efficient use of energy in california power electronics conference long beach, ca oct. 25, 2006
DESCRIPTION
Efficient Use of Energy in California Power Electronics Conference Long Beach, CA Oct. 25, 2006. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner California Energy Commission (916) 654-4930 [email protected] http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Efficient Use of Energy in CaliforniaPower Electronics Conference
Long Beach, CAOct. 25, 2006
Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Commissioner
California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4930
[email protected]://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld.html
or just Google “Art Rosenfeld”
2
1949
3
Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 - 2005
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
19
49
19
51
19
53
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
tho
us
an
d B
tu/$
(in
$2
00
0)
If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year
Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)
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?
Easiest to tease out is cars
– In the early 1970s, only 14 miles per gallons
– Now about 21 miles per gallon
– If still at 14 mpg, we’d consume 75 billion gallons more and pay ~$200 Billion more at 2006 prices
– But we still pay $450 Billion per year
– If California wins the “Schwarzenegger-Pavley” suit, and it is implemented nationwide, we’ll save another $150 Billion per year
Commercial Aviation improvements save another $50 Billion per year Appliances and Buildings are more complex
– We must sort out true efficiency gains vs. structural changes (from smokestack to service economy).
6
How Much of The Savings Come from Efficiency (cont’d)?
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 transportation, and 1/3 is buildings and industry.
Billion $
Space Heating 40Air Conditioning 30Refrigerators 15Fluorescent Tube Lamps 5Compact Floursecent Lamps 5Total 95
7
A supporting analysis on the topic of efficiencyfrom Vice-President Dick Cheney
“Had energy use kept pace with economic growth, the nation would have consumed 171 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) last year instead of 99 quadrillion Btus”
“About a third to a half of these savings resulted from shifts in the economy. The other half to two-thirds resulted from greater energy efficiency”
Source: National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, Dick Cheney, et. al., page 1-4, May 2001
Cheney could have noted that 72 quads/year saved in the US alone, would fuel one Billion cars, compared to a world car count of only 600 Million
8
Energy Intensity -- California and the United States
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2019
63
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
year
Inte
nsi
ty (
tho
usa
nd
Btu
s p
er $
mea
sure
d in
yea
r 20
00 $
)
US down to 54% of 1973 intensity
California down to 46% of 1973 intensity
54%
46%
9
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)(kWh/person) (2005 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
California
United States
∆= 4,000kWh/yr
= $400/capita
10
Carbon Dioxide Intensity and Per Capita CO2 Emissions -- 2001 (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 0.90 1.00
intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar)
To
ns
of
CO
2 p
er p
erso
n
Canada Australia
S. Korea
California
Mexico
United States
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Switzerland
Japan
11
CO2 Emissions in California Including Electricity Imports1990 - 2004
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
year
Mil
lio
n M
etri
c T
on
s o
f C
O2
14 year growth rate of 1.1%/year
12
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
MP
G C
on
ve
rte
d t
o C
AF
E T
est
Cy
cle
Japan
EU
China
Canada California (Pavley)
US (1) dotted lines denote proposed standards(2) MPG = miles per gallon
Australia
~
Comparison of Fuel Economy – Passenger Vehicles
13
Index (1972 = 1.00) of U.S. Energy Use, GDP, Energy Intensity and Carbon Dioxidelast 10-year CO2 growth = 1.3% per year
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
19
49
19
51
19
53
19
55
19
57
19
59
19
61
19
63
19
65
19
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
e/gdp
quads
gdp
CO2 (combustion)1.37
2.71
1.33 (est.)
14
Per Capita Electricity Consumption
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
year
kW
h/p
ers
on
United States
California
New York
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/csv/use_csv
15
Per Capita Electricity Consumption
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
year
kW
h/p
ers
on
Red States 2004 ElectionUnited StatesBlue States 2004 ElectionCalifornia
16
Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968
Growth = 1.5%/yr
17
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
18 Source: David Goldstein
New United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
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
pe
r U
nit
So
ld (
kW
h/y
r)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Re
frig
era
tor
vo
lum
e (
cu
bic
fe
et)
Refrigerator Size (cubic ft)
Energy Use per Unit(kWh/Year) 71% reduction in 28 yrs
= 4.4% year
1st Federal Standard 1992
19 Source: 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
20
New Refrigerator Energy Use: 71% will be saved when stock completely turns over to 2001 Standards
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
At 1974 Efficiency At 2002 Efficiency
Bil
lio
n k
Wh
per
Yea
r
Energy Needed
Energy Needed
Energy Saved
21
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
22
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
5
23
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)
24
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
25
Annual Peak Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,0001
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
MW
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~ 22% of Annual Peak in California in 2003
i.e. 22% in 30 years
26
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
27
No Load Efficiency Improvements (< 20 W)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 5 10 15 20
Rated Output Power (W)
No
Lo
ad P
ow
er (
W)
CEC/ENERGY STAR EPS StandardNon-Compliant ProductsNon-Compliant AverageCompliant ProductsCompliant Average
1 - 5 W OutputSavings: 0.71 W
5 - 10 W OutputSavings: 1.2 W
10 - 20 W OutputSavings: 1.2 W
0 - 1 W OutputSavings: 0.44 W
28
No Load Efficiency Improvements (< 200 W)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 50 100 150 200
Rated Output Power (W)
No
Lo
ad P
ow
er (
W)
CEC/ENERGY STAR EPS StandardNon-Compliant ProductsNon-Compliant AverageCompliant ProductsCompliant Average
50 - 100 W OutputSavings: 1.2 W
20-50 W OutputSavings: 1.3 W
100 - 200 W OutputSavings: 0.22 W
29
Active Mode Efficiency Improvements (< 20 W output)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 5 10 15 20Rated Output Power (W)
Av
era
ge
Eff
icie
nc
y (
%)
CEC/ENERGY STAR EPS Standard
Compliant Products
Compliant Average
Non-Compliant Products
Non-Compliant Average
1 - 5 watt outputSavings: 0.48 WAnnual sales: 95 MAnnual $ saved: $22 M
5 - 10 watt outputSavings: 0.93 WAnnual shipments: 140 MAnnual $ saved: $58 M
10 - 20 watt outputSavings: 1 WAnnual shipments: 61 MAnnual $ saved: $27 M
0 - 1 watt outputWatts saved: 0.31 WAnnual sales: 95 MAnnual $ saved: $14 M
30Standards for EPS will eventually result in $189 million per year in national electricity savings
Active Mode Efficiency Improvements (< 200 W output)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 50 100 150 200
Rated Output Power (W)
Av
era
ge
Eff
icie
nc
y (
%)
CEC/ENERGY STAR EPS Standard
Compliant Products
Compliant Average
Non-Compliant Products
Non-Compliant Average
20 - 50 watt outputSavings: 1.1 WAnnual sales: 73 MAnn. $ saved: $35 M
50 - 100 watt outputSavings: 1.7 WAnnual shipments: 33 MAnnual $ saved: $18 M
100 - 200 watt outputSavings: 8.3 WAnnual shipments: 9 MAnnual $ saved: $15 M
0 - 20 watt output
Annual sales: 391 MAnnual $ saved: $121 M
EPS Energy Savings Impact
US savings year 1: $189 M or 1.9 billion kWh, about half from no-load, half from active mode. By the 5th year (including growth), we will be saving annually $1 B or 10 BkWh This is the equivalent annual output of 4 typical 500-MW power plants, or taking 1 million cars off the road. Payback time (SPT)– No-load, 1 mo. or Zero;
Active mode, ~1 year.
32
Electronics Research funded by CEC/PIER leading to developing California Standards. 1– at Ecos Consulting
Topics:– External and internal ac-dc power supplies– Dc-dc power supplies; many of them, tiny but inefficient.– Battery-charging supplies; standards work starts late ’07.– Computers, servers, data centers– Televisions, set top boxes and other consumer electronics;
develop test procedures– Plug load studies
Information:www.EfficientPowerSupplies.org www.EfficientProducts.org
Contact:– Chris Calwell - [email protected]
33
Electronics Research funded by CEC/PIER2--- at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Topics:
– Power-efficient Ethernet and FireWire links
– Reducing network-induced consumption
– Efficiency specs for network products
– Consumer electronics inter-device controls
– Efficient set-top boxes
– Reducing energy use of hard-wired and builder-installed equipment in new homes
December 2006 to December 2008 Contact:
– Bruce Nordman - [email protected]
34
35
Illuminating Space vs. the Street
36
Critical Peak Pricing (CPP)with additional curtailment option
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pri
ce (
cen
ts/k
Wh
)
Standard TOUCritical Peak PriceStandard Rate
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Extraordinary Curtailment Signal, < once per year
CPP Price Signal
10x per year
?
Potential Annual Customer Savings:
10 afternoons x 4 hours x 1kw = 40 kWh at 70 cents/kWh = ~$30/year
37
Tariffs being Tested in California Pilot
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:0
0
11:0
0
12:0
0
13:0
0
14:0
0
15:0
0
16:0
0
17:0
0
18:0
0
19:0
0
20:0
0
21:0
0
22:0
0
23:0
00:
00
Hour Ending
$ (U
.S.)
/ K
WH
FLAT RATE
TOU RATE
CPP-F RATE (NON CRITICAL DAY)
CPP-F RATE (CRITICAL DAY)
38
AutoDR - Results
202
33
45
219
71
78
61
61
18
111
52
Avg kW Savings
15%
10%
10%
12%
10%
25%
16%
21%
5%
2%
20%
Avg % Savings
$4,5103 (1)46Chabot
$12,000
$3,312
$375
$5,050
$7,500
$3,620
$2,000
$2,000
$1,614
$12,824
Setup
Cost
4 (1)56Target
0 (2)265USPS
1 (0)65Oracle
4 (1)208Gilead
2 (0)272IKEA
4 (3)110Echelon
1 (3)922530 Arnold
4 (4)8550 Douglas
3 (4)227B of A
4 (0)84ACWD
events(2003-4/2005)
Max kW
SavingCompany
Summary 951 13.4% $57.62 / kW *
* Note: Average setup cost for AC load control is approximately $250.00 / kW
39
Small Customer Demand Response, Retail Pricing Pilot, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure
CPUC and CEC have been testing the impact of “CPP” (Critical Peak Pricing) on demand
– Two summers of tests ($10 M experiment). Results for residential customers
– 12% reduction when faced with critical peak prices and no technology
– 30% to 40% reduction for customers with air conditioning, technology, and a critical peak price.
PG&E and SDG&E will install advanced meters soon, SCE will
follow, starting 2008.
Starting late 2008, ALL new bldgs. must have advanced meters and Programmable Communicating Thermostats (PCTs)
40
Source: Response of Residential Customers to Critical Peak Pricing and Time-of-Use Rates during the Summer of 2003, September 13, 2004, CEC Report.
Residential Response on a typical hot dayControl vs. Flat rate vs. CPP-V Rate
( Hot Day, August 15, 2003, Average Peak Temperature 88.50)kW
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Noon 2:30 7:30
Controllable Thermostat with CPP-V Rate
Controllable Thermostat with Flat Rate
Control Group
Midnight
CPP Event
CPP rates – Load ImpactsCPP rates – Load Impacts
41
Customer Acceptance of CPP ratesCustomer Acceptance of CPP rates
Should all customers be placed on a dynamic rate and given an option to switch to another rate?
Should dynamic rates be offered to all customers?
DefinitelyProbably
95%
69%
65%
73%
61%
69%
22%
30%
20%
26%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
TOU
CPP-F
CPP-V
Info Only
1
1
91%
93%
87%
86%
43%
39%
46%
41%
41%
21%
28%
17%
23%
22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
TOTAL
TOU
CPP-F
CPP-V
Info Only
1
1
64%
67%
63%
64%
63%
Residential participants express a strong interest in having dynamic rates offered to all customers.
Source: Statewide Pricing Pilot: End-of-Pilot Customer Assessment, December 2004, Momentum Market Intelligence.
42
.
This talk available on my web page
Just Google
“Art Rosenfeld”
43
Source: Stabilization Wedges: Pacala and Socolow, Science Vol 305, page 968
Growth = 1.5%/yr