Appliances:Designs and Standards

for SustainabilityJames E. McMahon, Ph.D.

Department Head, Energy AnalysisLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

March 1, 2008At UC Berkeley

INSTITUTIONAL INTRODUCTION

• LBNL is the first DOE national laboratory (1931)—Research in all scientific disciplines; team-based—Current focus on solving the energy/carbon problem—Ca 3600 persons, $400M/a

• Environmental Energy Technologies Division(EETD) started in 1973—Energy, technologies and analysis of systems/policies—End-use orientation, especially buildings, industry, and

electricity sectors—Ca 400 persons, $50M/a

• Energy Analysis Department (EAD) since 1973—Ca 120 persons, $20M/a

OUTLINE• Overview of buildings sector

– Energy use, GHG emissions– Expenditures– End uses (appliances, equipment and lighting)

• Time trends (US buildings’ energy, appliance efficiencies)

• Potential for energy efficiency technology in buildings– Energy savings– Costs of conserved energy

• Market effects of policies– Energy labels and standards– Public and private R&D– Private investment (“Clean Tech”)– California AB32– National (and global) carbon policy

Buildings and expenditures

• Buildings include:– Residential: 116 million households in 2007– Commercial: 77 billion square feet

• Office, retail, education, warehouse, lodging, service, publicassembly, health care, food

• Expenditures: 70 % of construction, 40% of energy– New construction: $780 B/yr (>7 million employees)– Renovation: $390 B/yr (>1 million contractors)– Energy: $370 B/yr

Total End-Use Energy Consumption1949 – 2004

Combined Res/ComBuildings in 2007:

~ 40 Quads (of 100)

~ $370B/yr forenergy

~ 630 MTC (of 1623)emitted

Energy Consumption byU.S. Buildings

• 71% of U.S. electricity consumption• 54% of U.S. natural gas consumption• 39% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions

.U.S. buildings are responsible for more CO2emissions than any country in the world

except China & US

Buildings’ Energy Consumption by End UseBuildings consume 39% of total U.S. primary energy

• 71% of electricity and 54% of natural gas

U.S. CO2 EmissionsBy Sector By End Use

U.S

. CO

2 E

mis

sion

s (M

t CO

2)

Efficiency contributed to large decrease in energy intensity(E/GDP) after 1973 (70Q avoided vs 25Q new supply)

1973 20051949

Economic Impacts of Energy R&DEconomic Impacts of Energy R&D and Regulations and Regulations

Energy efficiency R&D hasyielded a net benefit tothe US economy

Economic Benefits fromenergy efficiencystandards were thelargest from a sample ofUSDOE EnergyEfficiency programs

Based on National Research Council,2001. “Energy Research at DOE:Was It Worth It?”

C A L I F O R N I A E N E R G Y C O M M I S S I O N

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000Year

Inde

x (1

972

= 10

0)

Effective Dates of National Standards

=

Effective Dates of State Standards

=

Refrigerators

Central A/C

Gas Furnaces

Impact of Standards on Efficiency of 3 Appliances

Source: S. Nadel, ACEEE, in ECEEE 2003Summer Study, www.eceee.org

75%

60%

25%

US New Refrigerator kWh/year Declined 74%Annual Drop from 1974 to 2001 = 5% Per Year

2000 25

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

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

Ave

rage

Ene

rgy

Use

per

Uni

t Sol

d (k

Wh

per y

ear)

0

5

10

15

20

Ref

riger

ator

vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit

Refrigerator Size (cubic feet)

1978 Cal Standard

1990 Federal Standard

1987 Cal Standard

1980 Cal Standard

1993 Federal Standard

2001 FederalStandard

1947 1974 2001

United States Refrigerator Use v. Time

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

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

Av

era

ge

Ee

rng

y U

se

pe

r U

nit

So

ld (

kW

h p

er

ye

ar)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Re

frig

era

tor

vo

lum

e (

cu

bic

fe

et)

Energy Use per Unit

Refrigerator Size

(cubic feet)

Refrigerator Price in 1983 Dollars

$ 1,270

$ 462

Real Prices dropped while efficiency increased

Low-Hanging Energy-Efficiency is a Renewable Resource

-27% -30%

Updated 2001 standardsexceeded the maximumtechnologically feasiblelevel of a few yearsearlier.

The maximumtechnology kWh/a inrefrigerators changed14% in 6 years (2.5%/a)from 495 kWh/a (1989) to 425 kWh/a (1995)

Average standards, % change, effective date:690 kWh/a, -27%, 1993475 kWh/a, -30%, 2001

Why Is this Example Important?• Unit energy consumption per new refrigerator

decreased at average rate of 5%/year for 27 years

• Technology and policy together achieved this result

• Lessons learned can be applied to other energytechnologies and services

10

20

30

1980 2000 2020

MTC•Absolute amount of energyconsumption – and carbon dioxideemissions – for householdrefrigeration decreased

National Estimates ofCost-Effective Energy Efficiency

• California’s Water-Energy Relationship, 2005 found newpotential electricity savings from water conservation– Equivalent to current three-year plan for CA utilities– Est. cost per kWh about 50% lower than electric plan

American Solar Energy Society - 200723% Reduction by2025 compared toBAU

Five National Labs – Scenario for a CleanEnergy Future – 2000

20% Reduction by2020-2025 comparedto BAU

SourceEstimate

NEW OPPORTUNITY !

Potential 19% National Lighting Savings

16 million24120 BkWh$10 billionAll MeasuresTotal

2.7 million420 BkWh$1.5 billion

Replace Mercury lamps withmodern HIDsRoadways

1.3 million210 BkWh$750 million

Replace PAR/R-lamps withCeramic Metal HalideStores

7.3 million1155 BkWh$4 billion

Replace Incandescent Bulbswith Energy-Efficient LampsHomes

4.7 million735 BkWh$2.6 billion

Replace T-12 magnetic withcontrolled T-8 electronicOffices

EquivalentCars Removed

CarbonReduction(MMTCe)

EstimatedEnergy/Cost

SavingsLighting Upgrade MeasureSector

Modernizing Our Nation’s Lighting

19% reduction

Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE) is Lower than ElectricityPrice for Many Energy Efficiency Increases

(Commercial, 2010)

Source: National Commission on Energy Policy, 2004

3-P

hase

, Sin

gle

Pac

kage

Air-

Sou

rce

AC

(<65

BTu

)

Cen

tral A

ir-S

ourc

e A

C

(65

to 1

35 B

tu)

Cen

tral W

ater

-Sou

rce

HP

(6

5 to

135

Btu

)

Exh

aust

Fan

for A

ir D

istri

butio

n (0

.5 H

P)

Cen

tral S

tatio

n A

HU

for A

irD

istri

butio

n (1

0 H

P)

Fluo

resc

ent L

amp/

Bal

last

HID

-Low

Bay

HID

-Hig

h B

ay

Ref

riger

atio

n -

Sup

erm

arke

t Uni

ts

Ice

Mac

hine

Wal

k-in

Coo

ler

Per

sona

l Com

pute

r an

d M

onito

r

01

23

45

67

89

10

¢/kW

h

CCEElectricity Price

HVAC

VENT LIGHTINGREFRIG

ELECC

entra

l Air-

Sou

rce

AC

(1

35 to

240

Btu

)

0

3

6

9

Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE) is Lower Than ElectricityPrice for Many Energy Efficiency Increases (Residential, 2010)

Roo

m a

irco

nditi

oner

Ref

riger

ator

Torc

hier

e

Dis

hwas

her

Cei

ling

fan

Poo

l pum

p

Ele

ctro

nics

02

46

810

¢/kW

h

CCEElectricity Price

Source: National Commission on Energy Policy, 2004

0

4

8

EE reduces carbon and saves money

Source: McKinsey Global Institute, 2007

Efficiency and carbon-neutral supply are complements

Current Best Practices Can ReduceEmissions from New Buildings by at

Least 70% for Homes and 60% for Offices• DOE’s Building America has a goal of

achieving 70% energy consumption reductionby 2020 compared to code requirements

• Leadership in Energy & EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) certifies energy reductions ofup to 60% for new commercial buildings,compared to code requirements

California plans to achieve zero net energy for newResidential in 2020, Commercial in 2030

Whole Building Approach (with PV) Can SaveMore Than Just Equipment Improvements• NREL results show it is possible today to build a

2592 ft2 home in Sacramento at incrementalcost about 5% above code to achieve:– zero peak cooling demand– reduce annual heating energy 70%– reduce annual cooling energy by 60% and– reduce total source energy use by 60%

Source: Ren Anderson, C Christensen, S Horowitz, “Program Design Analysis usingBEopt Building Energy Optimization Software: Defining a Technology PathwayLeading to New Homes with Zero Peak Cooling Demand” (Preprint ConferencePaper NREL/CP-550-39827), May 2006

Sizematters

Additional Savings from Systems• Efficient data centers (electricity and cooling)• Digital networks: opportunities to maximize

comfort and utility while minimizing energy

• Combined heat and power can improveefficiency and reduce peak

• Neighborhood systems (e.g., district heating)• Micro-grids provide local power• Demand response incorporates price signals

California Policies affecting EE• CEC - Research, Building codes,

Standards• CPUC – regulate utilities and rates

– PRIORITY: Efficiency, demand response,renewables, clean fossil

– “Big, Bold” utility programs (new residential,new commercial, HVAC)

– Industrial, existing commercial, existingresidential

• CARB – implementing AB32

Federal Policies affecting EE• Labels

– EnergyGuide– Energy Star

• Mandatory Energy Performance Standards(MEPS)– US– Others (China, Australia, EU, Canada, Mexico)

• Tax credits– To manufacturers– To consumers

• (FUTURE) GHG cap-and-trade or taxes/fees

R&D investment in US buildingssector has been low

• Private “Clean Tech” investing is increasing– $5.18 B in 2007, up from $3.6B in 2006

• energy efficiency• water efficiency• renewable energy

• Annualized returns in 2007– CTIUS 42.9%, NASDAQ 10.6%, S&P 500 5.5%– Low-hanging fruit

• Innovation will increase

Increasing Financial and Political Pressure for EE

• GHG markets ($30 B in 2006)– EU, Kyoto– Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) (voluntary)

• Global GHG negotiations – Kyoto, Bali• US legislation: Draft energy bills

• E.g., Lieberman-Warner: cap and trade

• States– RGGI 2009– CA 2012– Western Climate Initiative– others

Global Potential of Energy Efficiency Standards andLabeling Programs (DRAFT)

• Across all countries, potential to reduce

M. McNeil, V. Letschert, S. de la Rue du Can, LBNL- personal communication, February 27, 2008Work in progress for Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Programs (CLASP)

3%8%From fuels

0.4(3.6)

1.5(11)

CO2 Gt 2030(cumulative)

11%25%Fromelectricity

CommercialResidentialGHGEmissions

Equivalent to 25% of IPCC “zero cost” potential in 2020, 33% in 2030.The rest can be achieved with building codes, utility programs, incentives, etc.

“Greening the Capitol”

Goal: Reduce the impact of operations ofthe Capitol complex to “carbon neutral”

AN EXAMPLE OF ONE BUILDING

Conclusions• Energy efficiency (EE) has proven itself for

thirty years– Technologically feasible– Economically justified

• Public and private investment will increase– Clean tech venture capital investments are up– EE is fastest, most cost-effective option to reduce

carbon emissions

• Low-hanging energy efficiency is a renewableresource

• American Solar Energy Society, 2007. “Tackling ClimateChange in the U.S.”

• Gallagher, K.S., J.P. Holdren, and A.D. Sagar, “Energy-Technology Innovation” in Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour.2006, 31: 193-237

• Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient andClean-Energy Technologies, 2000. “Scenarios for aClean Energy Future”

• McKinsey Global Institute, 2007. “Curbing Global EnergyDemand Growth: The Energy Productivity Opportunity”

• National Research Council, 2001. “Energy Research atDOE: Was It Worth It?”

Suggested Reading

C A L I F O R N I A E N E R G Y C O M M I S S I O N

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

14,000

19

60

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