
Its continuing appeal lies in its capacity to provide an illusion of innocence to those who pretend to be concerned for the environment.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 15, 2012 19:27:00 GMT 9.5
There is more to energy efficiency than just reducing the amount of electricity consumed. If there are no thermal changes to the building as it seem happens in Melbourne of course increased affluence, larger houses and more electronics will overwhelm energy efficieny gains. Even if you do make such changes you'll probably find people using the same amount of energy anyway. Where there is cheap energy there is no incentive to reduce energy bills. If energy is not the limiting resource then we shouldn't be putting too much effort into reducing use of it, instead we should be putting the effort into conserving what actually is limiting and stop worrying about wasting something we have plenty of. You have to improve the building envelope and make low energy lifestyle changes to reduce overall energy use. The moment you come up with a solution which depends on lifestyle changes you've come up with an unworkable solution. The fact is that the majority of people put the environment pretty far down on their list of priorities so you will not be getting much in the way of sacrifice from the majority of the population. Also what is the point of rubbishing energy efficiency? No point, but we're not doing that, instead we're pointing out that it is at best mostly irrelevant to solving global warming. Surely in a nuclear utopia you don't want to be be building nuclear power stations just so people can waste the energy. You want households and business at peak efficiency so the minimum number of plants need to be built. If peak energy efficiency required us to use more of a resource we are short of then we do want to be building extra nuclear power plants just so people can 'waste' energy.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 15, 2012 22:10:06 GMT 9.5
Anon, just in case your space colony prediction doesn't work out it would seem with your waste and growth acceptance you are in effect putting us on a Malthusian suicide march. Nuclear or not, limits apply.
There is a likely reason James Hansen takes a pro-nuclear anti-growth position. Apparently he appreciates that the advantages of nuclear power can't be realized without getting a handle on at least economic growth.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 15, 2012 23:34:52 GMT 9.5
Anon, just in case your space colony prediction doesn't work out it would seem with your waste and growth acceptance you are in effect putting us on a Malthusian suicide march. Nuclear or not, limits apply. It is technology which has made Malthusian predictions not come true. Besides, if space colonisation doesn't happen we're going to go extinct, it'd just be a matter of when (the best you could do if you stopped or even reversed growth would be to delay it). Maybe we'll end up going extinct even if we get space settlements and eventually spread across the universe but once you've got an interstellar civilisation you're basically immune to any natural disaster short of the universe ending (and there's even the possibility that we'll find a solution to that).
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jul 16, 2012 0:03:23 GMT 9.5
Sod, I'm all for energy efficiency with national standards, government programs etc. By why is the discussion always about consumer behavior? Why don't we ever hear about for example electric motor efficiency. Electric motor driven systems are the worlds biggest consumer of electricity (source IEA). But to get to the main point, you cite Sweden and Denmark apparently as examples of something - I'm not sure of what. Let's look at their per capita electricity consumption: www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:SWE:DNK&ifdim=country&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false Crikey! Sweden wins that one by a country mile. And their per capita CO2 emissions: www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=wb-wdi#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:SWE:DNK&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false And Denmark has the dubious distinction of easily winning that race. A major difference of course is that Sweden has a low emission electricity supply and Denmark does not. No amount of Danish frugality could ever come anywhere near bridging that gap. The take away message is that while energy efficiency is useful, low emission electricity supply is king when it comes to reigning in emissions and is the first milestone on the path to a safe climate. Diluting that message with a bit of this and that is not going to get us very far. It just perpetuates illusions.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 16, 2012 8:43:30 GMT 9.5
Australia has the potential to put a substantial dent in the excess CO2. That excess is the limiting factor which needs controlling. Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming www.springerlink.com/content/55436u2122u77525/[The full paper pdf is freely available to all.] Obviously the desalinization and pumping required would need to be powered by low carbon sources.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jul 16, 2012 9:01:58 GMT 9.5
Right on, quokka!
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 16, 2012 11:23:42 GMT 9.5
Australia has the potential to put a substantial dent in the excess CO2. That excess is the limiting factor which needs controlling.
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming www.springerlink.com/content/55436u2122u77525/ [The full paper pdf is freely available to all.] Obviously the desalinization and pumping required would need to be powered by low carbon sources. Interesting piece. And guess what that low carbon source is? It couldn't be clearer. ;D
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Jul 16, 2012 17:51:45 GMT 9.5
proteos, what forms of electric heating do France and Sweden use? I'll talk mainly for France, I have little knowledge of the details in Sweden. In France, heat networks (district heating and the like) are uncommon to say the least, and they are not really developing fast, although I know a recent example but based on wood as the source for energy. In France, if you are heated by electricity, it is most likely that you have: * a water tank, about the size of a bathtub if you live in a ~50m² flat, that will provide you hot water through the day. It operates with a clock to use the night time tariff (see below) * A set of radiators, which are in effect good old resistors. You may also have a thermostatic regulator to have a constant temperature inside and stop/start the radiators for you. * A time of the day pricing subscription. The low tariff is typically from 1:30-6:30 & 12:00-13:00 A real expansion of electrical heating to encompass more people would require a switch to heat pumps, to keep the peak load reasonnable. Right now peak load in France is above 100GW during the coldest days. Compare this to Germany where it's more like 80-90GW. Note that there are also certainly people using electric radiators bought in DIY shops that contribute to the peak load. But right now heat pumps are much less common than simple resistors, but will slowly become more common because of new building regulations [that favor gas by the way]. Using water tanks for room heating would be a good idea, but would demand more space in flats, always in short supply. It is also less useful to provide real baseload demand suiting newer nuclear plants. The old generation operated with a capacity factor of ~75% so some half-base demand was well adapted with maintenance in the summer and everyone up & running in the winter. Now with plants made to operate with >90% capacity factors you need more baseload or transfer the old plants to lower capacity factors operation. That's why storing energy over the summer to provide heat in winter would be a very good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Jul 16, 2012 17:56:05 GMT 9.5
I'll talk mainly for France, I have little knowledge of the details in Sweden. Thanks for the excellent feedback
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jul 16, 2012 20:27:01 GMT 9.5
Energy efficiency causes a reduction in cost and CO2 emissions and is therefore desirable. Use of energy dividend is used for increased comforts, which is also desirable. However, energy efficiency will never be sufficient. China, the biggest national chunk of world population, is increasing its energy use at a fast pace. India, a comparable chunk is also increasing, though at a slower pace. Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh are sure to follow. Only nuclear has the capability of scaling up at a fast pace. However the spent fuel storage worries have caused a plateau effect in North America and Europe. Uranium or thorium breeders, (IFR comes in that category) will reduce spent nuclear fuel by two orders of magnitude. It can burn the spent fuel in the biggest users case and put a stop to increase in the spent fuel stocks. The future of energy therefore lies in uranium or thorium breeders.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 17, 2012 9:56:54 GMT 9.5
David M --- A careful comparison is required as there is a distinct possibility that solar PV could be the more economic for the required desal & pumping.
|
|