International Seminars, Erice Monday August 20, 2007 Energy and Climate Managing Climate Change

International Seminars, EriceMonday August 20, 2007

Energy and ClimateManaging Climate Change

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

(916) [email protected]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html

or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”

2

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• California is introducing communicating electric meters and

thermostats that are programmable to respond to time-dependent electric tariffs.

3

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

7% of GDP =$1.0 Trillion

4

Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Qu

ads/

Yea

r

$ 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

5

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

6

Energy Intensity for Some Countries--Total Primary Energy Consumption per $ of GDPBtus per U.S. Constant Year 2000 Dollars (measured at Market Exchange Rate)

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Btu

s/$

United States France Italy China Japan India

7

Energy Intensity for Some Countries--Total Primary Energy Consumption per $ of GDPBtus per U.S. Constant Year 2000 Dollars (measured at Purchasing Power Parity)

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Btu

s/$

United States France Italy China Japan India

8

Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 2004(Fossil Fuel Combustion Only)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Intensity [Metric Tons of CO2 per Thousand U.S. Dollars (constant year 2000 $) at Purchasing Power Parity]

Met

ric

To

ns

of

CO

2 p

er p

erso

n Canada

Australia

California

Mexico

United States

Austria

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

Switzerland

Japan

India

China

UKSpain

9

Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 2004(Fossil Fuel Combustion Only)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Intensity [Metric Tons of CO2 per Thousand U.S. Dollars (constant year 2000 $) at Market Exchange Rates]

Met

ric

To

ns

of

CO

2 p

er p

erso

n Canada

Australia

California

Mexico

United States

Austria

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

Switzerland

Japan

IndiaChina

UKSpain

10

To maintain 50/50 chance of staying below 2°C implies stabilizing <450ppm GtCO2e (at least 30 Gt reduction by 2030)

070604 dtw summary 10

Source: Adapted from Stern Review, 2006; BAU emissions ~WEO A2 scenario; 450 ppm budget range based on Stern and preliminary IPCC analysis by

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Possible emission trajectories 2000-2100 of global Emissions: from Hal Harvey, Hewlett Foundation, adapted from Stern Review (next 8 slides)

GtCO2e

Business as usual

450 ppm CO2e

500 ppm CO2e (falling to 450 ppm in 2150)

2030

30+ GtCO2e

11

Available interventions in 6 sectors secure 83% of target

070604 dtw summary 11

TargetUnknown mitigation

“Known” mitigation

GtCO2e

Emissions

Mitigation potential

* Power sector emissions (but not mitigation potential) counted in industry and building sectors

2030 mitigation potential

2030 BAU emissions

Industry Buildings Transport Forestry Agriculture/ waste/

other

Power*

4

4

4

5

~60

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

~5

~25

>30

In Other Sectors*

12

Utilities

12

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

>30

~25

~5

Target

Unknown mitigatio

n

“Known” mitigatio

n

GtCO2e Emissions



2030 BAU emissions


other

Power

~

1. No New Conventional Coal

2. Carbon Capture and Sequestration

3. Renewable Portfolio Standard

4. Nuclear Power?

13

Industry

13

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

>30

~25

~5

Target

Unknown mitigatio

n


n

GtCO2e Emissions



2030 BAU emissions


other

Power

~

1. Standards for motors, other key technologies.

2. Sectoral targets.

14

Buildings

14

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

>30

~25

~5

Target

Unknown mitigatio

n


n

GtCO2e Emissions



2030 BAU emissions


other

Power

~

1. Strict Building Codes

2. Reform Utility Regulations

15

Transportation

15

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

>30

~25

~5

Target

Unknown mitigatio

n


n

GtCO2e Emissions



2030 BAU emissions


other

Power

~

1. Fuel efficient cars

2. Low carbon fuels

3. Reduced vehicle-miles traveled through e.g. congestion pricing, Bus Rapid Transit

16

Forestry

16

6

17

20

14

3

9

4

12

>30

~25

~5

Target

Unknown mitigatio

n


n

GtCO2e Emissions



2030 BAU emissions


other

Power

~

1. Stop Deforestation in the Amazon, Congo, Indonesia.

June 2006

June 2002

~60

17

18

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/A_cost_curve_for_greenhouse_gas_reduction_abstract

McKinsey Quarterly

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Energy_Resources_Materials/

19

20

International Seminars, EriceMonday August 20, 2007

Energy and ClimateManaging Climate Change

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, CommissionerCalifornia Energy Commission

(916) [email protected]

http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.htmlor just Google “Art Rosenfeld”

Plenary Session:

Policy and Potential for Energy Efficient Buildings

21

Supply Curve for CO2, Conserved thru Energy Efficiency in Electricity Sector in California - Potential in 2011 at 1 kwh = 0.454 kg of CO2

($300.00)

($250.00)

($200.00)

($150.00)

($100.00)

($50.00)

$0.00

$50.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Million Metric Tons of CO2 eq. per year

$/T

on

CO

2 e

q

15% of Electricity Sales in 2011

$3.5 Billion/year

22p. 42, Final Draft IPCC 4th Assessment, Working Group III

23

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

14,0001

96

0

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

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

24

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

14,0001

96

0

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

kW

h/p

ers

on

France

United States

California

Portugal

Spain

W. Europe

25

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

26Source: 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

Av

era

ge

En

erg

y U

se

or

Pri

ce

0

5

10

15

20

25

Re

frig

era

tor

vo

lum

e (

cu

bic

fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit(kWh/Year)

Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)

Refrigerator Price in 1983 $

$ 1,270

$ 462

27

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

Bil

lio

n k

Wh

/yea

r

= 80 power plants of 500 MW each

In the United States

28

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

Bill

ion

$ (

US

)/ye

ar

in 2

00

5In the United States

29

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

30

United States Refrigerator Use, repeated, to compare with

Estimated Household Standby Use v. Time

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1947

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Ave

rage

En

ergy

Use

per

Un

it S

old

(k

Wh

per

yea

r)

Refrigerator Use per Unit

1978 Cal Standard

1990 Federal Standard

1987 Cal Standard

1980 Cal Standard

1993 Federal Standard 2001 Federal

Standard

Estimated Standby Power (per house)

2007 STD.

31

California IOU’s Investment in Energy Efficiency

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,00019

76

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Mill

ions

of

$200

2 pe

r Y

ear

Forecast

Profits decoupled from sales

Performance Incentives

Market Restructuring

Crisis

IRP2% of 2004

IOU Electric Revenues

Public Goods Charges

32

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

45,0001

97

5

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

GW

h/y

ear

Appliance Standards

Building Standards

Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of

~1% of electric bill

~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003

33

Cool Urban Surfaces and Global Warming

Hashem AkbariHeat Island Group

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Tel: 510-486-4287Email: [email protected]

http:HeatIsland.LBL.gov

International Workshop on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Islands August 3 - 4, 2006; Tokyo, Japan

34

Temperature Rise of Various Materials in Sunlight

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

50

40

30

20

10

0

Tem

pera

ture

Ris

e (°

C)

Galvanized Steel

IR-Refl. Black

Bla

ck

Pai

nt

Gre

en A

sph

alt

Sh

ing

le

Red

Cla

y T

ile

Lt.

Red

Pai

nt

Lt.

Gre

en P

ain

t

Wh

ite

Asp

hal

t S

hin

gle

Wh

ite

Asp

hal

t S

hin

gle

Al

Ro

of

Co

at.

Op

tica

l Wh

ite

Op

tica

l Wh

ite

Wh

ite

Pai

nt

Wh

ite

Pai

nt

Wh

ite

Cem

ent

Co

at.

Wh

ite

Cem

ent

Co

at.

Solar Absorptance

35

Direct and Indirect Effects of Light-Colored Surfaces

•Direct Effect- Light-colored roofs reflect solar radiation, reduce air-

conditioning use

•Indirect Effect- Light-colored surfaces in a neighborhood alter surface

energy balance; result in lower ambient temperature

36

and in Santorini, Greece

37

Cool Roof Technologies

flat, white

pitched, white

pitched, cool & colored

Old New

38

Cool Colors Reflect Invisible Near-Infrared Sunlight

39

Cool and Standard Color-Matched Concrete Tiles

• Can increase solar reflectance by up to 0.5

• Gain greatest for dark colors

cool

standard

∆R=0.37 ∆R=0.29∆R=0.15∆R=0.23∆R=0.26 ∆R=0.29

CourtesyAmericanRooftile

Coatings

40

Cool Roofs Standards

• Building standards for reflective roofs

- American Society of Heating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE): New commercial and residential buildings

- Many states: California, Georgia, Florida, Hawaii, …• Air quality standards (qualitative but not quantitative credit)

- South Coast AQMD

- S.F. Bay Area AQMD

- EPA’s SIP (State Implementation Plans)

41

From Cool Color Roofs to Cool Color Cars

• Toyota experiment (surface temperature 10K cooler)

• Ford and Fiat are also working on the technology

42

Cool Surfaces also Cool the Globe

• Cool roof standards are designed to reduce a/c demand, save money, and save emissions. In Los Angeles they will eventually save ~$100,000 per hour.

• But higher albedo surfaces (roofs and pavements) directly cool the world (0.01 K) quite independent of avoided CO2. So we

discuss the effect of cool surfaces for tropical, temperate cities.

43

100 Largest Cities have 670 M People

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 10 20 30 40

Population (M)

Are

a D

ensi

ty (m

2 /per

son)

Mean = 560 m2/p

Med = 430 m2/p

Tokyo

Mexico CityNew York CityMumbaiSão Paulo

44

Dense Urban Areas are 1% of Land

• Area of the Earth = 511x1012 m2

• Land Area (29%) = 148x1012 m2 [1]

• Area of the 100 largest cities = 0.38x1012 m2 = 0.26% of Land Area for 670 M people

• Assuming 3B live in urban area, urban areas = [3000/670] x 0.26% = 1.2% of land

• But smaller cities have lower population density, hence, urban areas = 2% of land

• Dense, developed urban areas only 1% of land [2]

• 2% of land is 3 x 10^12 m2 = area of a square of side s =1700 km.

45

Potentials to Increase Urban Albdeo is 0.1

• Typical urban area is 25% roof and 35% paved surfaces• Roof albedo can increase by 0.25 for a net change of

0.25x0.25=0.063• Paved surfaces albedo can increase by 0.15 for a net change of

0.35x0.15=0.052• Net urban area albedo change at least 0.10

• So urban area of 3 x 10**12 m2 x delta albedo of 0.1 = effective 100% white area of 0.3 m2, area of a square of side 550 km.

• Equivalent area of snow (albedo = 0.85) = 0.35 x 10^12 m2 which = area of a square of side 600 km.

46

The Effect of Increasing Urban Albedo by 0.1 (cntd) (Hanson et al.)

• Given 3 results:– Harte ΔT = 0.011K– Hansen 0.016K– Our preliminary GISS run 0.002K – We shall adopt as an order of magnitude ΔT=0.01K– This is disappointing compared to predicted global warming of

say 3K, but still offsets 10 GtCO2 !!– see next slide.

47

Carbon Equivalency

• Modelers estimate a warming of 3K in 60 years, so 0.05K/year

• Change of 0.1 in urban albedo will result in 0.01K, a delay of ~0.2 years in global warming

• World’s current rate of CO2 emissions =

25 G tons/year (4.1 tons/year per person)

• World’s rate of CO2 emissions averaged over next 60 years = 50 G

tons/year

• Hence 0.2 years delay is worth 10 Gt CO2

48

Equivalent Value of Avoided CO2

• CO2 currently trade at ~$25/ton

• 10Gt worth $250 billion, for changing albedo of roofs and paved surface

• Cooler roofs alone worth $125B

• Cooler roofs also save air conditioning (and provide comfort) worth ten times more

• Let developed countries offer $1 million per large city in a developing country, to trigger a cool roof/pavement program in that city

49

UV Water Purification for Health, but avoids boiling

Typical interior layout of the WaterHealth

Community System Installation

in KothapetaAndhra Pradesh,

India.

Source: Dr. Ashok Gadgil, LBNL

51

How to Save 400 MtCO2 eq. per year

1. UV Water Purification– An alternative to boiling• Worldwide 3 Billion people have access only to polluted water• 1.2 Billion boil this; the remainder must use polluted water

– Many get sick and children die• Boiling water emits an avoidable 200 MtCO2 eq. per year

– Primarily fire wood is used for this– With heat content = to 2 million barrels of petroleum per day

2. Switching from Kerosene Lighting to LED rechargeable Flashlights• 2 Billion people off of electricity grid use kerosene lanterns• Rechargeable LED flashlights now cost less than $20• Worldwide this will avoid another 200 MtCO2 eq. per yearThe total of 400 MtCO2 eq. = 10% of Harvey’s reduction target in the

building sector

52

Switching from Kerosene Lanterns to Rechargeable LEDs

Evan MillsEnergy Analysis Department

Lawrence Berkeley National [email protected]

+ 1 510 486-6784http://www.ifc.org/led

Commercially available LEDs • 0.1 to 1 watt • Lumens/watts > 100 better than kerosene lanterns• Much better directionality adds to this advantage

Indigo

Monk eyhead

Standard Torch

Crank

Glorb XB

Cyberlux

Yage

Mightylight

Tikka XP

CUPP

Thrive (right)

BoGo

Impulse

Casibao

Rechargeable LED Flashlights and Task Lights Already Available

Documents

International Seminars, Erice Monday August 20, 2007 Energy and Climate Managing Climate Change