Abstracts

Abstract: A graphical model of energy flows in the U.S. is examined with a purpose of identifying important “sweet spots” in the current system of energy supply, transformation and end use. To achieve Extreme Energy Efficiency, many (if not most) of these “sweet spots” will require public policies to be modified such that they work together in a valuable, integrated, mutually supporting manner. Systemic inefficiencies may be targeted with research and policies designed to "leverage" and maximize efficiency gains and useful human outcomes. The notion of “waste” energy is revisited in the context of “useful human outcomes”. Some examples of successful public policies are identified, and additional examples illustrate how important additional public policies may be in reaching Extreme Energy Efficiency. Even without a comprehensive umbrella of supporting policies, the private sector is increasingly aware of the value of incremental improvement and is offering superior products. These more energy-efficient products are actively slowing the per capita demand for energy in the United States. Implications of the current energy landscape are extended to traditional and emerging pollutants and to greenhouse gases. Some comparisons will be offered with other countries in both the developed and developing world.

Abstract: Over the past 30 years, the energy intensity (E/GDP) of the U.S. economy has declined significantly as the result, in part, of energy-efficiency improvements. This success and the continued strain on worldwide energy resources has prompted analysts to consider the upper limits on attainable energy efficiency. Drawing on the concept of thermodynamic limits, Lightfoot and Green have estimated a maximum of 1% annual decline in energy intensity through 2100. This paper identifies opportunities to displace existing energy conversion and end-use technologies that are approaching their limits of performance with novel systems and devices that could offer new opportunities for further energy-efficiency improvement.

These breakthroughs will benefit from the ability to manipulate the fundamental properties of materials and systems at the nanoscale, to apply molecular biology to better understand “how things work,” and to draw on data- and modeling-intensive investigations that will enable simulation to join theory and experimentation as cornerstones of scientific discovery. Ten examples are described, along with estimates of their energy impacts:

Super-strong lightweight materials

Energy-efficient distillation through supercomputing
Novel energy-efficient separations
Smart roofs
Super-durable materials for aggressive environments
Molecular-level control of catalytic materials
Self-optimizing sensor systems
Solid state lighting
Superconducting electric T&D
Genomics for bioenergy: tailoring plants and microbes

These examples illustrate that nano-bio-info discoveries could have broad impacts on future generations, enabling the energy intensity of everyday lives to continue to decline while standards of living continue to improve.

Abstract : Since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, California electric use per capita has stayed constant at 7000 kWh, while the US (including California) has grown 2%/year (from 8000 to 12,000 kWh). At least half of this 2%/year efficiency gain comes from California’s aggressive but popular energy policies – standards for appliances and buildings, and rate-payer supported energy efficiency programs. The simple payback time, SPT, for these investments is typically <5 years, so they contribute to economic growth. In this analysis we use electricity instead of primary energy because California has little control over auto fuel economy. Even so, CA primary energy intensity (E/GSP) is dropping 3,9 %/year vs. 2.7% for the US. World energy intensity (E/GWP) is currently dropping 1.3%/year. In order to level off, thus delaying climate change, we propose a major international program to accelerate this gain by 1%/year by addressing all measures that pay back in 5 years – mainly via standards and utility funded efficiency programs. In 100 years this extra 1%/year will of course reduce primary energy demand by e = 2.7, thus reducing the need for new fossil and renewable energy supply, which certainly does not pay back in 5 years.

Abstract: An ambitious climate policy that does not hinder economic growth is possible. The estimated costs of climate protection depend critically on assumptions about the future development of technological progress. Economic models need to depict technological progress in a way that acknowledges at least the robust aspects of the process of innovation corresponding to the historical experience of market societies. In several models the cost of climate protection tends to be overestimated for three reasons. First, no consideration is given to the ability of entrepreneurs to react innovatively to signals about scarcity, e.g. by using fossil fuels more efficiently. Second, the cost-cutting potential of renewable energy sources are not taken into account appropriately. Third, the interplay between carbon capturing and sequestration (CCS) and the other relevant mitigation options is often omitted. With every new option, the economy becomes more flexible, and therefore it can react more cost-effectively to climate policy. It turns out that improving energy efficiency in using fossil fuels is not sufficient for achieving climate protection goals because of its relatively high macro-economic mitigation costs. This option has to be complemented by substitution of fossil-fuels with renewable energy sources and the use of CCS. These three options together endows market societies with enough flexibility in order to reduce the probability of dangerous interference of climate change at relatively low macro-economic mitigation costs.

Abstract: We model the economic and environmental effects of doubling U.S. energy efficiency by 2020. We assume an aggressive penetration scenario for key commercial or near-commercial energy efficient technologies, such as combined heat and power, recycled energy, hybrid vehicles, advanced motor systems, and solid-state lighting. While we assume no direct economic mechanism to drive the penetration of these technologies, we note that the adoption rates we assume are comparable to those of other technology success stories. Examples include the gains made by Sport Utility Vehicles into the light duty vehicle market, the penetration of flat panel displays for computer monitors, and the use of magnetic separation in industrial processes. We assume that the most advanced technology is deployed in new applications, while more incremental versions are deployed in retrofit applications under aggressive capital replacement schedules. For each technology, the additional capital costs, lower fuel costs, and other cost savings are fed into a customized input-output (I-O) model to gauge the cumulative effects on the economy by 2020. The output of the model includes employment, wage income, and changes in industry output that result from the technologies’ expanded use. Carbon dioxide and other emissions reductions are calculated from the mix of energy savings calculated by the model. Our I-O model, "ImSET" was developed by one of the authors for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Program. The model uses up-to-date technology information developed by DOE’s programs to meet requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, and is supplemented with technology detail from several recent DOE laboratory studies prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Abstract: First we examine the implications of a new analysis of linkages between U.S. energy efficiency and productivity. Ayres (2004) shows through analysis of historical data that energy efficiency has been an essential driver for economic growth. For example, more energy-efficient products enable a competitive domestic economy and create jobs and new products for export. These results indicate a need to accelerate energy efficiency in order to maintain U.S. GDP growth. Energy efficiency is a critical component to actually maintaining economic activity as opposed to a "would-be-nice" alternative to reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions. Using the AMIGA model we provide the initial estimates of worldwide efficiency investments that might be needed to begin deflecting the reference case path. Our effort suggests that with the right mix of policy signals (of both price and non-price variety) there is substantial room for energy efficiency.

Dr. John Holdren ,Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy Director , Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs," Commentary on Presentations by Edenofer, Clay/Roop, and Laitner in the Symposiumon Extreme Energy Efficiency" (PDF format) and "Commentary on Presentations by Bassett, Brown, and Rosenfeld in the Symposiumon Extreme Energy Efficiency" (PDF format)

Profile: John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. Trained in aeronautics/astronautics and plasma physics at MIT and Stanford, he previously confounded and co-led for 23 years the campus-wide interdisciplinary graduate degree program in energy and resources at the University of California at Berkeley. He is Chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences and was a member of President Clinton's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). In connection with PCAST, Holdren chaired studies for the White House on protection of nuclear-bomb materials, the U.S. fusion-energy R&D program, and energy R&D strategy for the climate-change challenge.

Symposium for the 2005 AAAS Annual Meeting Extreme Energy Efficiency-Possible? Profitable? Essential.

Symposium for the 2005 AAAS Annual Meeting
Extreme Energy Efficiency-Possible? Profitable? Essential.