Articles in energy efficiency
California energy regulators approved spending $3.1 billion over the next three years to cut the amount of electricity used in the state. This is one of the most aggressive energy efficiency plan among U.S. states, …
Google has announced the Google PowerMeter, a program that displays real-time information about home energy consumption on your computer The program is in closed beta right now, but Google hopes that it will eventually be …
When power hungry equipment like air-conditioning units and heating systems are all switched on at once, as often happens in commercial buildings. Power consumption spikes, and a building’s owners are left with hefty peak-demand charges …
Here are 6 ways you can save over $4,000 a year in utility bills, with an initial outlay of around $2,000.
1. Cover your ducts
Cost: $50 to $250
Saving: $500 to $1,500 a year
Inspect heating and cooling …
Last week’s log entry by Andris Piebalgs starts this way:
Which is the best energy source? This is not an easy question. If we are to apply the European Energy policy, it has to be a source of energy that contributes to our security of supply, that is low carbon and that increases the competitively our economy. Several energy sources answer this question. Renewables, for sure. Some people argue that nuclear is the right choice. Others that we have affordable fossil fuels for many years, and with a bit of carbon capture and storage we can continue our hydrocarbonated lives, like we have done for the last 80 years. All these solutions have its defenders and its opponents. But none of them is my favourite.
[break]
Crossposted at The European Tribune.
After an awkward start with bio-fuels, Andris Piebalgs is finally addressing EU’s energy future objectively. In a nutshell:
For me the best energy is the energy that we don’t use. In other words, energy efficiency. There is no cleaner kilowatt/hour than the one we don’t consume. Every cubic meter of gas we don’t burn makes us a cubic meter less dependent on foreign supplies. Every barrel of petrol that we don’t need makes our economy a barrel less vulnerable to volatile oil prices.
These few sentences address many of the issues raised by the commentators at Andris’ blog during the past weeks. But there is more to it than simply facing the coming energy decline, an Energy Efficiency policy can have economic upturns:
To make things more interesting, when we make an investment in energy efficiency we create jobs and growth in Europe. Let’s put the case of better insulation for your house. Putting double glazed windows certainly is an investment that has a cost. So has your gas bill. The difference is that the cost of the windows will go to a European window company, and will be installed by European workers. Your double-glazed window will not only help to reduce your gas bill and your greenhouse gas emissions, increase the comfort of your house, but will also help to create new window companies and installer jobs. The alternative consists of taking your hard earned euros and sending them to rich oil and gas producing countries.
This all sounds better than the hollow bio-fuel talk. As we’ve seen previously at TOD:E some states in the EU have poor records on GDP unit generated per Fossil Fuel unit consumed. This could be a good measure of how this policy gets under way. As discussed, the 2000$ / boe could be a tentative target for every state of the EU (accounting for currency oscillations).
Some commentators were fast in reminding that Jevons’ Paradox may indeed imply a different outcome than what would otherwise be expected from energy efficiency improvements. But for energy consumption to increase in face of a technological development, there has to be surplus supply, which at least for Oil and Natural Gas today is not the case.
There are two extra advantages for a Energy Efficiency lead policy in today’s energy landscape:
- Alternative energy sources have their own timings entering the market. Even if there’s a political shift towards some alternative(s), technological development might constrain its growth (e.g. Photo-voltaics) hence Efficiency might be the best short-term policy against energy constraints;
- Energy Efficiency is popular. It is hard for anyone to be against it, the dependence on foreign sources diminishes as so the bills by the end of the month.
Finally the announcement of how this policy is taking shape:
Certainly, there are many things that the Commission can do at political level, and I’m proud to announce that 2008 will be the European year of energy efficiency. During these 12 months I plan to come up with a number of energy efficiency legislative proposals, including a stronger energy efficiency in buildings directive; a new energy efficiency labelling directive; new standards for energy efficiency in various groups of products; a Covenant of Mayors for energy efficiency and last but not least, an international agreement on energy efficiency that I hope to sign in Japan next June. In my next entry I will explain all these proposals in detail.
The Commission’s website on Energy Efficiency can be found here. Also in the Commision’s website you can download a copy of the Energy Green Paper (available in 19 different languages), where the 20% savings figure was divised. The english version can be downloaded directly from here [pdf!].
This political path for Energy security can only be well received. Let’s hope that the European year of energy efficiency initiative can be a fruitful one.
Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:
Andris Piebalgs : getting a sense of proportion
Piebalgs on European Energy Security
LuÃs de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe
Andris Piebalgs continues this Friday his blogging on bio-fuels, addressing some of the concerns expressed by the readers of the last blog-entry.
I agree that a radical change in consumer behavior is needed if we want Europe to be more energy efficient. At the same time, as policy makers we have to come up with policies that are based on present day realities. And the reality is that most Europeans are living and working in big cities and using modern means of transport. It would be unrealistic to impose sanctions on car producers and users if no alternatives are provided.
Before continuing I can’t but express once more my joy in seeing EU’s leaders having such a close interaction with their citizens. More bio-fuel talk under the fold.
[break]
Crossposted at the European Tribune.
In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context. Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices. Increase in the price of the latest has very small influence on the cost of bread. It makes up around 4 per cent of the consumer price of a loaf.
[...]
We need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to the second generation biofuels using lignocellulosic materials as a feedstock. With this in mind, the Commission within the forthcoming review of the Common Agricultural Policy will urge the farmers to invest more in short rotation forestry crops and perennial grasses which are the most typical feedstocks for advanced biofuels.Over the past 30 years, Europe’s farmers have stood accused, through their association with the Common Agricultural Policy, of over-producing and dumping their surpluses with the aid of massive export subsidies on over supplied world markets, therefore depressing market prices and contributing massively to poverty and starvation in poor countries. That criticism has now been reversed. The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.
[...]
And let’s not forget that oil is a finite commodity, and high oil prices are one of the main factors making food more expensive, particularly in poor countries.
The most important questions raised in the previous log entries were left unattended. Here’s a simple accounting exercise to get a real sense of proportion:
The EU consumes today roughly 20 Mb/d of Oil. Of that about two thirds are used in Transport, make it 13 Mb/d. Assuming that EU’s Transport use remains unchanged up to 2020 that turns the target to something like 1.3 Mb/d.
Ethanol has an energy density of about 60% of gasoline, biodiesel is somewhat better, so make it 75%. Thus to replace those 1.3 Mb/d of Oil, about 1.75 Mb/d of bio-fuels are needed ( 1.3/0.75 ).
Ethanol production in temperate climates has an EROEI below 2:1, biodiesel about 4:1. Oil’s EROEI differs markedly from place to place (offshore versus onshore, etc) but 10:1 is a general enough mark. Accounting for EROEI, the useful energy the EU gets from Oil is about 1.2 Mb/d. To match that useful energy, total bio-fuels production has to rise to 2.1 Mb/d ( 1.2/0.75/0.75 ).
Corn crops yield about 3500 litres of ethanol per hectare per year (that’s 9.5 litres per hectare per day). With sugar cane in the tropics that number goes up to 6000 (16,5 litres per hectare per day). But for bio-diesels the numbers are considerably lower, around 1250 litres per hectare per year (3,5 per hectare litres per day).
Using 159 litres for a barrel, 2.1 Mb correspond roughly to 333 Ml (mega-litre). Using again the most optimistic figure for the temperate regions, the EU needs to allocate thirty five million (35 000 000) hectares to bio-fuels production.
I live in a state that has an area of less than 9 million hectares. Germany has an area just over 35 million hectares.
All that dark green area producing ethanol in 2020?
Good or evil? Friend or foe? This kind of wording doesn’t fit in my Engeneering/Architecture dictionaries. Bio-fuels are not an option, it’s all a matter of numbers.
Data sources:
Previous coverage of Andris Piebalgs blog:
Piebalgs on European Energy Security
LuÃs de Sousa
TheOilDrum:Europe
How can the power companies that now make money selling electricity make money instead by helping Americans conserve energy?
It’s a question that pervades the impending transformation to a low-carbon energy economy. Power plants, already massively …
This week European Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, moves the debate onto the key issue of bio-fuels. The comment I left on his blog pursued the theme of EroEI and energy efficiency. If you feel strongly about bio-fuels then PLEASE call by Andris Piebalg’s blog and leave him a polite, forceful, well documented message.
Andris Piebalgs drives a Saab 9-5 that runs on bio-ethanol. By my estimation, the energy efficiency of this vehicle is a meagre 5%. Andris no doubt believes he is doing the right thing and I believe he cares a great deal about European energy. And yet he is driving one of the least energy efficient vehicles ever produced - and he is a physicist. How on Earth have these totally bizarre circumstances come about?
[break]
So how have I determined the energy efficiency of a bio-fuel Saab to be 5%. The calculation is as follows:
I have assumed the ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) of tempearte latitude bio-ethanol is 1.2. Sources here and here. Hence the energy efficiency of fuel production is:
((eroei-1) / eroei) * 100 = 0.2 / 1.2 = 16.7%
Assuming the internal combustion engine efficiency is 30% (combined urban cycle) yields an over all efficiency of 0.3 * 0.167 = 5%.
“And how have these bizarre circumstances come about?” - the answer to that I believe lies in an obsession with CO2 emissions that has lost sight of energy efficiency.
First of all, when biofuels replace fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions are almost always lower. Biofuels are produced from plants that absorb the CO2 they generate when they are burnt. This has to take into account the fertiliser used to produce the crops, the energy needed to convert them into liquid fuels and so on. On this basis, biofuels produced in Europe from rape seed, wheat and sugar beet, typically reduce emissions by 20-50% compared to the oil they replace. Biofuels from sugar cane, waste vegetable oil and second generation biofuels can save 75% or more. Under our proposal, all biofuels used for the EU target will have to save, at least, 35%.
I have to say that in this statement the claims made about CO2 conservation seem accurate - proving that the principals involved are understood by the EU Commission. It is just that the energy cost / energy efficiency has not been taken into account.
Variations in ERoEI with CO2 conserved assuming the energy input to bio fuel production is from fossil fuel.
Andris goes on to say:
And this is why biofuels are so important. Today, there are only three ways to reduce greenhouse emissions: the shift from polluting modes to more energy efficient ones (i.e. rail, short sea shipping, collective transport); the promotion of less consuming cars, by establishing CO2/km targets; and biofuels.
I’m sorry this is just not true. The middle of the three options is of course the most sensible - to concentrate upon energy efficient vehicles. But what about:
1. Electric cars running on renewable or nuclear electricity. This is the future of vehicular transportation - so why are the European Commission not sinking billions into this?
2. Pneumatic cars (which I know very little about) but which are reported to be a viable option.
3. Reducing the speed limits across Europe which will save fuel (the number one priority!) reduce pollution and save lives.
Andris, I would like to emphasise how much we appreciate the opportunity to present these arguments on your blog. In your first blog entry you said you were here to listen. I sincerely hope that is the case and that following the period of listening and analysis that there is a period of action.
Andris Piebalgs is the European Energy Commissioner with responsibility for shaping European Union (EU) energy policy. These policies may then be adopted by the European Parliament and will effectively shape Europe’s energy future.
Mr Piebalgs has an informative web site where he has newly installed a blog inviting comments on EU energy policy.
I would like to invite all my fellow bloggers and all citizens to contribute your ideas.
Andris, I would like to thank you for providing us bloggers with this wonderful opportunity to relay our ideas and opinions directly into the heart of the European Parliament. But beware, not all ideas and opinions are born equal.
There’s more under the fold…..
[break]
I have left a lengthy comment trying to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency:
Andris Piebalgs said:
“I would like 2008 to be the European year of Energy Efficiency. I’m proposing to table measures to increase energy efficiency in our buildings, in our energy devices, in the way we consume energy. What are your ideas?â€
To which I replied:
I agree whole heartedly with this but need to draw attention to one glaring omission. The most important energy efficiency measure to consider is the efficiency of energy gathering / energy production systems. This must lie at the very heart of EU energy policy IMHO. And once this idea is taken on board then we will be on the road to our salvation.
The policy page says this:
Our sustainable future largely depends on increased use of renewable energies. The European Commission has proposed and the European Council has endorsed an overall binding 20% renewable energy target and a binding minimum target of 10% for transport biofuels for the EU by 2020. That means that in 2020 one fifth of the energy and one tenth of all transport fuels consumed in the EU will have to come from renewable energy sources.
My immediate reaction to this is one of unreserved endorsement combined with disbelief with respect to the biofuels targets. Until a way is found to grow temperate latitude biofuels with eroei over 7 that do not threaten our food supplies then my opinion is that further development of biofuels should be abandoned until such time. Internal combustion engines are at best 40% efficient. Thus taking bio ethanol with eroei of 1.5 and burning it in this way is tantamount to simply burning food piles for no beneficial reason.
This also caught my eye:
Technology will play a central role in achieving the targets of the new Energy Policy for Europe. For this reason the Commission will annually invest approximately €1 billion between 2007 and 2013 in energy technology research and innovation. Technology must help to lower the costs of renewable energy, increase the efficient use of energy and ensure that European industry is at the global forefront. The Commission will therefore prepare the first European Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007.
That is some €7 billion. Let us hope the money is spent wisely. I would feel inclined to replace “lower the cost of renewable energy” with “improve and prioritise the efficiency of renewable energies” - and then we will be on the right track.
And so if you were given an opportunity to give advice to the EU Energy Commissioner, what would you say? Post comments for discussion here or visit Andris Piebalgs’ blog to tell him directly what you think. Remember this will be a rolling debate that will take place over many months that may hopefully culminate in the building of a trans European HVDC grid and electrification of all our transportation.
On Friday 22nd February, I attended the above conference in Aberdeen. With presentations from the EU Commission, The European Parliament, Scottish politicians and leading academics, this was a high profile event. There follows an account of the key issues raised by the various speakers together with my own observations and opinions on these matters.
Peter Vis
Peter is a member of the cabinet of Andris Piebalgs who is European Commissioner for Energy. He has particular responsibility for climate change targets, renewable energy and bio-fuels…..
[break]
Peter provided an overview of the EU framework for staged targets in CO2 reductions and reported on the progress being made by various countries in meeting these targets. I gather the UK is not doing so well. The core of EU energy policy centres on reducing CO2 emissions combined with attention to energy security. On paper they are admirable goals.
However, do actions match the rhetoric? Peter conceded that bio-fuels had recently received some bad press and I believe he said that the EU was intent on rehabilitating this tarnished image and would proceed with existing targets for bio-fuel production.
I believe he also said that bio-fuels have the capacity to reduce CO2 emissions by 80%. Somewhat misleading I believe? It may be the case that Brazilian sugar cane ethanol with eroei (energy return on energy invested) about 7, may deliver around 86% CO2 reduction. However, with temperate latitude bio-fuels where eroei may range from 1.2 to 2.5 the CO2 reductions are much lower – roughly 17% and 60% respectively (assuming that fossil fuels provide the energy of production). And so the key question is this. Are these reductions in CO2 worth the cost of changing land use, soil depletion and the threat of famine caused by converting our food supply into liquid fuels?
No doubt new enzymes and cellulosic ethanol may address some of these issues. However, why not promote the simplest and most energy efficient route of putting renewable electricity in a battery in an electric car instead?
Professor Jim McDonald Chairman of the Energy Technology Partnership
Professor McDonald gave an overview of energy research groups in Scotland focussing on Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
Hydrogen fuel cell research and CO2 sequestration were mentioned and since neither is to my mind an energy efficient way of dealing with energy decline these priorities leave me with a sense of frustration.
I hasten to add that using CO2 in miscible gas flooding of hydrocarbon reservoirs is a completely different matter and should be prioritised since the incremental increase in oil recovery adds to our national and energy security. There is a trade off between burying some CO2 at the expense of producing more fossil fuel energy that when combusted will produce more CO2. I sincerely hope therefore that a way is found to revive the currently dormant BP Miller – Boddam scheme.
In the discussion session I made the point that energy efficiency needs to be applied to energy production as well as energy use and Professor McDonald endorsed that point of view. Personally I would like to see energy efficiency as the guiding beacon of all Scottish and EU based energy initiatives.
Alyn Smith MEP
Whilst Alyn represents the Scottish National Party (SNP) at the European Parliament he dedicated part of his speech to criticising the administrative mess that the SNP government recently inherited at the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh citing the ability of small interest groups to block progress in new energy development projects.
Alyn is a full member of The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the European Parliament and is a substitute member of the Industry, Research and Energy Committee.
Alyn provided details of truly vast sums of money available for energy research and development projects within the EU and invited anyone or organisation looking for advice or assistance on such matters to contact him or his office.
I sensed a genuine desire to help so if you are looking for EU funding contact Alyn here.
Malcolm Webb CEO UK Oil & Gas
Malcolm observed that the European Oil and Gas industry accounts for most of the primary energy production within the EU, is the main provider of energy security and yet receives little attention within the EU energy strategy.
A curious paradox indeed which I suspect is related in part to declining oil production that will shortly be followed by gas and the need to replace these historic energy resources with something new.
However, I happen to agree with Malcolm that sustaining indigenous oil and gas production within the UK and EU should be a high priority and I personally would like to see the burden of taxation shifted away from the producers and on to the consumers. In this way the incentive to consume is minimised and the incentive to explore and produce is maximised. That is the path to energy security.
Very difficult to sell this to the electorate I know.
Jason Ormiston CEO Scottish Renewables
Jason provided an overview of the progress made in renewable energy developments within Scotland that was laced with a sense of frustration at the slow pace of development.
Those who have pursued and promoted renewable energy developments in Scotland are to be applauded. The reasons for the slow pace of development need to be identified and cleared away. I sense the new SNP administration is on the job.
Rt Honourable Brian Wilson, former UK Energy Minister
Now retired from politics, Brian Wilson is one of the UKs most experienced and knowledgeable politicians on energy matters.
Good will and good intentions were on prominent display at this conference and Brian rather laconically observed that this had been the case for decades and voiced a sense of frustration at the slow pace of progress in developing Scotland’s non fossil fuel based energy economy. He observed a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. “We are in the hands of destinyâ€.
In the discussion session I pointed out that the actual response of the UK to declining gas production had been to build pipeline links to Norway and 100 bcm per annum infrastructure for importing LNG. When the LNG cargoes do not arrive we will wish we’d done something different.
I share Brian’s sense of scepticism.
First Minister Alex Salmond
Alex Salmond is an economist, leader of The Scottish National Party and First Minister of the Scottish Parliament where he leads a minority administration with great skill. Throughout his political career Alex has worked tirelessly towards the goal of gaining full independence for Scotland.
Unfortunately I had to leave to pick up kids from school and missed the days keynote speaker. I gather he announced a new Green Energy institute would be built in Aberdeen – maybe I need to prepare a CV – I guess there is a first time for everything.
Euan Mearns BSc PhD
Editor The Oil Drum Europe
euan dot mearns at btinternet dot com
End note
The first question of the day came from a rather nervous student, who had just submitted his PhD, who asked why a space program was not part of the EU energy policy. He went on to explain that Planet Earth is short of H3 (tritium) which is more abundant on The Moon. Sustainability of the human race lay at the core of this question which I imagine was lost on the majority of speakers and delegates. The scarcity and importance of tritium to nuclear fusion reactors is discussed here.
Brian Wilson mentioned the vision of those who built Scotland’s Hydro dams in the post-war years from which so much benefit has flowed. We once again require vision of this sort that stretches beyond where the next contract or research grant is coming from. I’d offer this student a job.
