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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One more consequence of CFLs: Home lamp and light sockets have a power resctriction, ususally indicated on the socket in some fashion. Since the CFLs draw approx. 1/4 of the power, in some cases my wife has had me put in a larger comparable size CFL than the incandescent it is replacing so she can have more light! There goes half of your savings.
As usual, Thomas Fuller writes about things he knows very, very little about. It’s called economics, Mr. Fuller. We have this thing in the USA called competition, and it drives decisions to the lowest cost (usually…there are exceptions such as when the government intervenes).
Mr. Fuller might be interested in reading about energy efficiency here:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/energy-conservation-is-not-sustainable.html
Still, it is interesting to read Mr. Fuller’s writings – as most of what he says is just plain wrong. As I’ve said before, it is a very good thing we have engineers around to get things done.
Tom,
I’d be interested in any studies which have documented changes in energy use upon retirement. Sounded reasonable until I thought about our own experience. When Nancy and I were working, we might leave at 6:00 AM, turning off the heat, TV, any other appliances… Which would stay off until we returned in the late afternoon. Since retirement, the heat stays on, (too often) the TV is in use whether or not anyone is watching, and other appliances are in use more than before. I think our energy consumption has gone up, rather than down, and I suspect we are not unusual.
Smokey,
You are right.
I had a new 1984 Dodge Colt and consistently achieved high 40’s to 50 mpg. It did not have the optional “economy stick” which was essentially an overdrive. Here it is 26 years later and comparing the compact cars today they get about the same as the larger models.
Something changed after the 1984 model because the newer ones barely got over 40.
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.)
That maybe because USA is many times larger than Danemark
juanslayton: The person who took your job is now using less energy at their home. The person who was enjoying retirement before you has died and is now using no energy whatsoever. And on and on it goes.
The replacement of the materials conserving, recycleable incandescent bulb, a few grams of glass, brass and milligrams of tungsten, packaged in a lightweight corrugated paper sleeve, domestically produced by the non recyclable, massive plastic, glass, phosphor, metal, electronic circuitry, fraudulently specified, in heavy cardboard box and bulky plastic blisterpack with multicolour printed Ecopromo, shipped from the other side of the world, is simply the triumph of politically leveraged advertising over reason.
That the inevitability of LEDs to obsolete CFLs was obvious at the time makes the concurrent loss of any North American capacity to make domestic lighting elements economic insanity.
The green jobs are all in advertising.
The hockey stick.
Mr Fuller is right, people will not accept being forced into purchases they don’t want.
The hockey stick applies to human nature. When the people have had enough, the population can suddenly change and at that point authority is lost. And global warming is all about authority.
It is no secret there is corruption in politics but when science is corrupted to serve a political agenda and universities are in on it, when manufacturers jump on board in expectation of profits from a fraud then its more than corruption. Its using the trust of the people and their tax dollars in science, the indoctrination of university students in a political cause, and limiting the products available for purchase to those approved by the global warming agenda.
The appreciation of the American people will go to honest scientists, universities and manufacturers and those who have attempted to take an easy path to success will probably find out they have been hit with a hockey stick.
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 liters of water in washing clothes (per person, per week), Americans use a whopping 400 liters!
Obviously you are dirtier!. Deodorants anyone? 🙂
James Sexton,
Thanks for your comment. However, half the people in America do live in small overpopulated islands, just like Denmark. They’re called metropolitan areas, which is why our average driving per year is only double Denmark’s, despite our much larger size. You might bear in mind that many Danes do venture outside their borders in their vehicles, as well.
Juanslayton, Thanks. The study I saw said 20% reduction after retirement, almost all due to lack of commuting and business-related travel.
And all, remember that my central point is that there does seem to be a level of saturation on energy use. Jevons could not have known about this 150 years ago. But in the U.S. (and some other developed countries) total fuel use has declined, as has energy use per capita.
There is such a thing as ‘enough.’ As long as it isn’t artificially imposed on people (especially the poor), I would think finding this out would be good news, overall.
Incandescent – about 15 lumens/watt
CFL – about 55 lm/w
LED – perhaps 70 lm/w (at least the ones you can buy)
Where is this 90% and 10:1 saving stuff?
In the lab, LEDs reach over 100 lm/w. $$$$
T5 Florescent tubes + electronic ballasts approach that today.
For 1/20 the cost.
In some places, CFLs work fine. I use them for outdoor security lights. No timers or photocells, on 24/7. Still less energy than incandescent, and far longer life. No problems in cold weather, if you leave them on all the time. They have their uses. But not refrigerators or ovens. (applies to LEDs as well)
I’ll switch to LEDs when the price comes out of the stratosphere.
Djozar says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:26 am
I thought the world’s most important light source was the sun.
It still is.
“”””” 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?) “””””
“”””” (And how come nobody has thought of using the heat generated by nuclear power plants?) “”””
Come now Thomas; surely you jest ?
So please give us a short Journalists description of the Physics of Nuclear Fission Power generation; of course leaving out that pesky heat which we don’t use anyway.
Due you have to be trained to say “how come nobody thought of” every time you run into some situation or information that YOU never thought of ? It is actually a whole lot more fruitful to simply fess up, and say “I never knew that”; that might actually bring on some further enlightenment from somebody willing to educate you.
They banned incandescent light bulbs in this country and offered me the expensive new “saver-bulbs” containing Merury and other enviroment-friendly materials.
As a consequence I have to turn up the electric heater even more, since the “saver-bulbs” don’t provide the heat we need anyway.
No energy saved. Just more expensive and inconvenient.
Not only do we drive further due to our size but we also grow more crops and manufacture more goods than does Denmark. Also, at the end of that US News and World Report article it mentioned that Denmark’s largest shipping firm used as much energy as the rest of the country combined, which puts it right up there with the US. So where’s the virture there?
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.
How do you know this? I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I would like to know the source.
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.
Not as cute, but a better story would be farm labor. Better energy sources and ways to use it had the side effect of sending most of those workers to the cities where they worked on the industrial revolution instead. Now that is a tipping point.
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.
I don’t know how much less energy a retired person uses. How much? Is it because retired people don’t drive to work?
Audi had a car that got 80 miles per gallon on the market a few years ago.
You keep throwing out these tidbits. Can’t you be a bit more specific? Is this the one?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/3374271
And houses will start getting smaller, not bigger, as demographic changes work through the population.
Really? In the post-war period we went from small houses and large families to large houses and small families. We buy as big as we can. Same for the automobiles.
We don’t need any new toys to show Stanley Jevons is wrong. We just need to use the tools we have.
You imply the most important goal is reducing energy use. Energy is like money. Few want to waste it, yet few want to have less. Saying we only need so much just hints at a lack of imagination.
If you ask me to cut back, I will ask where the savings will go. They will go somewhere or to someone else. They won’t be “saved”, they will just be redistributed. I will wonder if they deserve it more than I do. I will wonder about the ideology of this sharing of the wealth.
Retired Engineer says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:20 am
Incandescent – about 15 lumens/watt
CFL – about 55 lm/w
LED – perhaps 70 lm/w (at least the ones you can buy)
Yes we can!…..improve Incandescent
production of lumens per watt, it is only a matter of regulating the ratio of charges (it doesn’t matter if alternate current, you know). WUWT?, That’s possible.
See this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Ralph-
After reading your commercial for the C5, I had to go out to the garage and look just to reassure myself. Yep! My 1965 Chevrolet still has the IRS that it came with originally.
“”” Retired Engineer says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:20 am
Incandescent – about 15 lumens/watt
CFL – about 55 lm/w
LED – perhaps 70 lm/w (at least the ones you can buy)
Where is this 90% and 10:1 saving stuff?
In the lab, LEDs reach over 100 lm/w. $$$$
T5 Florescent tubes + electronic ballasts approach that today.
For 1/20 the cost. “””
It’s an interesting question as to how efficient it is possible to get in the production of “white” light; and by “white light” we mean light that the human eye perceives as “white”, which is worth keeping in mind since “light” by definition is visible to the human eye.
Wel there is a specific answer to the question too; which can be found in :- “The Science of Color”, which was published by the Committee on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; LOC # 52-7039.
And the answer is that the highest possible Luminous Efficiency is 400 lumens per Watt, which is produced by mixing a 448 nm Blue with a 568.7 nm yellow, which produces the standard Source C white light. I would tell you how much of each component you need; but the graphs in the book are quite confusing; but it appears that you need about twice as many Watts of the Blue as of the Yellow.
There is a problem with this of course. You do get a white appearing light source; which makes a great flash light; but in reality only those two wavelengths of 448, and 568.7 are actually present, so real colored surfaces will not look their correct color by reflected light of such a source; so it is not a useful solution except for certain applications like the white signalling light required on ships at night; ie human visible applications.
But the LED people believe they can get to 200 lumens per Watt. Typical strategy is to make something approaching the two color white light; and toss in a pinch of red to give better color rendition. You don’t have to move too far from the 400 l/W maximum to add the red correction; so theoretically you should be able to get closer to the 400 mark; but a practical implementation will have losses in phosphors and such; that knocks you down into the 200 range.
I suppose some actual 3-color LED solution that doesn’t use phosphors might be doable; but then you have the reality that LEDs are not strictly monochromatic, so each different bandgap material has a different spectrum that all combine; but is not as good theoretically as three monochromatic spectral lines.
But 100 l/W is a good achievement. The industry is still undergoing packaging, and driving circuit evolution; which will go on for some time.
Tom Fuller says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:17 am
James Sexton,
Thanks for your comment. However, half the people in America do live in small overpopulated islands, just like Denmark. They’re called metropolitan areas, which is why our average driving per year is only double Denmark’s, despite our much larger size. You might bear in mind that many Danes do venture outside their borders in their vehicles, as well.
=======================================================
Yes, Tom, Thanks for your response. Perhaps I didn’t drive, 🙂 , the point home in a clear enough fashion. Yes, I’m vaguely aware of the metropolitan areas in the U.S. But that’s only half of the equation, as you pointed out, there is another part of this country that must cover vast expanses for the simplest of goods and services. Towards energy consumption……I work for a small electrical coop. Currently, we serve about 3500 meters and have about 2500 in membership. We have over 1000 miles of line to maintain for the 2500 members over an area of about 550 sq miles. This should bring to mind a myriad of implications. I can’t say that we are a typical rural coop, because I’ve never found a typical one. We’re all different, but many across this country have fewer members, larger areas to cover with more line to maintain. In pursuance of electrical use only, you can see few things. The need for more raw materials per capita. The need for more fuel for vehicles. The need for more equipment for maintenance.(chainsaws, earth moving equipment, etc….) Further, more energy is required to deliver the same amount of energy to homes and businesses. Wear and tear on vehicles are greater than in our metropolitan areas, so, once again the requirement for more vehicles is greater. Certainly, I haven’t listed the implications in entirety, and surely you could probably list more.
Now view the similar requirements for delivery of other base services such as water and gas or propane (propane is different, but the implications should be clear). What of phone service? Land lines are still maintained, and cell coverage has greatly improved recently, but that too comes with an energy price. Towers have to be built and maintained. Consider the population that gets coverage from one cell tower in a metropolitan area and then consider how many get coverage in the rural setting I’ve described. Everything done here costs more energy. Significantly more.
For those that may consider whining about the rural part of the nation’s energy use, don’t worry, you’re given a fair trade off. We’re the source of much of your food.
I’ve considered this dilemma often. My conclusion is there isn’t much to be done about lowering the energy use in this area. The only answer is to make energy use a none issue. Electricity, this could be done easily. Nukes, coal, and nat. gas are in abundance here. Sadly, we’ve only built gas fired generation plants, only to backup the useless windmills out by Wichita.(increase in demand = increase in price for natural gas.) If we were to use coal and nuke for electricity, we could use natural gas to compete with propane and increase our availability of that type of energy use(heat, cooking…). Ideally, the energy wackos will pull their head out of their (self snip) and start focusing on realistic energy alternatives.
Hydrogen is proven and plentiful, so we probably won’t go there. There’s a great amount of methane in the oceans, so we’ll probably just pass a permanent ban on energy retrieval from the oceans. But those are self-inflicted or possible self inflicted scenarios. Energy is in abundance. We only have to will energy use to be a non-issue, but the idea of cheap, plentiful energy that we can use without regard of use seems to be beyond some peoples ability to fathom. One day.
@george E. Smith,
I was quite puzzled by Thomas Fuller’s first few posts on WUWT. I looked up his info, he’s a journalist. I finally decided to read his posts with that in mind, and for the entertainment value. He cannot be taken seriously.
However, his views do represent, in my view, a group of people who truly have no clue how the world works – no clue how electricity gets into their home; no clue how water gets into their faucet, nor where it goes after it runs down the drain or out of the toilet; no clue how natural gas gets into their home to run their stove or their furnace; no clue how gasoline gets into the pump at the gas station; while they may pump their own gas ( they are able to squeeze a handle on the nozzle), they have no clue where the gasoline goes once it is in their gas tank; no clue where clothes come from and what is involved in making them; absolutely no clue where medications and pharmaceuticals come from or how to make them; the list goes on and on. They certainly have no clue that each of those activities has numerous alternatives, and making selections among those alternatives involves economics. (Comparing Denmark to the USA is just…hilarious)
The chore to educate those who hold such views is unending and probably not worth even trying.
Still, journalists have a purpose in our society. They write, and sometimes influential people read the stuff. Lawmakers and policy-makers read their writings. And that can be catastrophic when those who read it believe it.
A nice graphic to highlight the difference between the USA and the rest of the world is this map, which shows the US with the names of states replaced by countries of the world with similar GDP.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SzQ70Hkxs2I/AAAAAAAAMRQ/Z9e-tiYzhVg/s1600-h/MapUS.jpg
Denmark is the economic equivalent of the state of Washington.
In area the US and the entire continent of Europe are close at around 10 million km2 with Europe holding a small edge. If you add in Canada and Mexico, the only other countries Americans are likely to drive too, europe gets swamped.
“IMT Report shows that every dollar spent yields $6 in energy savings and an additional $810 Million Funding is Needed to Achieve 90% Compliance with Building Energy Codes. Source: Institute for Market Transformation”
http://www.csemag.com/single-article/report-helps-build-the-case-for-energy-code-compliance/a54a1478f2.html
It’s these types of articles with blatantly propangandistic headlines that irritate me. It’s claiming that we’ll save $6 for every dollar invested in complying with the energy code. How? I’ve been in the engineering community for 30 plus years, and while certain systems have become more efficient, there is not a 6:1 payback. If there were, my clients would be begging me to make the changes. Just who is this Institute for Market Transformation?
The real picture is more nuanced than this … and lacks certain important details.
For example, it suggests to many people out there that if we could only make this thing called “innovation” work harder, or somehow teach everyone to become “innovators” as well as rocket scientists and brain surgeons, things would be great.
The first important point is that there have been several different technologies involved in garnering those improvements in efficiency: Steam engines, the internal combustion engine and improved control via electronics, to say the least.
Another important point is that you cannot legislate innovation. Those innovations were brought to us by a relatively small number of people …
A third point is that there is usually a long transition phase which is related to the differences in efficiency and the payback time of the new investment vs the ongoing depreciation and maintenance cost of the existing stuff already invested in, not to mention the retraining that needs to be done.
“But in the U.S. (and some other developed countries) total fuel use has declined, as has energy use per capita.”
Yes, yes it has. Oddly, so has GDP and economic activity. Ya think they might be related?