Sustainable EnergyIndicators and Opportunities;
from One Big World and 3 Small Islands
University of OtagoEnergy Management Programme
Robert TromopManager Monitoring and Research
• Economies and trade groups are setting targets for energy intensity improvements.
• Monitoring of energy trends internationally and domestically shows valuable energy intensity and efficiency improvements are occurring. But it is early days.
• Many challenges remain – particularly in addressing population driven energy growth and personal consumption.
• If the world is to realise the potential of sustainable energy we need to start thinking beyond the technological approaches currently utilised around the world and start looking for new paradigms.
• What might it take to develop significant improvement?
We’ll cover;
A. International changes and driversB. New Zealand’s progress C. What is energy efficiency?D. Challenges
Energy Indicators: Capacity Development and
Application in APEC Economies
A report to APEC Energy Working Group, EWG35, summarising the work and findings of EWG Project; EWG
03/07 ‘Application of Energy Indicators in APEC Economies.Shigeru Kimura EGEDARobert Tromop EGEE&C
Is global energy consumption increasing?
Fig 1: World Marketed Energy Consumption, 1980 - 2030
283 309347 366 400
447511
559607
654702
0
200
400
600
800
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Qua
rdri
llion
Btu
History
Projections
Is APEC energy primary energy supply
requirement increasing?
Fig 3A: Fig: APEC Economies Energy Growth, 1990 to 2005
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
700019
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Mto
e
How significant is APEC primary energy supply
internationally?Fig 3B: APEC economies share in world primary energy supply,
1995 to 2005
55
56
57
58
59
60
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
%
What factors drive primary energy supply
growth?
Fig 3C: APEC economies share in world TPES, CO2 emissions, population and GDP, 1995 to 2005
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
%
TPES CO2 Population GDP
How does the demand for energy from APEC economies’ contribute to APEC’s total energy demand?
Fig 5: Total primary energy supply across APEC economies, 1995 to 2005
USA
ChinaRussia
JapanCanadaKoreaIndonesia
MexicoAustralia
Chinese,Taipei
ThailandMalaysia VietnamPhillippines
SingaporeChile
Hong KongNew Zealand PeruBrunei
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Mto
e
How does the demand for energy from APEC economies contribute to APEC’s total energy
demand?Fig 6:Total primary energy supply across APEC economies in 2005
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
USA
Chi
na
Rus
sia
Japa
n
Can
ada
Kor
ea
Indo
nesia
Mex
ico
Aus
tral
iaC
hine
se,T
aipe
i
Tha
iland
Mal
aysia
Vie
tnam
Phill
ippi
nes
Sing
apor
e
Chi
le
Hon
g K
ong
New
Zea
land
Peru
Bru
nei
Mto
e
APEC economies self sufficiency
Fig 8A: APEC economies' energy self sufficiency ratio, 2005
0
200
400
600
800
1000H
ong
Kon
g
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Japa
n
Kor
ea
Chi
le
Tha
iland
Phill
ippi
nes
USA
New
Zea
land
Peru
Chi
na
Vie
tnam
Indo
nesia
Mex
ico
Can
ada
Mal
aysia
Rus
sia
Aus
tral
ia
Bru
nei
APE
C
%
Have APEC economies become more or less self sufficient with that growth?
Fig 8B: APEC economies energy self-sufficiency dynamics, 1995 to 2005
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
New
Zea
land
Chi
le
USA
Hon
g K
ong
Japa
n
Bru
nei
Chi
na
Can
ada
Aus
tral
ia
Indo
nesia
Mex
ico
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Tha
iland
Peru
Mal
aysia
Vie
tnam
Phill
ippi
nes
Rus
sia
Kor
ea
APE
C
% c
hang
e
Change: 1995 to 2001 Change: 2001 to 2005
How has the value (GDPppp) that APEC
economies derive from energy changed?
Fig 11: TPES to GDP (PPP) ratio by APEC economies in 2001 and 2005
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Hon
g K
ong
Peru
Phill
ippi
nes
Japa
n
Mex
ico
Chi
le
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Thai
land
Aus
tral
ia
Chi
na
New
Zea
land USA
Vie
tnam
Kor
ea
Sing
apor
e
Indo
nesia
Mal
aysia
Can
ada
Brun
ei
Rus
sia
Wor
ld T
otal
APE
C
Non
-APE
C
toe
per
thou
sand
200
0US$
PPP
2001 2005
How has the value (GDPppp) that APEC economies derive from energy changed?
Fig 12: TPES to GDP (US $ PPP) intensity change by APEC economies, 2001 and 2005
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
Rus
sia
New
Zea
land
Phill
ippi
nes
Hon
g K
ong
Mal
aysi
a
Kor
ea
Indo
nesi
a
USA
Peru
Japa
n
Vie
tnam
Chi
le
Can
ada
Aus
tral
ia
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Bru
nei
Tha
iland
Sing
apor
e
Mex
ico
Chi
na
Wor
ld T
otal
APE
C
% c
hang
e in
TPE
S to
GD
P ra
tio
How has energy-population intensity changed?
Fig 13: TPES per Capita across APEC economies in 2001 and 2005
0
2
4
6
8
10Pe
ruV
ietn
amPh
illip
pine
sIn
done
sia
Chi
naT
haila
ndM
exic
oC
hile
Mal
aysi
aH
ong
Kon
gC
hine
se, T
aipi
eK
orea
Japa
nR
ussi
aN
ew Z
eala
ndA
ustr
alia
Sing
apor
eB
rune
iU
SAC
anad
aW
orld
Tot
alA
PEC
Non
-APE
C
toe
ener
gy p
er c
apita 2001 2005
Have APEC economies CO2 emission
intensities (tCO2/GDPppp) improved?Fig 17: CO2 to GDP (PPP) Ratio across APEC Economies in 2001 and 2005
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5Pe
ruH
ong
Kon
gPh
illip
pine
sV
ietn
amC
hile
Japa
nM
exic
oN
ew Z
eala
ndSi
ngap
ore
Tha
iland
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Indo
nesia
Kor
eaU
SAC
hina
Can
ada
Mal
aysia
Bru
nei
Aus
tral
iaR
ussia
Wor
ld T
otal
APE
CN
on-A
PEC
CO
2/G
DP:
(kg
CO
2 pe
r 20
00 U
S$ P
PP)
Have APEC economies CO2 emission intensities (tCO2/GDPppp) improved?
Fig 18: Change in CO2 to GDP (PPP) Ratio across APEC Economies in 2001 to 2005
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rus
sia
Hon
g K
ong
Kor
ea
Phill
ippi
nes
New
Zea
land
Sing
apor
e
USA
Can
ada
Mal
aysia
Peru
Chi
le
Aus
tral
ia
Indo
nesia
Japa
n
Chi
nese
, Tai
pie
Mex
ico
Tha
iland
Bru
nei
Chi
na
Vie
tnam
Wor
ld T
otal
APE
C
Non
-APE
C
% C
hang
e in
CO
2 to
GD
P ra
ti o
Fig 7.2: Percentage Renewables of TPES, 2005
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Wor
ldO
ECD
Tanz
ania
Ken
yaH
aiti
Cam
bodi
aIc
elan
dN
orw
ayIn
dia NZ
Chi
leC
anad
aSw
itzer
land
Chi
naJa
mai
caEs
toni
aM
exic
oLi
thua
nia
Arg
entin
aA
ustr
alia
Pola
ndG
erm
any US
Japa
nR
ussia
Net
herl
ands
Cyp
rus
Belg
ium U
KSi
ngap
ore
Has the fuel efficiency of our existing fleet of cars improved?
In sup p o rt o f th e G 8 P lan o f Ac tion
E n ergy U sein th e N ewM illenn iu m
Trends in IE A C ountries
E N E R G YIN D IC A T O R S
© O EC D /IE A 2007
A verag e F u e l In ten s ity o f th e C ar S tock
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Litr
es o
f gas
olin
e eq
uiva
lent
per
100
veh
icle
-km U nited S tates
C anadaAustraliaJapanN ew ZealandS wedenG erm anyIrelandN orwayN etherlandsU nited KingdomF ranceD enm arkF inlandItaly
Are our news cars any more efficient?Fig 23B: Trends in New Car Fuel Intensity, 1990 to 2004
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Litr
es
of
ga
so
line
equ
iva
len
t pe
r 10
0 v
ehic
le-k
m United States Australia Canada Japan
How efficient is our passenger transport system?
Fig 23 C: Energy per Passenger-kilometre Aggregated for All Modes
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
MJ
per
pk
m
United States Canada Australia IEA17 New Zealand Japan
How intensive is our car ownership?
Fig 23D: Car Ownership per Capita, in 1990 and 2004
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Australia Canada Japan New Zealand United States IEA17
Car
Per
cap
ita
1990 2004
Can we afford it?
0
5
10
15
20
25
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Personal consumption expenditures per capita (000 USD PPP 2000 per capita)
Tho
usan
d ca
r-km
per
cap
ita
United States
IEA17
New Zealand
Canada
Australia
Italy
France
Finland
Denmark
Norway
United Kingdom
Sweden
Germany
Austria
Ireland
Netherlands
Greece
Japan
How energy intensive are our freight systems?
Fig 24A: Freight Transport Energy Use per Tonne-kilometre by Country, 1990 to 2004
0
1
2
3
4
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
MJ
per
tkm
Japan New Zealand IEA17
Canada United States Australia
How efficient are our trucks?
Fig 24B: Truck Energy Intensity trends, 1990 to 2004
0
2
4
6
8
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
MJ
per
t-km
Japan Canada New ZealandIEA17 United States Australia
How much energy is used in households and how is it used?
Fig 25: Household Energy Use Per Capita in Selected Countries, 1990 and 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
601
99
0
Ca
na
da
20
04
19
90
Ja
pa
n 2
00
4
19
90
Ne
w Z
ea
lan
d2
00
4 19
90
Un
ite
d S
tate
s2
00
4
GJ
pe
r c
ap
ita
(n
orm
alis
ed
to
27
00
HD
D)
Appliances LightingCooking Water heatingSpace heating Total (not normalised)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Review: Year Five Report to 2006
EE&C Act 2000 [Clause 21 (1) (f)] mandates EECA to monitor and review three aspects of energy use:•Energy efficiency•Energy conservation, and•Use of renewable sources of energy
Energy efficiency is one a number of factors that impact energy use.
Divisia decomposition used to separate out various driving factors
Energy consumption can rise while energy efficiency improves
In the analysis; energy efficiency = energy efficiency + energy conservation. We cannot separate these (yet).
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Review: Year Five Report to 2006
• Measure energy efficiency5 Sector Level (not programme level) Split across electricity, oil and other fuels
• Renewable energyConsumer energy level (‘involves’ primary energy) Split across sourcesSplit across energy use formHydro is normalised for inflow variations
Fig 2.1: Economy Wide Energy Use Trend 1996 – 2006
0
100
200
300
400
500
60019
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
PJ p
er a
nnu m
Fig 2.5A: Energy to GDP Ratio Trends, 1996 to 2006
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
TJ/
$mill
ion
T d 0 8%
Trend:0.04 TJ per $ mill ion decrease
Fig 2.5B: Per Capita Energy Use Trends, 1996 to 2006
110
114
118
122
126
13019
96
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
GJ/
pers
on/y
ear
Trend = 1.6GJ per person per annum
Residential Sector
Fig 3.4: Residential Energy Use Drivers, 2001 to 2006
2.913.74
0.94 0.72-0.77 -1.56 -0.15
-3-2-1012345
Ene
rgy
Cha
nge
Popu
latio
n
Hou
seho
ldO
ccup
ants
Hou
seho
ldA
rea
Fuel
Switc
hing
Ene
rgy
Eff
icie
ncy
Wea
ther
PJ
Commercial SectorFactors Affecting Commercial Sector's Energy Use: 2001 to 2006
0.8
10.1
-6.0-2.9-0.4
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
En
erg
yC
ha
ng
e
Act
ivit
y
Str
uct
ure
En
erg
yQ
ua
lity
En
erg
yE
ffic
ien
cy
PJ
Industrial sectorIndustrial Energy Efficiency Estimate Under Mix Activity Matrix Model , 2001 to 2006
26.2
0.1
57.9
-3.0 -28.8
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Tot
al
C
hang
e
Stru
ctur
alch
ange
Ene
rgy
Qua
lity
Cha
nge
Tec
hnic
alE
ffici
ency
chan
ge
Act
ivity
chan
ge
PJ/y
ear
Sources of industrial energy change by activity change matrix (PJ), 2001 to 2006Activity Matrix
Source GDP TWI PPP Mix*Structural change -3.0 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0Energy Quality Change 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Energy Efficiency Change 9.0 -51.1 10.1 -28.8Activity change 20.0 80.1 19.0 57.9Total 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2* = output of wood, pulp and paper, meat, other foods, and basic metals represented by TWIGDP: all sectors represented by value added, except where physical output is availableTWI: all sectors represented by value added weighted by Trade Weighted indexPPP = all sectors represented by value added at Purchasing ParityMix: wood, pulp and paper, meat, other foods, and basic metals represented by TWI, others by price adjusted value adde
Conceptual definition of energy efficiency in modern exporting heterogeneous economy is critical to the answer you will get
Passenger Transport Factors Influencing Passenger Transport Energy, 2001 to 2006
14.512.7
7.7
-6.0
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Tot
alC
hang
e
Stru
ctur
alC
hang
e
Ene
rgy
Eff
icie
ncy
Cha
nge
Act
ivity
Cha
nge
PJ
Passenger Transport: Further Split Factors Influencing Passenger Transport Energy Use, 2001 to 2006
12.2
8.3 7.9
3.5
11.4
4.2
-3.5-4.0
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16T
otal
Cha
nge
Stru
ctur
e:T
otal
Str
uctu
re:
Mod
eC
hang
e
Stru
ctur
e:C
ar S
ize
Effi
cien
cyC
hang
e
Act
ivity
(Tot
al)
Act
ivity
:Po
pula
tion
Act
ivity
:In
crea
sed
Tra
vel
PJ
Fig 6.2: Passenger Travel Energy Intensity by Mode, 1995 to 2006
0
1
2
3
4
519
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
MJ/
p-km
LV (Cars) Buses Rail Air Overall
Freight TransportFreight Transport Energy Use Drivers, 2001 to 2006
12.4
0.5 0.6
11.2
0
3
6
9
12
15
Ene
rgy
chan
ge
Stru
ctur
e
Effi
cien
cy
Act
ivity
PJ
Freight Transport: Further SplitFactors Influencing freight Transport Energy Use, 2001 to 2006
12.4
0.5 0.6
11.6 11.2
-0.4
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16T
otal
Cha
nge
Stru
ctur
alC
hang
e
Effi
cien
cyC
hang
e
Incr
ease
dV
alue
Add
ed
Incr
ease
dT
onne
-km
per
$V
.A.
Tot
alA
ctiv
ityC
hang
e
PJ
Economy-Wide Progress: 2001 and 2006
Sector Level Energy Efficiency Performance:. 2001-2006Energy Use (PJ) Energy Use Drivers (PJ) Energy Efficiency Uptake (%)
PJ 2001 2006 Total Change
Structural Change
Quality Change
Efficiency
Activity Change
Weather Change Total Average
pa Growth
/paIndustrial 160.3 186.6 26.2 -3.0 0.1 -28.8 57.9 - 17.96 3.59 3.36
Commercial48.4 49.2 0.8 -0.4 -2.9 -6.0 10.1 - 12.28 2.46 2.34
Passenger Transport
132.4 146.9 14.5 7.7 0.0 -6.0 12.7 - 4.50 0.90 0.88
Freight Transport 53.5 65.9 12.4 0.5 0.0 0.6 11.2 - -1.17 -0.23 -0.24
Residential 59.0 61.9 2.9 0.0 -0.8 -1.6 5.4 -0.1 2.65 0.53 0.52
Economy Wide453.8 510.5 56.8 4.8 -3.5 -41.6 97.3 -0.1 9.18 1.84 1.77
Economy-Wide Energy Efficiency Progress: 2001 and 2006
Factors Influencing Economy-Wide Energy Use Growth, 2001 to 2006
56.8
4.8
97.3
-0.1-41.6-3.5
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
120To
tal
Cha
nge
Stru
ctur
alC
hang
e
Ener
gyQ
ualit
yC
hang
e
Ener
gyEf
ficie
ncy
Cha
nge
Act
ivity
Cha
nge
Wea
ther
Cha
nge
PJ
Aggregation of Short-Term Change over Long-Term Energy Efficiency Trends, 1995 to 2006
Energy Efficiency = 0.8x + 1.3
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
1619
95-9
6
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
2000
-01
2001
-02
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
Per
Cen
t
Annual Change Cumulative Efficiency Linear (Cumulative Efficiency)
Economy-Wide Progress: 2001 and 2006Electricity End-Use Efficiency
Electricity Use Efficiency Drivers, 2001 tio 2006
3.6-0.1-3.2-3.9
18.114.6
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Tota
lC
hang
e
Fuel
Switc
hing
Stru
ctur
alC
hang
e
Effic
ienc
yC
hang
e
Act
ivity
Cha
nge
Wea
ther
Cha
nge
PJ
Consumer Renewable Energy Trends, March 1998 to2006 Years
y = 2.6x + 128.0
0
50
100
150
200
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
PJ/p
a
Total With Observed Hydro Total With Normalised HydroLinear (Total With Normalised Hydro)
Consumer Renewable Energy Sources
Consumer renewable energy performance by source to March 2006 year
Hydro Observed
Hydro Normalised
Geothermal Biogas Wood Wind SolarTotal With Observed
Hydro
Total With Normalised
Hydro1998 75.2 72.3 25.3 1.7 28.4 0.1 0.18 130.9 128.01999 80.0 72.1 27.4 1.7 31.3 0.1 0.18 140.8 132.82000 76.2 77.0 28.3 1.5 32.0 0.2 0.18 138.4 139.22001 79.9 76.8 23.4 1.5 36.3 0.5 0.19 141.8 138.72002 73.4 82.4 22.7 1.6 36.3 0.5 0.19 134.6 143.72003 81.9 83.5 20.1 1.7 38.4 0.6 0.20 142.8 144.52004 81.0 81.8 18.8 1.9 40.2 0.6 0.22 142.6 143.42005 86.8 83.5 19.0 1.4 40.3 1.7 0.25 149.4 146.12006 72.6 84.4 21.1 2.7 43.2 2.2 0.24 142.0 153.8
2001 to 2006 (PJ) Change -7.3 7.6 -2.4 1.2 6.9 1.7 0.05 0.2 15.1
2001 to 2006 (%) Change -9.1 9.9 -10.0 84.1 18.9 322.2 28.6 0.1 10.9
Limits of Energy Balance Analysis for Energy Efficiency Indicators
“From Macro to Micro Energy Indicators”Data and Methodology Training SessionHow and why to get the big picture right
IEA 28 April 2006 Robert Tromop
Manager Monitoring and Technical
Introduction
• NZ’s methodology• What are we trying to do? • What we know we don’t know• Methodological limits - Can indices
adequately explain comfort, activity, structure or productivity?
• Energy services way of thinking• Where to from here
NZ methodology – a Suite of Indicators
• Compare energy use change in PJ• Compare energy intensity indicators at
homogeneous service levels• Isolate change components by Divisia
decomposition • Integrate with micro indicators.
Energy Efficiency
• Politicians want it…• Experts argue about it…• Stakeholders doubt it …• Ordinary folk just don’t get it at all…
• Our key challenges are about defining and communicating what we analyse
What is Energy Efficiency?
• Energy Intensity is not Energy Efficiency• but intensity indicators are used to define EE• Physical output indicators ignore wealth effects• but may be the best indicator for sectoral EE given
reasonable sectoral homogeneity• Macroeconomic EE is very difficult:• modern economies are very heterogeneous• output/benefit definition and measurement is very
difficult
What is Energy EfficiencyIncrease in benefits from energy use
Decrease in benefits from energy use
Decreasing energy use
Increasing energy use
Increasing Energy Efficiency
Energy Conservation Declining Energy
Efficiency
No change in energy efficiency
Can measure energy change
Stru
ggle
to m
easu
re b
enef
its
Its like trying to measure God!No one can see EE, but its everywhere
Everyone has their own sense of what EE is,
- but most people can’t explain exactly what it is
Plenty of agnostics and athiests
Many claim to have ‘seen‘ it or what it does
- but who can measure it?
Its like trying to weigh frogs!
• Easy to understand at a micro level – engineering definitions work well – can’t define macro level?
• (micro; can dissect a frog – macro; live frog) • Energy data problematic, but measures of outputs or
benefits worse – measures for comfort? mobility?• Takeback & rebound means that EE interventions give
more service and minimal demand reduction• Should we account for under-heated homes? sub-
optimal production?
DecompositionFig 3: Economy-Wide Energy Change Components, 2001-2004
47.53
4.601.35
45.99
0.21-4.62
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60T
otal
Cha
nge
Stru
ctur
alch
ange
Ene
rgy
qual
itych
ange
Tec
hnic
alef
ficie
ncy
chan
ge
Act
ivity
chan
ge
Wea
ther
PJ/y
ear
= + + + +
How much EE effect is still absorbed in
Activity?
Energy Services Required-Spaceheating NZ homes
35Heat energy projected with all pre-1978 housing stock upgraded & new stock 50% of NZBC 2000 energy needs and 1 million heat pumps.
45Heat energy projected with all pre-1978 housing stock upgraded & new stock 50% of NZBC 2000 energy needs
57Heat energy projected with growth to 1.82m homes and no change to housing stock energy (frozen efficiency)
20Supplied consumer heat energy
43Required end-use heat energy for 18C20172001All figures PJ.
Takeback &Rebound
• Takeback - potential savings applied to improved service resulting in reduced energy savings
• Rebound – new consumption from savings• 5 yr NZ insulation/health study; $1200 insulation retrofit
provides $2300NPV. 70% of value is health/productivity improvements, 30% energy savings.
• Benchmarks for takeback and rebound? Is this normal? • Relationship between takeback and sub-optimal service? –
less developed counties, full takeback?
Energy Services
Table 3: Appliance proliferation in New Zealand households
Appliance % Change2001 2004 2001 2004 2001 2004
Oven 2,698,000 2,891,700 7% 709 731 1.88 1.93Washing Machine 1,392,400 1,451,500 4% 366 367 0.97 0.97Dryer 916,000 910,800 -1% 241 230 0.64 0.61Refrigerator 2,306,800 2,402,700 4% 606 607 1.61 1.61Dishwasher 564,600 657,600 16% 148 166 0.39 0.44Television 1,410,000 1,466,600 4% 371 371 0.98 0.98Computer 675,300 928,900 38% 178 235 0.47 0.62Heater 4794400 5017800 5% 1260 1268 3.35 3.36
Total Per 1000 people Household
Time to have a cup of tea and rethink some fundamentals
Energy is a derived demand• Energy only purchased for service
benefits(No one purchases energy for the sheer
pleasure of paying utility bills).• Benefits sought are ultimately welfare
benefits (production driven by welfare)• We are all trying to maximise welfare
A service perspective
• All energy consumption delivers either welfare services or technical and behavioural losses.
• Takeback is not regressive (bad) it’s a simply a quite natural (but poorly framed) allocation of theoretical ‘savings’ across different services
• Users inherently maximise welfare by balancing the range of service value from an efficiency improvement
• (they take welfare gains from EE until the marginal value of their welfare service mix is equal to the value of reduced energy demand)
What might this all mean?
Should we expect all energy reductions from energy efficiency to be either directly or indirectly applied to increased welfare?
• seems likely for a developed economy like NZ?
• essential for any developing economy
What is Energy Conservation?Increase in benefits from energy use
Decrease in benefits from energy use
Decreasing energy use
Increasing energy use
Increasing Energy Efficiency
Energy Conservation Declining Energy
Efficiency
No change in energy efficiency
Reducing waste (loss of service per unit energy)
Reducing service and energy, regardless of welfare
But we want to reduce energy demand
• To minimise; costs to society, perverse impacts, delay resource depletion…
• Could be quite a different objective from EE & EC? (demand is derived)
• Drivers for demand reduction need ‘authority’- the capacity to alter a system regardless of system endogenous features
• E.g. price, regulation, VA’s, taxes, treaties…
ValuesValues drive attitudes,Attitudes drive behaviours,Behaviours drive change.• Preference for democracy• Citizens not consumers• Attitudes informed by knowledge • Acceptance of knowledge driven by
values
• Economies and trade groups are setting targets for energy intensity improvements.
• Monitoring of energy trends internationally and domestically shows valuable energy intensity and efficiency improvements are occurring. But it is early days.
• Many challenges remain – particularly in addressing population driven energy growth and personal consumption.
• If the world is to realise the potential of sustainable energy we need to start thinking beyond the technological approaches currently utilised around the world and start looking for new paradigms.
• What might it take to develop significant improvement?