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.
Interresting article (and discussion) about why americans use more energy per capita than densely populated countries:
http://petemurphy.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/energy-consumption-per-capita-are-americans-wasteful/
I don’t neccessarily agree with the whole article, but it provides a different perspective.
Carniphage says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:45 am
@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.
#
First your rudimentary economics is wrong, but you probably can’t see that because your head is filled with that nonsense call “Socialist Economic Theory”. The relationship of Consumption and price of any discrete resource, is not only not linear, and not continuous, it is down right catastrophic. You guys are making the very same mistakes in climate modeling, that you made in economic modeling. But this is not surprising, as the very foundational basis of all socialism is fallacious, so any thing socialists create will be fallacious.
Last time I checked, there was still plenty of coal, and plenty of gasoline. On top of that, we have plenty of uranium. And we can not even imaging what the future holds, if you lefties don’t destroy things first. So the facts are against you. As long as we do not give in, and sell our freedom for a lie, we will have enough energy for a very very long time.
BTW, gasoline is a wast product that is only good for being burned as fuel.
It is pretty apparent, that what really bothers you is consumption, as if consumption somehow bad. Consumption drives the economy, the economy drives the quality of life, the quality of life drives freedom, and freedom drives socialists nuts.
As for as the socialist conspiracy, I never ascribe to conspiracy, that which can be ascribed to religious fanaticism. Socialism is a dangerous cult, and the fact that you do not believe socialist even exist, leads me to suspect extreme case of indoctrination.
I always thought that 1.5% was just demanded by Adam Smith’s invisible hand to keep up with inflation.
Roger Sowell says:
October 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“The chore to educate those who hold such views is unending and probably not worth even trying.”
Truer words were never spoken.
It’s a mindset.
Whether it’s Paul Krugman’s economics, or Spain’s flirtation
with “Green Energy”, there is no way to pull them to reality;
no matter how much self inflected pain they endure.
@DesertYote
You seem to be arguing with some Glenn Beck induced hallucination. Whatever you are going on about, it does not seem related to anything I said.
I didn’t say consumption was a bad thing. I am a businessman, pro-growth and pro-industry – and gleefully rack up an astronomical number of airmiles, as I hop about the planet in my ongoing quest to make a comfortable (captialistic) living.
I disputed the OP, because there are no known instances where efficiency improvements have led to a net reduction in consumption. My post pointed-out that original article is flawed because it fails to take into account the most significant side-effects of any efficiency; namely the liberation of capital.
The relationship between the cost of a resource and its consumption might not be linear, but it’s challenging to imagine a scenario where the cost going down causes consumption to fall. If you can cite an instance where this has happened, it would be useful.
And once again, I suggest you re-read my post with that in mind. You might want to note also that I have not said a single word about climate change at all.
Perhaps you have had enough of self-administered indoctrination for one day. If you ever do meet a real socialist, take a photo! They’re as rare as hen’s teeth these days.
C.
DesertYote says:
October 12, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Carniphage says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:45 am
“……… fictional socialists.” <——-Would that be opposed to the real socialists with whom I've personally engaged??? Or are you stating socialists don't exist?
First a penny saved is actually a penny and a half earned. Taxes. Depending on your tax bracket you could increase your disposable income by 30 to 50 percent. Now it isn’t going to be a lot of money but it is yours. They will tax you when you make it, tax you when you spend it and tax you every other chance they get but just spending less for the same amount of comfort (heat, light, cold beer, etc) is not taxable (at least not yet but I bet the beggars are working on it).
Second never get rid of something until you do a ROI with the old and new. Basic math on that one folks. Usually you will drive it till it drops then use efficiency as one of your criteria for the new.
Third keep your recipes! I’ve replaced so many CFL bulbs over the last 10 years but I’ve not had to pay for them. Make sure you can replace them locally or deal with a company that will send you coupons and not expect you to ship the darned things around. That is not cost effective.
Somebody has to manufacture your new fuel efficient fridge, package and transport it. The energy required to process the ore, manufacturer the steel etc is not insignificant compared to the saving. How many years power is used in the manufacturer of the fridge? Why are you so sure that everybody replacing their car would reduce energy? Why do you assume that the materials consumed replacing machinery for fuel efficiency are not more important than the resources consumed by the machinery? Rare earth material in particular are under heavy strain at the moment precisely because of the push for fossil fuel reduction – either in windmills or more efficient motors. This is leaning back towards centralised government planning of the soviet era, and I doubt the outcome would be the one envisaged by the beurocrats implementing it. When you optimise 1 design decision over all others, you should keep at least keep an eye on what is happening to them.
In essence this argument comes down to using large amounts of rare and difficult to recycle materials in order to reduce (infinitessimally) something that is very abundant and easy to recycle – that is what the market is telling you when it is not cost effective.
What are you talking about? No he wasn’t. He was considered a neoclassical economist.
The market is smarter than those who pre-opt it. [hey, I just invented the word ‘pre-opt’ . . . I think]
Socialism/Communism/Totalitarianism/Planned Economies/Mixed Economies . . . . . they failed because they fail the needs of actual human beings . . . by pre-opting trading freely.
Look at the ‘isms’ of the 20th century . . . it was not so long ago that even younger generations could see them fail.
Communist China is only appearing to be successful by emulating its old enemy . . . . the USA.
Communist North Korea . . . . hah, a joke.
John
John Whitman says:
October 12, 2010 at 3:41 pm
We can add Cuba to the list!
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/fidel-castro-admits-cuban-communism-isnt-working/19626654
We could be able to add Venezuela to the list, but we insist on supporting that despot by refusing to drill known oil reserves here.
Tim says:
October 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm
“…….. They will tax you when you make it, tax you when you spend it and tax you every other chance they get but just spending less for the same amount of comfort (heat, light, cold beer, etc) is not taxable (at least not yet but I bet the beggars are working on it). ”
Well, sort of, if you put your savings under your mattress or bury it, then it won’t be taxed. But then, what good is money if you can’t engage with it? For goodness sakes, don’t leave it in your will to your offspring! Then they’ll really come get it! Or maybe just don’t tell the authorities and let your kids know where you buried it.
T Fuller,
The CFL’s that you, and most everyone else, bought suck bigtime because you bought the Lowe’s/Homedepot cheap s%*t junk with color rendering abilities, CRI, of the old cool white fluorescents – about 50% of natural light. It is so bad that the mfgrs don’t dare to put the numbers on the wrappers.
For somewhat more money and a little research one can buy a variety of CFLs w/ CRI’s well above 90% in colors ranging from “warm” 2700°K, to “very cool” 6500°K. All have luminous efficiencies of 70 to >90 lumens/Watt and real, 10,000 life times.
The CRI’s of LED’s SUCKS BIG TIME, even worse than the cheap s%*t CFL’s. The luminous efficiencies of commercial lights are only now approaching CFL’s. AND the cost is an order of magnitude higher than the excellent CFL’s I discussed above.
Eventually LED’s may produce light of excellent quality at an overall cost lower than CFL’s but that is quite a few years away.
We can add Cuba to the list!
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/fidel-castro-admits-cuban-communism-isnt-working/19626654
We could be able to add Venezuela to the list, but we insist on supporting that despot by refusing to drill known oil reserves here.
—————-
James Sexton,
I think we should go out for a few beers (even evil capitalist martinis) sometime & someplace. : )
Right?
John
Tom,
As you can see, this discussion about efficiency has morphed to an economic discussion, as it should. Further, myself and a few others noted demographic considerations. I feel that we are close to gaining understanding of each others views. (Not myself specifically, but many others here. If you were to gain understanding of my views, I’d recommend you seek help quickly!!!) I note that there is a new discussion on WUWT, discussing population control that, while ancillary to your discussion, it is an integral part of the overall discussion. Energy, economics, demographics and population, these are the subjects most important to the CO2 reduction scheme. If I may be so bold, I recommend you observing, or even participating in what promises to be a lively exchange of views.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/population-bomb-new-study-discusses-population-impacts-upon-global-warming-emissions/#more-26308
Poptech says:
October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm
DesertYote says:
Jevon was a socialist trying to use math to push a socialist agenda.
What are you talking about? No he wasn’t. He was considered a neoclassical economist.
#
I might be wrong, but I was pretty sure he was a Benthamite. Did he not help develop the theory of marginal utility which is the cornerstone of socialism? Even if he was not, I do not trust anyone that socialist treat like a god.
John Whitman says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I think we should go out for a few beers (even evil capitalist martinis) sometime & someplace. : )
Right?
John
=======================================================
Absolutely! John, I don’t know where abouts you live, but I live in SE Kansas, anytime you find yourself nearby, (within a few hundred miles or so), holler and I’m sure I’ll know a place to have the beers………martinis?….We can do, but as was once said by people smarter than me, “beer is proof God wants us to be happy!”
Carniphage
October 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm
“Anything you spend money on results in more energy expenditure. If you chose to save the released cash in the bank, the bank will re-invest it in housebuilding for you. Or some new factory or business.
Destroying the cash will effectively return its value to the government, who will, no doubt, invest the cash in funding an adventurous war in the Middle East.
In conclusion, efficiency is a good thing. Waste is bad. But efficiency measures, by themselves do not cause a measurable reduction in consumption. They can give the illusion of energy conserved, but in reality it is only a deferral of energy usage. ”
#
This is what I read that caused me to think you were a socialist. Socialist are using this very similar arguments to justify outrageous taxes on energy. On second reading I see this was not really the case.
And no, I could give Glenn Beck a lesson or two, but the math might be beyond him. I ovoid listening to him.
A socialist is anyone who believes in the manipulation of society. This would place Imperialists as a species of socialist. This definition make for a very mathematically useful manifold. I think the only US Presidents that was not some form of socialist this past century were Ike Eisenhower and Ronny Raygun.
CRT televisions.
I know you did not bring up climate. I did. That is because in a very literal way the fallacious math that the socialist use to justify destroying the economy, is exactly the same fallacious math that is used to prove AGW.
I am actually writing this stuff in between test runs so its a bit spotty and maybe sounds a little over the top with the rhetoric, but I have in no way said anything that is the stuff of fantasy. That you do not believe in socialist is a bit scary.
Carniphage says:
October 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm
“If you ever do meet a real socialist, take a photo! They’re as rare as hen’s teeth these days.”
You must be hanging out in the wrong places. Take a trip to D.C., they’re busing them in from all over the country. Not to mention the average meeting of the Cabinet, where you can’t swing a cat without hitting at least a couple dozen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qki5nIdsBEw
James Sexton says:
October 12, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Absolutely! John.
—————-
James Sexton,
I wander around between upstate NY, Sarasota FL, SF Ca, Taipei . . . .
If I am near Kansas or you are near any of those places then perhaps we can meet.
John
At one point in his life he may have flirted with Benthamitism as you will find many well know economists to flirt with all sorts of opposing theories at one time in their life as appeals to emotion are hard for everyone to resist (it appears) but the theory of marginal utility is in direct opposition to Marxism. Neoclassical economics have nothing to do with Marxism. Where do socialists treat him like a God and where do socialists embrace the theory of marginal utility?
James Sexton says:
October 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Tom,
“As you can see, …..I recommend you observing, or even participating in what promises to be a lively exchange of views.”
lol, well I thought it might be a lively debate! Sometimes, I just get it wrong.
Poptech
October 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Thanks for responding. I guess I’m a bit confused. I thought that marginal utility was the theory that thous who have a lot of a resource value that resource less then someone who has little of it. Therefore by taking from the individual with a surplus and giving it to the individual with a deficit, the net value of that resource in society is increased.
My buddy who is an economist, once told me that many economists abandoned Benthamitism once they realized it was leading nowhere.
The peak-oil crowd along with the rest of the greenies clamoring for using taxes to control behavior can’t stop talking about him. I’m at home now, so I can be a bit more thoughtful in my posts, then when I was trying to read and comment in between boring test runs. I probably will want to do a bit of research. I will see if I can find a resent example of idolization.
I am not in the Socialism is Marxism camp. Marxism is just one particular malignant branch. As I understand it, Marxist economic theory is a cobbled together from all sorts of ideas and bears little relationship to any of them. When I talk of socialist economics, I am referring to any system that promotes the manipulation of the economy by the government.
For some years I have asked about the fate of taxes raised from GHG emissions. If the taxes are given to the needy and worthy, their first act will likely to be to use the windfall to consume more energy and produce more GHG. Therefore, the basis of a tax on GHG is arguable.
Then it dawned on me that officials who would not explain this apparent paradox, knew quite well that their way to lower GHG was to reduce total personal consumption, though REGULATION. The GHG plot is all about control of others.
The Australian Stanley Jevons thought in similar ways about fuel consumption in the 1850-1900 era. (As an aside, he was working on sunspots and industrial activity when he died).
Loosely put, an example of Jevon’s paradox comes from home-based organic gardening. Those who do it to save money, to be seen as green and to altruistically keep industry in their country might save the money for a purpose – such as importing the latest bicycle from a distant country.
Ecomomic analysis can suffer from incomplete closure of the equations and often does in the climate world. In a nasty way, the “unintended consequences” and “collateral damage” are sometimes known in advance, but not told to the public who will be regulated. The CFL light bulb, for example, was designed to fail by creating enough heat to cause a fire – there was no safe failure mode in the design. Hundreds of homes in Australia alone have caught fire from a combination of old-design CFL failure and newly installed ceiling insulation under a stimulus spending plan.
Back to you, you theoretical economic modellers and manipulators.
I bought some nice honey and bread from some real socialists; at a Trappist monastery.