Upload
analu
View
30
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Efficient Use of Energy Physics Colloquium at UC Davis October 20, 2008. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 [email protected] http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html or just Google “ Art Rosenfeld ”. Some Background Reading. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Efficient Use of Energy
Physics Colloquium at UC Davis
October 20, 2008
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission
(916) [email protected]
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
Some Background Reading
• For a Full (51 page) Biography of Dr. Rosenfeld, see his web site at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld_docs/index.html
• This Presentation Based on Work Published as:
“Opportunities in the Building Sector: Managing Climate Change,” Rosenfeld, A. & McAuliffe, P., in Physics of Sustainable Energy: Using Energy Efficiently and Producing it Renewably, Edited by D. Hafemeister, et.al., American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1044, p. 3, 2008, College Park, MD
The symposium is available at http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/apsenergy/
2
3
Does Anyone See A Problem With This Picture?
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.
4
5
California Energy Commission Responsibilities
Both Regulation and R&D
• California Building and Appliance Standards– Started 1977– Updated every few years
• Siting Thermal Power Plants Larger than 50 MW• Forecasting Supply and Demand (electricity and fuels)• Research and Development
– ~ $80 million per year• CPUC & CEC are collaborating to introduce communicating electric
meters and thermostats that are programmable to respond to time-dependent electric tariffs.
6
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the United States (1949 - 2005) and France (1980 - 2003)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
tho
usa
nd
Btu
/$ (
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 in 2005
7% of GDP =$1.0 TrillionIn 2005
7
Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
19491951195319551957195919611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005
Quads/Year
$ 1.7 Trillion
$ 1.0 Trillion
New Physical Supply = 25 Q
Avoided Supply = 70 Quads in 2005
If E/GDP had dropped 0.4% per year
Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1% per year)
70 Quads per year saved or avoided corresponds to 1 Billion cars off the road
In 2005
8
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 5Compact Floursecent Lamps 5Total 95
9
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
10
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
14,000
1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008
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 = $165/capita
11
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
GWh/year
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
12
Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances
Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE,
in ECEEE 2003 Summer Study, www.eceee.org
75%60%
25%20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
Ind
ex (
1972
= 1
00)
Effective Dates of National Standards
=
Effective Dates of State Standards
=
Refrigerators
Central A/C
Gas Furnaces
SEER = 13
13Source: David Goldstein
New United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
and Retail Prices
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Ave
rag
e A
nn
ual
En
erg
y U
se(k
wh
) o
r P
rice
($)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ref
rig
erat
or
volu
me
(cu
bic
fee
t)
Energy Use per Refrigerator(kWh/Year)
Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)
Refrigerator Price in 1983 $
$ 1,270
$ 462
~ 1 Ton CO2/year~ 100 gallons Gasoline/year
14
Annual Energy Saved vs. Several Sources of Supply
Energy Saved Refrigerator Stds
renewables
100 Million 1 KW PV systems
conventional hydro
nuclear energy
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Billion kWh/year
= 80 power plants of 500 MW each
In the United States
15
Value of Energy to be Saved (at 8.5 cents/kWh, retail price) vs. Several Sources of Supply in 2005 (at 3 cents/kWh, wholesale price)
Energy Saved Refrigerator Stds
renewables
100 Million 1 KW PV systems
conventional hydro
nuclear energy
0
5
10
15
20
25
Billion $ (US)/year in 2005
In the United States
16
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
Annual kWh per new home for central AC
If only increases in house size -- no efficiency gains
Change due to SEER improvements
SEER plus Title 24
17
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3 Gorges三峡
Refrigerators冰箱
Air Conditioners 空调
TWh
2000 Stds
2000 Stds
2005 Stds
2005 Stds
If Energy Star
If Energy Star
TW
H/Y
ear
1.5
4.5
6.0
3.0
7.5
Val
ue
(bil
lio
n $
/yea
r)
Comparison of 3 Gorges to Refrigerator and AC Efficiency Improvements
Savings calculated 10 years after standard takes effect. Calculations provided by David Fridley, LBNL
Value of TWh
3 Gorges三峡
Refrigerators 冰箱
Air Conditioners
空调
Wholesale (3 Gorges) at 3.6 c/kWh
Retail (AC + Ref) at 7.2 c/kWh
三峡电量与电冰箱、空调能效对比
标准生效后, 10年节约电量
18
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
45,000
19751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003
GWh/year
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
19
California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012
Millions of $2002 per Year
Forecast
Profits decoupled from sales
Performance Incentives
Market Restructuring
Crisis
IRP2% of 2004
IOU Electric Revenues
Public Goods Charges
20
Source: NRDC; Chang and Wang, 9/26/2007
• To be published in Climatic Change 2008.
• Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2
July 28, 2008
21
Hashem Akbari and Surabi MenonLawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, [email protected]: 510-486-4287
Arthur RosenfeldCalifornia Energy Commission,
Tel: 916-654 4930
• A First Step In Geo-Engineering Which Saves Money and Has Known Positive Environmental Impacts
1000 ft2 of a white roof, replacing a dark roof, offset the emission of
10 tonnes of CO2
22
23
CO2 Equivalency of Cool RoofsWorld-wide (Tropics+Temperate)
• Cool Roofs alone offset 24 Gt CO2• Worth > €600 Billion• To Convert 24 Gt CO2 one time into a rate• Assume 20 Year Program, thus
1.2 Gt CO2/year• Average World Car Emits 4 tCO2/year,
equivalent to 300 Million Cars
off the Road for 20 years.
24
• AT UC DAVIS: • Daniel Sperling: Acting Director• Alan Meier: Associate Director and
Faculty Researcher• Mark Modera: Director of the Western
Cooling Efficiency Center• Michael Siminovitch: Director of the
California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC)
25
Methodology: Energy and Air-Quality Analysis
26
White is ‘cool’ in Bermuda
27
and in Santorini, Greece
28
Cool Roof Technologies
flat, white
pitched, white
pitched, cool & colored
Old New
29
Cool Colors Reflect Invisible Near-Infrared Sunlight
30
Cool and Standard BrownMetal Roofing Panels
• Solar reflectance ~ 0.2 higher• Afternoon surface temperature ~ 10ºC lower
CourtesyBASF
Coatings
Designing Cool Colored Roofing
cool clay tileR ≥0.40
CourtesyMCA Clay Tile
cool metalR ≥0.30
CourtesyBASF Industrial
Coatings
CourtesyAmericanRooftileCoatings
+0.37 +0.29+0.15+0.23+0.26 +0.29
cool concrete tile R ≥0.40
standard concrete tile(same color)
solar reflectance gain =
cool fiberglass asphalt shingleR ≥0.25Courtesy
Elk Corporation
31
Cool is Cool: From Cool Color Roofs to Cool Color Cars and Cool Jackets
• Toyota experiment (surface temperature 10K cooler)
• Ford is also working on the technology
Courtesy: BMW (http://www.ips-innovations.com/solar_reflective_clothing.htm)
32
The End
For More Information:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/rosenfeld_docs/index.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
33
Cool Paving Materials:
34
35
Reflective Pavements are Cooler
• Fresh asphaltAlbedo: 0.05Temperature: 123°F
• Aged asphaltAlbedo: 0.15Temperature: 115°F
• Prototype asphalt coating
Albedo: 0.51Temperature: 88°F
36
Temperature Effect on Rutting
507RF: 50°C
512RF: 40°C
failure criterion
50°C (122°F)
40°C (104°F)
0Repetitions (thousands)
40 80 120 160
20
16
12
8
4
0
Ru
t D
epth
(m
m)
Source: Dr. John Harvey, UC B Civil Engineering, Inst. Transpo. Studies
37
Simulated Meteorology and Air-quality Impacts in LA
38
Potential Savings in LA
• Savings for Los Angeles– Direct, $100M/year– Indirect, $70M/year– Smog, $360M/year
• Estimate of national savings: $5B/year
Solar Reflective Surfaces Also Cool the Globe
Source: IPCC
39
Effect of Solar Reflective Roofs and Pavements in Cooling the Globe
• Increasing the solar reflectance of a m2 of roofs by 0.40 (white roof) is equivalent to offsetting 63 kg CO2 emissions(10 m2 of white roof = 1 T CO2 emission offset)
• Increasing the solar reflectance of a m2 of roofs by 0.25 (cool roof) is equivalent to offsetting 63 kg CO2 emissions(16 m2 of cool roof = 1 T CO2 emission offset)
• Increasing the solar reflectance of a m2 of paved surfaces by 0.15 is equivalent to offsetting 38 kg CO2 emissions
• Total world-wide emission offset from cool roofs and cool pavements is 44 GT CO2
• 44 GT CO2 is over one year of the world 2025 emission of 37 GT CO2
• CO2 emissions currently trade at ~$25/T; 44 GT CO2 worth $1100 billion
40
(Source: Akbari et al. 2008, in press Climatic Change)
A Global Action Plan: The Big Picture
• Develop an international to install cool roof/pavement in world’s100 largest cities
• This is a simple measure that we hope to organize the world to implement AND
• WE’D BETTER BE SUCCESSFUL!
• We can gain practical experience in design of global measures to combat climate change
41