Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
There are a lot of people concerned about the pace of innovation as it relates to climate change and energy efficiency, because of fears about global warming.
Innovation has led to energy efficiency gains of between 1% and 1.5% for a very long time–perhaps as long as three centuries. For short periods within those three centuries, innovation has been even more robust.
However, every time somebody comes up with a way of saving energy, we end up finding ways to use even more energy with the money we’ve saved. This has become known as Jevon’s Paradox, and it has been discussed by economists since 1865, probably because economists weren’t interested in the invention of barbed wire.
In constructing strategies for defeating the dread global warming, the 1% – 1.5% rate of innovation is ‘baked in’ to adaptation and mitigation strategies. In some scenarios, they assume more. As Roger Pielke Jr. and his friends at the estimable Breakthrough Institute have repeatedly pointed out, it ain’t enough. To make a real difference on global warming, our energy efficiency would need to increase by between 4% and 6%, something that seems close to absurd.
But is it? Let’s talk about a subject dear to the hearts of global warming activists–tipping points. They use it to talk about points of no return for our atmosphere, something more sober scientists think is highly unlikely. But it gets them headlines.
But there are tipping points in technology, as well–witness the striking lack of horse manure on the city streets of New York and London. And the paucity of buggy whips, for that matter.
There are about 16 billion artificial lights in the world today, and about 13 billion of them get replaced every year. CFLs were supposed to change that, but everybody hates them–I think 15 billion of the world’s lightbulbs may well be CFLs stored unused in everybody’s closet.
CFLs could save 75% of the energy used for lighting. But they won’t, because they suck. (That’s a technical phrase meant to cover poor light quality, premature failure, inability to work in many settings and environments–they just suck.)
But LEDs are coming that can save 90% of the energy used for lighting, and they may work better than CFLs. (Anthony, you said you filled your house with them. How do they work?)
Stanley Jevons thought that if we saved 90% of the energy used on lighting, we would find some other use for that energy. And he might well be right. But as with other laws that have passed into obscurity, Jevons did not plan for a future that is almost within our sight, but was 150 years away from him. He couldn’t see a level of saturation that would cause energy use to plateau.
Energy use in the developed world is projected to increase by 0.3% per year through 2050. All of the growth will come in the developing world. But they will develop. They will reach the point where we are today by 2075. And regardless of whether innovation comes in strong or weak, their energy use will plateau, and then decline gently with innovation, stable population and social changes–do you know how much less energy a retired person consumes than someone in the work force? It’s a lot, and the number of retired people is going to skyrocket.
You can leave the lights on. You can buy more lights. But eventually you have enough. You can own three cars. But you can only drive one at a time. And houses will start getting smaller, not bigger, as demographic changes work through the population. And that means that eventually, innovations that improve energy efficiency will reduce energy usage. But, what are we talking about–another century? Another millenium?
How about before mid-century?
Can we achieve step change innovation in all types of energy use? That’s immediately followed by another key question–even if we can, will we?
Those who study energy use break it into several large sectors, with the largest being industrial, which consumes about half of all energy. Transportation accounts for 22%, and residential and commercial fall in between at about 30%. (Technically, the second largest use of energy worldwide is waste during generation and delivery of electricity, something that could be improved on…)
We know step change is possible for transportation. Audi had a car that got 80 miles per gallon on the market a few years ago. The U.S. fleet had an average of 22 mpg a couple years back. Ford is coming out with a model that gets 40 mpg right now. New commercial jet aircraft are at least 20% more fuel efficient than older models.
Half of all new windows sold are energy efficient, and energy efficient windows, doors and insulation could reduce waste by at least 35%. The same is true for new appliances. If we had a cash for clinkers instead of a cash for clunkers… well, you get the idea.
Industry could get a lot more mileage out of the energy it uses. In Denmark, 40% of their primary energy is delivered through combined heat and power at 85% efficiency, compared to the 35% efficiency of old fashioned power plants. In America, we get 9% of our power from CHP. (And how come nobody has thought of using the heat generated by nuclear power plants?)
There is not one thing I’ve talked about above that is not commercially available for sale today. There is not one thing above that would not save money over the long haul for the people who buy it. The average time for technology improvements to spread through a fleet of equipment is between 13 and 25 years. Certainly, if we moved on these available, off the shelf improvements now, they would be in place and reaping benefits before 2050.
People are reluctant to give up perfectly good refrigerators and cars before they are used up. Companies are reluctant to retire coal plants early, and to make capital investments in things like CHP or Waste to Energy without prodding. But we could redirect some of the subsidies we’re giving wind power companies…
Here in America we use 323 million btus per person per year. In Denmark they use 161 million btus per year. (We drive about twice as much as they do, on average, but that’s only a small part of the equation.) We could change that almost painlessly in fairly short order.
We don’t need any new toys to show Stanley Jevons is wrong. We just need to use the tools we have.
The progress of civilization can be measured in energy creation and usage. Without cheap and abundant energy, we will stagnate, and ultimately fall back. Even with cheap energy, businesses usually consider efficiency when purchasing new equipment and designing new processes, because it helps the bottom line and makes them more competitive.
There is no need or place for the government in energy creation and technology, except perhaps for umpiring the competition. Keep the taxes low, to encourage growth, and get out of the way.
/Mr Lynn
Was in Azerbaijan in ’96. The city was fitted out with CHP to work from the adjacent oilfields; pipes everywhere. Didn’t work though, nor did the oilfields come to that. If CHP was viable anywhere, the entrupenarial spirit will get it set up. Put government onto it and you will get PoPo (politics in, politics out)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.html
and not EiEo (engineering in, efficiency out).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316273/E-Type-Jaguar-supercar-200mph-electric-hybrid-jet-engine-costs-200K.html
IMHO of course :0)
Ralph- I’d rather ride through a wreck in that Ford too….
Been around a 2CV and 4CV some no- thanks…
Owned a Geo metro too was run over by a deer,
major damage-to the car…
Carniphage
October 12, 2010 at 3:55 am
What a bunch of socialist nonsense. Peak Coal, my a**, it never happened. What you guys really hate is man and all of mans activities. Artificially raising the price of power to compensate for increased efficiency is not only moronic but evil. Jevon was a socialist trying to use math to push a socialist agenda. His math was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only reason why his name is still around is because it gives a patina of science to socialist policies of enslavement. Any economist who still uses his work is a fraud. The mathematical tools needed to do the type of modeling Jevon claimed he had done did not even exist until the latter half of the 20 century.
Socialist have been manipulating and misrepresenting math and science in an attempt to give legitimacy to their plans for a lot longer then the current AGW campaign.
Ralph says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:29 am
“Come USA, can you not do better than that?”
______
Their gallons are smaller than your gallons. Ratio 1.2:1
50/40 = 1.25. You still have the bragging rights, but only just ;0)
Wow, the comments are flying in.
@Tom
Takes five to six times more energy than what? The alternative is I go out in my van and travel to communicate with people or get things I need. Or I go out and buy loads of books to gain knowledge I can get by just Binging something. Or I just don’t do these things at all.
It’s now possible to not need to leave the confines of one’s home to live a relatively full life. Less energy is used overall. It’s not the way I’d choose to live my life, but it’s possible, no?
Slightly confused. Anthony, do we actually have ‘global warming’?
You position changes too fast to keep track of it. One day it is global cooling (ice age), the next day it’s ‘natural variability’, now it’s ‘maybe global warming’.
Why is the land at the southern hemisphere drying up?. Maybe unlucky?
Ralph says:
“Come USA, can you not do better than that?”
Sure we could. A friend had a Dodge Colt [made in the late ’70’s or early ’80’s] that got almost 55 mpg. The secret? Not much pollution gear.
Then the U.S., led by California, started requiring more and more emissions add-ons, which all reduced the gas mileage.
Like everything in life, it was a trade-off, in this case between gas mileage [petrol kilometreage? What do you folks call it?] and smog.
The whole push due to smog first began in the Los Angeles area, which is a basin surrounded by mountains and often covered by a natural inversion layer that keeps the smog from dispersing. In most areas, such as Europe [and most of the U.S.], the extra pollution gear isn’t needed, so Euro cars can don’t have the smog equipment that reduces gas mileage.
If the only concern was gas mileage, we could build small cars today that would get 60 – 70 mpg. Geography and politics, not incompetence, is the reason we don’t.
Hi all. Lots of interesting stuff here–thanks. For the two who questioned it, the rates of improvement (both current and desired) were annual figures. 1-1.5% per year for the last three centuries–maybe more, and 4-6% estimated to be what we need per year to really make a difference in global warming.
Nice sentiment, but again one which founders on the rocks of practicality (and greed).
While certainly over time LEDs should replace CFLs and incandescents, on the other hand the draconian regulations being passed all over the developed world are forcing people to switch to CFLs by outlawing incandescents.
The net effect is to greatly delay the onset of LEDs, as CFLs will enjoy the economies of scale as well as incumbent install base.
Even LEDs have a cost: the cost of a 100 watt incandescent is under $1. The cost of an equivalent LED is over $40.
Sure, there is a lower operating cost of electricity. But $40 is a lot for India, for China and is significant for Brazil and Russia – even if it is insignificant (relatively) for the developed world.
In addition – as others have noted – the light bulb is one of the least power consuming portions of a household.
Air conditioning, refrigerators, and washing machines/dryers are the largest.
Smokey says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:07 am
And why don’t you start with reducing the worst corrupted pollution ever invented by the human kind? (It’s up to you to find it out which is it)
There is a big misunderstading in the article: The worlds most important light source is not the incandescent bulb, but the fluorescent tube. And compared to the fluorescent the LED will bring (in the future, ie. 5 years or so) a gain of 30% in efficiency, later maybe 50%.
sorry, i have bad news: also LEDs suck.
i have a fish tank, or aquarium, which is lit by a 25W fluorescent light. Because i dont like 220V in humid environment (where wife sticks her hands to feed the fishes) i thought to replace it with LEDs. So i bough 15 1W LED units and relative 12V drivers, plus a 220v-12v transformer to supply low voltage to the drivers.
result? the 15w LED light i have assembled is much, much dimmer than the 25W fluorescent light. i have calculated that i need around 25W worth of LEDS to replace 25W worth of fluo light. and this considering that LED’s only emit in one direction while fluo tube emits in all directions.
costwise, 15W worth of LED costed me like 3x25W fluorescent lights. yes, the LED and drivers i bought are commercial (read chinese) stuff and not cutting edge technology devices (which cost a LOT more) so they are probably a little less efficient, but they are alsomuch cheaper.
so, forget about the 90% gains i have seen people fantasizing about. perhaps LED are better compared to a low power incandescent bulb (low power ones are a lot less efficient) but they are not better compared to fluorescent tubes or high power incandescent or alogen. and this is a real life test, not some numbers pulled from some spec sheet.
Why are you writing a post that focuses on “making a difference in global warming”, e.g., energy effeciency? If the globe is warming, we are fortunate. Read some geology. If we have more CO2, we are fortunate.
Also: what is your source? “Innovation has led to energy efficiency gains of between 1% and 1.5% for a very long time–perhaps as long as three centuries. For short periods within those three centuries, innovation has been even more robust.”
And notice that you are writing about a colder-than-what-went-before warm period of an interglacial. Try advancing civilization, affluence, population, technological development (becaused we could), etc., for the issues you are putting forward. Think about what comes afterwards and get off the worry about “global warming/CO2” and energy efficiency for this purpose.
I wish WUWT would stop speaking to those guys and gals whose so-called science is simply a fraud.
@DesertYote.
Perhaps you should re-read my point.
Improved efficiency lowers the effective cost of a resource. Lowering the cost increases consumption. Happened with coal, happened with gasoline. Happens with computing power. It’s inevitable.
This has everything to do with rudimentary economics and nothing at all to do with a global conspiracy of fictional socialists.
Improved efficiency -> More consumption. is all.
C.
Erm, five to six times more than the examples you gave, viz. watching television and using the home phone. Instead of television, computer. Instead of home phone, mobile phone. See? This is Jervon’s paradox all over – as devices become more efficient we invent devices that use more energy.
In the beginning, all was dark as night.
God said “Let Newton be”, and all was light.
It couldn’t last; the Devil, howling “Ho,
Let Einstein be” restored the status quo.
(Can’t remember the author; apologies.)
“…………do you know how much less energy a retired person consumes than someone in the work force?”
Looks like Europe will be using a lot less electricity in 50 years time, even without energy efficiencies. The US on the other hand……
I thought the world’s most important light source was the sun.
“…witness the striking lack of horse manure on the city streets of New York and London…”
Obviously, you’ve not read the Guardian and the NY Times in a long, long time.
Tom, an interesting read. But you miss some of the most obvious points to be made. You note CFLs suck, and they do. LEDs are probably ready for prime time right now, but wait, in our rush to save energy, we spent money on useless light bulbs, further, the last incandescent factory recently shut its doors in the U.S., so there is even less money to spread around. Consider the time, energy and money wasted on CFLs(not to mention what we’re going to do with all the mercury.) So, the lesson here is not to force technological or efficiency advances, but rather allow it to happen. We’d literally save energy if we do.
Later, you state, Here in America we use 323 million btus per person per year. In Denmark they use 161 million btus per year. (We drive about twice as much as they do, on average, but that’s only a small part of the equation.) We could change that almost painlessly in fairly short order.
Tom, yes we drive twice as much, we have twice as far to go! So does our produce at the store, the wear on the vehicles is twice as much, the energy required to build additional vehicles…..on and on. Tom, here’s a news flash. The U.S. isn’t Denmark. Why do people insist on drawing ridiculous comparisons to countries with no parallels to the U.S. This is an “apples to oranges” comparison. Our energy use does not, can not, in any manner, be equated with any tiny over populated country in Europe. The needs of those nations are not the same needs as the U.S.
oldseadog says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:11 am
Great !. Have you read my post above?
Enneagram says:
October 12, 2010 at 6:29 am
Alexander says: “There is a big misunderstading in the article: The worlds most important light source is not the incandescent bulb, but the fluorescent tube. And compared to the fluorescent the LED will bring (in the future, ie. 5 years or so) a gain of 30% in efficiency, later maybe 50%.”
So say you.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:29 am
Could someone tell me though, why do Americans use SO much energy? And while we (in England) use 140 litres of water in washing clothes (per person, per week), Americans use a whopping 400 litres!
Well BIG JIM, despite its technological edge in many areas the US is lightyears behind in domestic appliances.
When we first moved to the US (1992) we were appalled by how backward things were here. We were used to shopping in France where every credit card reader was connected to an X.25 network, so that as your card was swiped, the receipt was printing out (on a fast printer) before the card had even left the reader slot, and in a restaurant they would bring a reader to your table, swipe it, and the IR communication between the hand-held reader and X.25 had your receipt ready instantly.
Move to the US, and the swipe your card, you listen to the beeps as it dials, wait … wait … wait and then a crappy, slow, often illegible dot matrix printer slowly grinds out your receipt.
Then you go to buy a washing machine — remember the old tub your mother (or maybe grand-mother) had with a lid on top to dump the clothes in and a vertical paddle thing that swishes the clothes let and right, left and right … using gallons and gallons (oh, btw, do remember that when comparing gallons, the US gallon is about the same as an English pint) of water. Now, 2010, front loaders are the newest thing — horribly expensive of course. And being American, HUGE.
The there are freezers. You know that chest freezer you have in the garage? Well here they are vertical freezers, so open the door and all the cold air falls out on your feet and everything begins to thaw.
Back to the washers … most of them don’t have any significant heaters in them, they rely on hot water from the domestic supply, and again, this being America, hot water is basically warm water, since if someone were to turn the hot tap on and it actually came out hot, they would scream and yell and call their lawyer ….
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:29 am
Could someone tell me though, why do Americans use SO much energy? And while we (in England) use 140 litres of water in washing clothes (per person, per week), Americans use a whopping 400 litres!
Sorry mate, but Americans don’t use that much water to wash their clothes. Maybe those using bathtubs do. I wash maybe one load per week. That is probably less than or about the same as 140 liters.
Either way, if we pay to have it cleaned, brought to our home, taken away from our home, cleaned again, then released, then what is the big problem? It’s not like we are asking you to pay for it.