Opportunities in the building sector: managing climate Change

Тип работы:
Экономика и экономические науки


Детальная информация о работе

Выдержка из работы

3/2011_МГСу ТНИК
To be published in 2007proceedings of the International Seminar on
Emergencies, Erice, Sicily. This is part 1 of Rosenfeld'-s 2-part
Arthur H. Rosenfeld and Patrick McAuliffe California Energy Commission August 2007
Представлена статья А. Розенфельда и П. Маколифа, написанная на основании доклада «Новые возможности в строительстве. Учет климатических изменений», сделанного на Международном семинаре по глобальным чрезвычайным ситуациям в августе 2007 г. в г. Эрике, Сицилия, Италия.
На основании опыта энергосбережения в штате Калифорния даны рекомендации по возможностям развития строительного сектора в различных регионах мира.
This paper is based on Presentation '-Opportunities in the Building Sector: Managing Climate Change'- by Arthur H. Rosenfeld and Patrick McAuliffe on International Seminar for Global Emergencies in Erice, Sicily, Italy at August, 2007.
On the base of Californian experience in energy savings it was done recommendations for building development in different regions.
Faced with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, many countries are aggressively implementing measures to reduce these emissions. Although the United States has not yet committed to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions, the State of California is moving forward with its efforts to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The specifics of how California will proceed are under development with full implementation expected in 2012 with some earlier measures prior to that date. In this paper, we will provide an overview of energy consumption in the United States and in California with particular emphasis on efforts that California has made to increase the efficiency of its energy use. Also, we will discuss and describe cost curves for carbon reduction and contend that much of the reduction needed to modulate global warming could be achieved at negative costs.
In 1974, the California Energy Commission was formed to develop and implement the first energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances in the United States as well as assess supply and demand conditions, and site new thermal power stations. Over the years, the Commission also has developed capabilities and funding for research and development (R& amp-D) efforts related to energy and environmental issues. Currently, funding in the R& amp-D area amounts to $ 80 million dollars per year with about half of this focused on energy efficiency and demand response.
A common measure of energy efficiency is energy intensity, defined as the quantity of primary energy consumed per unit of gross domestic product (E/GDP). Energy intensity in the United States has declined at five times the historical rate since the 1973−74 oil crisis raised the price of energy, awareness of energy consumption, and also the profile of energy efficiency. Figure 1 provides details on how energy intensity in the United States has improved. The impact of this improvement on primary energy demand is illustrated in Figure 2. If, instead of the actual 2.1 percent decline per year experienced since 1973, the United State'-s energy intensity had decreased by only the business-as-usual pre-1973 rate of 0.4 percent per year, energy use in the country would have risen by an additional 70 quadrillion Btus (quads) in 2005. Even with this improvement, primary energy use still climbed by 25 quads during these three decades.

: AEIU3 4& amp-CDP urflps MWyew]
1"+i 1Я) i"ST 1″! ifH lifi 1375 H7T IMI 1"Ь НИ IHJ tS9& gt- if"l «04
Figure 1 -- Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 — 2005
Supply „TO fl u Si in

Actual t? CtlL& quot- сгиш 1A1. par fiirj
то Quad* jn'- y (n iHtdertnldid
шг'-щянш to (ваИои""м olttha
Figure 2 -- Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 — 2005
The monetary savings associated with improvements in energy intensity in the United States amount to about $ 700 billion in 2005 as a result of reducing primary energy demand by about 70 quads, compared to what it could have been if pre-1973 energy intensity levels had remained unchanged through the subsequent three decades.
Improvements in energy intensity arise from many factors: improved technology, customers facing higher energy prices, customer awareness and others. These improvements occur throughout the economy. We estimate that the $ 700 billion in foregone energy expenditures in the United States (in 2005 compared to what we would have spent if the energy intensity of the U.S. economy had improved at only 0. 4% per year) was 1/3 due to major structural changes in the economy (less heavy industry and more high tech) — 1/3 due to improvements in transportation (CAFE standards) — and 1/3 from improvements in buildings and industry (CFLs, better motors, building and appliance standards, etc.)
Next we address a comparison between California (34 million people) and the United States as a whole (300 million people, including California). But figures 1 and 2 included transportation fuel, which in turn depends on United States Federal policy and standards, which & quot-pre-empt"- California from adopting more stringent standards. Hence, we focus on electricity where California controls its own destiny.
Annual use of electricity in kWh per person from 1960 to 2005 with forecasts through
2008 in California and in the United States is illustrated in Figure 3. Use in California is currently about 40 percent less than in the United States, even though use was nearly the same in the 1960s. The lines start to diverge in the mid-1970s when we experienced our first energy crisis. At times, petroleum was rationed and energy prices increased rapidly. For example, the price of electricity to residential customers in California and throughout the United States nearly doubled (in nominal dollars) from the early 1970s to the later 1970s. In addition, California began its building and appliance efficiency standards which contributed to keeping per capita electricity use in California nearly flat since 1975. Of course, compared to the entire United States, other factors such as a different mix of industries and differences in climate also contribute1. Although not depicted on this slide, other policies also have led to electricity savings in California. For example, California standards allow electric water heating in homes only when it is cost effective: which is seldom the case. This has resulted in only limited electricity use for this purpose in California.
Thus, for a variety of reasons -- some policy and others due to climate or economic variables, electricity use per capita has been flat in California and should decrease slightly as California expands programs aimed at efficiency improvements.
In combination with technological improvement due to & quot-naturally occurring& quot- innovation, California beginning in the late 1970s introduced efficiency standards for some new appliances and buildings. In Figure 4, we provide examples of initially state and later United States federal standards for three appliances: gas furnaces, central air conditioning, and refrigerators. The trends are similar but the magnitude of improvement in efficiency differs.
The amount of energy consumed in a year by the average new appliance sold in California from 1972 to 2006 (estimated) is illustrated in this slide. For each appliance, use is indexed to the year 1972, i.e., scaled to a value of 100. Arrows indicate when new standards took effect or will take effect. White arrows indicate state standards that were first put in place in 1976, in response to the first oil crisis and generally rising fuel costs. United States Federal government standards are shown as black arrows. These did not begin until the early 1990s.
1 For a thorough discussion of these factors, see Deconstructing the '-Rosenfeld Curve'-. Anant Sudarshan and James Sweeney. Stanford University. to be published in the Energy Journal.

h'-. nn
UnNrd i i jlc^ ??nnSIJHIflrpJlMS,
= h. :"i"kwivvr
i: =$ 1SEiirapil8
— C j lil'-ui i iu

Figure 3 — Per Capita Electricity Consumption in the United States and California
iiufcj 11 m x t"& lt-Vi
4477 1*7& lt- 11 if, fliJl FMlfl 1'-ifiJ 1& lt-UU 14flr. mitn 1940! H| i& lt-m ¦ n-, r. Nuifi WA? & gt-№t Hfli.
L^MJItC.U r,"le'-. ft& amp-bt.
B: 3B3 Euftw SOW/. VX*
Figure 4 — The impact of efficiency standards for three appliances
By the early 2000s,
• Gas furnace use has declined by 25 percent (100% - 75%)
• Central air conditioners by 50 percent
• Refrigerators have shown the most improvement, with & gt-75 percent reduction in use. Theses are just three examples. Many other appliances as well as building characteristics, such as insulation and windows, are regulated and these regulations are upgraded every few years as technological advancements continue to improve appliance efficiency2.
— see Experience with Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electrical Equipment, Mark Ellis, IEA, March 2007
During development of these new regulations, industry representatives play an active and important role.
The most effective path toward energy efficiency has been standards for autos, buildings, appliances, equipment, etc. Figure 5 shows the remarkable gains in refrigerators. The red smoothly rising line is the increase in size, and the unit energy use is not corrected for increasing this, nor for the fact that we have also eliminated the use of CFCs. Since
1975, refrigeration labels and standards have improved efficiency 5 percent per year for 25 straight years. In the United States, we have now saved 40, 1-GW power plants,
improvements in refrigerators. Through all of this, the price for refrigerators has declined when viewed in constant dollars even as efficiency has improved and the size of refrigerators in the United States has increased.
Z. H“
HtmnsFjinr eric* in m=31
19*1 19SI 1951 IMi j№l 1SU 1ST T IMf 19″ 1997 MM
Uoufce. Uavia UoWilam
Figure 5 -- New United States Refrigerators: Electricity Use, Size, and Price
Continuing with the impressive gains in refrigerator efficiency, we now compare the quantity of energy saved due to these improvements with various sources of electrical generation in the United States. The refrigerator data assume that all refrigerators in use meet the current standard (which of course they do not yet, but eventually will as old units are replaced with new units). In Figure 6, the comparison is based on electricity saved or generated. Using this as a basis of comparison, refrigerators save about one- third of the amount of energy that the entire nuclear fleet in the United States generates. The data are for the year 2005.
In the next image, Figure 7, present a similar comparison as in Figure 6, but here we value the electricity at the wholesale price (3 cents/kWh — for conventional hydro, rene-wables, and nuclear) but at the retail price (8.5 cents/kWh — for energy saved and PV systems. Using the value of the power as the metric, energy saved due to refrigerator standards has a value of nearly twice all the hydropower in the United States and about 75 percent of all electricity generated by the United States nuclear power stations. Again, we assume all refrigerators operate at the current standards for efficiency.

I& quot-
39V II»
Figure 6 — Annual energy saved from refrigerators vs. several sources of generation in the
US — 2005
e %
Figure 7 — The Value of Electricity Saved vs. Produced in the US — 2005
California'-s efforts to encourage efficiency through building and appliance standards provide an interesting example that is directly applicable to the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the mid-1970s in response to a rise in fuel prices, at times limitations in fuel supply, concerns regarding environmental impacts of electricity production and other factors, California began to set building and appliance standards, and initiated utility programs aimed at reducing electricity use. We estimate that the current impact of these programs reduces electricity demand in California by about 40 TWh or 15 percent. Figure 8, provides an illustration of these savings. This works out to a reduction of about 1,000 kWh per person currently.
Each year, the cost of conservation programs, public interest R& amp-D, and standards adds ~1 percent to electric bills, but cuts one-half percent off the bill. So an investment of $ 1 in say 1990 saves $ 0. 50 per year for 10 to 20 years. The simple payback time is 2 years. We arrive at this by comparing the initial investment ($ 1) to a savings in each year of ($. 50). So in 2 years we have paid off the initial investment, but savings continue for many more years.
1 Vi ni flimtinltl^HlcHj и& gt-и pihCnJMoHiikiii ЦП.
Figure 8 -Annual Electricity Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards in California
However, to implement this extensive effort for utility efficiency programs, California had to put in place a number of policies. In Figure 9, we provide annual funding levels for investment in energy efficiency by California'-s investor owned utilities3. As the graph indicates, funding levels have fluctuated considerably since 1976. The state has now placed energy efficiency as its most preferred resource and has committed to aggressively fund these efforts for the next few years, as the figure illustrates. The figure also highlights a number of important policy decisions that the state made over this time period. These include:
1982 — Decoupling utility profits from sales to eliminate the negative incentives associated with reduced sales
1990 — Providing performance incentives to utilities that meet or exceed efficiency savings 2001 — Including efficiency as a part of Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) and directly comparing savings to other options of meeting future load and load growth, including other policy considerations.
Figure 8 showed that to increase energy efficiency in the electric sector in California currently saves about 40,000 GWh per year. We estimate that this results in an annual reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in California by 20 million metric tonnes, based on marginal generation from natural gas plants with emission rates of one-half tonne of CO2 per MWH. California currently produces about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Various estimates of the costs and methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are currently under discussion. Concerns abound regarding how costly it may be to reduce CO2 emissions to acceptable levels to reduce the impact of global warming. In Figure 10, we reproduce a copy of a cost curve for greenhouse gas reductions prepared by McKinsey & amp- Company (Per-Anders Enk-vist, Tomas Naucler, and Jerker Rosander4) in collaboration with the Swedish utility Valtenfall. Note that in such plots, area is proportional to net annual euros saved (if area is below the x-axis) or expended (if above the x-axis). In more detail, the y-axis measures net cost in euros/tonne, the x-axis in quantity in tonnes per year, and the product (area) is the euros per year. All data are for a single year — in this case the year is 2030. Total savings or costs per measure depend on the longevity of the measure. In Figure 10, considerable amount of emission abatement can be accomplished at a negative cost — that is at a savings compared to business as usual practices. Most of these involve improving the efficiency of energy use:
These utilities provide service to about 75% of the state'-s population. The remainder is served
by municipal utilities and other public agencies.
http: //www. mckinseyquarterly. com/Energy_Resources_Materials/A_cost_curve_for_greenhouse_gas_reduction_abstract
Increased building insulation Improved fuel efficiency in vehicles Improved air-conditioning system and water heating
Figure 9 -California Investor Owned Utility Investment in Energy Efficiency
Crtoawnre hwip c& gt-" x* кя
СНЫЧ wfn iMWimngi
jib & quot-!<- J H. L! Ж
-tnjrexi iti1 we

hiiHGia и uliI & quot-. If. Dy ШГ in- '-П five
Figure 10 -- Cost Curve of Greenhouse Gas Abatement
We have estimated the area below the x-axis in this figure at ~450 Billion Euros per year, mainly from efficiency measures. Interestingly, the area above the x-axis, mainly for renewable supply, is roughly of the same magnitude. If we can implement these at savings and costs illustrated above, there would be no net cost of getting to 450 ppm of CO2.
Many other examples of such costs curve can be found and, generally, they show that energy efficiency measures not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but actually save money. However, just as California had to struggle to convince others that building and appliance standards were not only a good idea but highly cost-effective, we think the same problems will arise as we try to convince others that energy efficiency is an important tool in our effort to stem the ever rising tide of global warming.
3/2011_МГСу ТНИК
1. Akbari, H., S. Konopacki. 2005. «Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-island reduction strategies,» Energy
Policy, 33: 721−756.
2. Akbari, H., L. S. Rose, and H. Taha. 2003. «Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using high- resolution orthophotos,» Landscape and Urban Planning, 63: 1−14.
3. Akbari, H. and L. S. Rose. 2001a. «Characterizing the fabric of the urban environment: A case study of metropolitan
Chicago, Illinois,» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-49 275, Berkeley, CA.
4. Akbari, H., and L. S. Rose. 2001b. «Characterizing the Fabric of the Urban Environment: A Case Study of Salt
Lake City, Utah.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-47 851, Berkeley, CA.
5. Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz and H. Taha. 2001. «Cool Surfaces and Shade Trees to Reduce Energy Use and Improve
Air Quality in Urban Areas,» Solar Energy 70(3) — 295−310.
6. Broecker, W. S., 2007. CO2 Arithmetic. Science 9 March: Vol. 315. no. 5817, p. 1371. DOI: 10. 1126/science. 1 139 585.
7. CRMD. 2007. Cool Roof Material Database. http: //eetd. lbl. gov/CoolRoofs/.
8. Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy. 1997. «Radiative forcing and climate response,» J Geophys Res, 102, D6: 6831−6864.
9. Kaarsberg, T. and H. Akbari. 2006. «Cool roofs cool the plant,» Home Energy, Sep/Oct issue: 3841. 10. Myhre et al. 1998: Geophys Res Let, 25, 14(2715−2718).
11. Rose, L. S, H. Akbari, and H. Taha. 2003. «Characterizing the Fabric of the Urban Environment: A Case Study of Greater Houston, Texas,» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-51 448, Berkeley, CA.
12. Wikipedia, 2006. http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_ popula-tion#endnote_ USnone. 13. Pomerantz, M., H. Akbari, and J. T. Harvey. 2000a. «T he benefits of cooler pavements on durability and visibility.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-43 443, Berkeley, CA.
14. Pomerantz, M., B. Pon, H. Akbari, and S. — C. Chang. 2000b. «The Effect of Pavement Temperatures on Air Temperatures in Large Cities.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-43 442, Berkeley, CA.
15. Pomerantz, M., H. Akbari, P. Berdahl, S. J. Konopacki and H. Taha. 1999. «Reflective surfaces for cooler buildings and cities,» Philosophical Magazine B 79(9)-1457−1476.
16. Pomerantz, M., and H. Akbari. 1998 «Cooler Paving Materials for Heat Island Mitigation,» Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 9−135.
17. Pomerantz, M., H. Akbari, A. Chen, H. Taha, and A. H. Rosenfeld. 1997. «Paving Materials for Heat Island Mitigation.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBL-38 074, Berkeley, CA.
18. Rosenfeld, A. H., J. J. Romm, H. Akbari, and M. Pomerantz. 1998. «Cool Communities: Strategies for HeatIslands Mitigation and Smog Reduction,» Energy and Buildings, 28(1)-51−62.
19. Taha, H. 2002. «Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts of Increased Urban Surface Albedo and Vegetative Cover in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-49 210, Berkeley, CA.
20. Taha, H. 2001. «Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Tropospheric Ozone in California: A Preliminary Episodic Modeling Assessment of the Los Angeles Basin and the Sacramento Valley.» Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-46 695, Berkeley, CA.
21. Taha, H., S. -C. Chang and H. Akbari. 2000. «Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts of Heat Island Mitigation Measures in Three U. S. Cities. «Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBL-44 222, Berkeley, Calif.
Ключевые слова: строительный сектор, изменение климатических условий, энергосбережение, энергетические инициативы штата Калифорния.
Key words: construction, climate changes, energy saving, Californian energy initiatives.
ВЕСТНИК 3/2011
Арт РОЗЕНФЕЛД (род. в 1927 г.) защитил докторскую диссертацию по физике в 1954 г. в Чикагском Университете под руководством Лауреата Нобелевской премии Энрико Ферми, после чего работал на факультете физики Калифорнийского университета (г. Беркли). Затем перешел в Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory в группу, возглавляемую Нобелевским лауреатом Луисом Альваресом, которую в дальнейшем и возглавил, где работал до 1974 г. К этому моменту он решил сосредоточить свои усилия на исследованиях в области эффективного использования энергии, организовал Центр по энергосбережению в строительстве в рамках Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, которым руководил до 1994 г.
В 1994 — 1999 гг. Д-р Артур РОЗЕНФЕЛД являлся главным советником заместителя Министра Министерства Энергетики США по энергосбережению и использованию возобновляемых источников энергии. В 2000 г. Губернатором штата Калифорния Г. Дэвисом был назначен руководителем Энергетической комиссией штата. Переназначен на тот же пост Губернатором штата А. Шварценеггером. Ушел на пенсию в 2010 г.
В Энергетической комиссии штата Калифорния (лидера США в области энергосбережения) Артур РОЗЕНФЕЛД отвечал за исследовательскую программу в области экономии энергии с годовым бюджетом в 82 миллиона долларов США, за энергосберегающие программы в области строительства, использования энергии и ряд других программ с общим годовым бюджетом более 1 миллиарда долларов США.
Д-р РОЗЕНФЕЛД является одним из организаторов Американского Совета по энергоэффективной экономике (ACEEE) и Института энергетики и окружающей среды Калифорнийского университета (CIEE).
Он автор и соавтор более чем 400 монографий и научных публикаций.
Д-р Артур РОЗЕНФЕЛД является лауреатом многих американских и международных премий:
— Премии Сцилларда по физике (1986 г.) —
— Премии Карно в области энергосбережения (Министерство энергетики США, 1993 г.) —
— Премии Беркли за многочисленное цитирование (Калифорнийский университет, 2001 г.) —
— Премии журнала «Экономист» за лучшие инновации года (2008 г.) —
— Премии Энрико Ферми, старейшей и одной из наиболее престижных премий в области науки и технологий (присуждается Правительством США по представлению Президента США, 2006 г.).
Этой премией, вручаемой Президентом США, д-р РОЗЕНФЕЛЬД особенно гордится, т. к. является последним аспирантом Лауреата Нобелевской премии Энрико Ферми, защитившим диссертацию при его жизни.
В апреле 2011 года д-ру Артуру РОЗЕНФЕЛДУ присуждена Международная премия «Глобальная Энергия», учрежденная рядом российских и международных компаний, в том числе — Газпромом, РАО «ЕЭС» и другими. Эта премия аналогична Нобелевской премией в области энергетики.
Артур РОЗЕНФЕЛД заслуженно считается основоположником современного энергосбережения, в том числе и в области строительства. Недаром сегодня многими ведущими специалистами рассматривается возможность введения специальной международной единицы энергосбережения «Один Розенфельд».

Заполнить форму текущей работой