Keynote at workshop "Sustainable and Peaceful Energy Future in Asia", 28. - 30. September 1998, Seoul and atPan-European NGO Sustainable Energy Seminar, 18.-22. September 2001, Denmark

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE - NORDIC PERSPECTIVE

Jorgen S. NorgardDepartment of Buildings and Energy

Technical University of DenmarkDK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

ABSTRACTThe paper suggests that environmental sustainability of an energy system first of all

depends on the level of energy consumption, since all energy supplies have some environmental impact. The basis for the methodology outlined is that future energy consumption, E, is determined by development in the three main factors, namely 1) population, P, 2) material welfare, expressed by the level of energy services, S, and 3) the energy intensity of the technology applied, I. Energy consumption is then E = P * S * I. All three determinants can be subjected to political as well as individual actions. A key factor is the development in S, stressing that the economic policies must also adapt to the environmental realities of a limited world.

Based on the method mentioned the paper indicates how a high quality of daily life can be reached with an energy consumption of only a small fraction of what Europeans are using today. These options have been demonstrated in scenario projects for Denmark, Scandinavia, and Europe. Finally the energy development since 1973 is outlined, involving governmental as well as public actions. In the recent decade the low energy options have come to influence the policy of the Danish Government. Its present energy plan has a target of a 20 percent reduction of CO2 emission by 2005 and 50 percent by 2030. The paper ends with some personal views on the difficulties of implementing a sustainable development.

0. INTRODUCTIONTo a large extent this paper is a summary of some earlier works of mine, which are

referred to and in which more detailed references can be sought.The first section discusses the advantages of energy savings as well as the meaning

of the concept sustainable development. The following section 2 outlines a Nordic methodology, developed for, and applied to, various energy scenarios in Europe. The methodology is based on the three main determinants for the energy flow: population, economy, and technology. These determinants can all be adapted and shaped by political and individual actions, and their possible contributions to a sustainable development are discussed in sections 3, 4, and 5. Special attention is given to the development in economy and social values, factors which are often ignored in the environmental debate. Section 6 gives a brief outline of results from applying the methodology to the Nordic countries and to Western Europe. Section 7 is devoted to describing the energy development in Denmark since 1973. This has involved government actions as well as vigorous activities by the environmental movements and thereby by the public in general. Finally, some concluding remarks in section 8 summarize some of my views on the fundamental difficulties in implementing a policy for a sustainable development.

The reader need not go through the whole paper, but can jump from section 1 to say section 6 or 7, or even to 8.

1. SAVINGS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTThe most environmentally benign measure to take in adapting an energy system to

sustainability is to reduce the flow of energy, since a unit of energy saved in general does not pollute or cause any other environmental problems. Second most important is the utilization of renewable energy resources for supply. But it should be kept in mind that some of them can cause severe environmental problems when exploited excessively, as is for instance known from some uses of biomass and hydropower.

A further advantage of energy savings as compared to supply options is that they are usually superior also in economic terms, even before including the external environmental cost of the supply options. The lesser need for power plants and other energy supply systems can leave capital for more obvious improvements in the general development of a country, such as educational institutions, health care, sanitary systems, transport systems and other infrastructures. In affluent regions, like the OECD countries, energy savings can be in conflict with a conventional economic growth policy.

As an extra advantage of energy savings, the technologies necessary to harvest the savings can be developed, produced and implemented within almost any country. This is in contrast to most supply technologies, and can drastically reduce dependency on foreign import and investments in energy supply systems. Last, but not least, energy savings reduce the need for import of nuclear and fossil fuels.

Consequently, to curb the energy waste and aim for a low energy flow will be beneficial to the development within each single country, and at the same time contribute to a world wide sustainable development by reducing the risk of disastrous global climate changes, etc.

1.1 Defining SustainabilityIn relation to environmental problems the term sustainability has been used and

abused a lot over the recent decade, often without specifying or even reflecting on the

2

meaning of the word. The economist H. Daly has, based on economic theories of consumption, defined a sustainable development with respect to energy and other resources as a development which does not reduce the development options of the future by deteriorating the natural environment (Daly 1990). In more operational terms the conditions for a sustainable development can be expressed as follows:

1) Renewable resources (like biomass) should not be used faster than they regenerate.

2) Pollutants (like CO2 and radioactive waste) should not be generated faster than the environment can absorb or neutralize them.

3) Non-renewable resources (like uranium, coal, oil, and gas) should not be used. A softer definition of sustainability says that they should not be used at a rate higher than that of building up substitutes in the form of energy savings or renewable energy supply systems.

The above three environmental requirements are necessary physical conditions for a sustainable use of the environment, even though they do not reflect the need for preserving nature and its beauty. They can serve as guidelines for the long transformation towards an environmentally sustainable development, which will be radically different from present development in most parts of the world, particularly in the affluent OECD countries, but not necessarily worse from a humane point of view.

1.2 Indication of DevelopmentA decision to move towards a sustainable development implies a definition - or at

least some feeling - of what is meant by the two words in the concepts, sustainable and development. While sustainability has been discussed somewhat above, the latter word, development, is often assumed to be obvious, which indeed it is not, as will be briefly discussed in this section.

It is not likely that a global consensus on what indicates a development can ever be reached or should ever be aimed for. There seems to be a rather widespread understanding, however, that the one parameter which presently dominates as an indicator of development, the Gross Domestic Product, GDP, is insufficient and often directly misleading as an indicator of progress. A couple of examples will illustrate this. If you get paid to care for other people in a kindergarten, an old people's home or a hospital, it will contribute to GDP, but not if you do this unpaid out of love or compassion, for instance to your family members. Similarly, when we generate, and afterwards clean up, some pollution, this will all count positive in the GDP, while a prevention of the pollution in the first place will not show up. Attempts to correct GDP for such obvious shortcomings are discussed in the later section 4.1.

So how do we define development? There is not one simple answer to what constitutes a positive development - a progress. It should not be left to some expert to define this, since we are here touching the core of democracy. And rather than aiming at finding one single indicator to replace GDP, a number of indicators could be registered and made public, such as crime rates, infant mortality, educational level, equity, or others, which the society chooses according to its social and cultural values. On the bases of such indicators it could be left to the public to value and weigh the different indicators, and judge the job of its leaders. At the next election the electorates can voice their appreciation of the candidates.

For exactly that reasons, some large scale, centralized, high technologies and structures can be viewed as incompatible with a progressive development in a humane sense.

3

Such technologies will inevitable leave the real power and control in the hands of a few people. These technologies can be found within the energy supply from non-renewables (nuclear and large fossil fuel power plants), as well as from renewable energy (large hydropower plants, large scale solar power systems, etc.). In the present economic structure, some energy saving options will also be large in scale, simply because a substantial part of our other economic activities takes place in large, central production units. But basically, energy saving options are found in the interface between technology and humans, and hence they are small in scale. Energy savings at the same time require a broad public participation and promote such participation.

The whole issue of indicators to guide us towards a humane and sustainable development has been the subject of recent studies (Meadows 1998, Bossel 1998). There is no indication that an environmental sustainability needs to hamper improvements in human quality of life in any part of the world.

2. CONCEPTS IN ENERGY DEMAND MODELLINGThe concepts and methodologies used in our analyses and referred to in the

following text are briefly outlined in this section. It is not, however, essential to read this section in order to get the understanding of the rest of the paper.

2.1 The Energy Chain

Figure 1 A long chain of technologies and institutions converts the means, - coal, wind, uranium, natural gas, etc. – into the ends, satisfaction of human needs, etc.

4

Figure 1 illustrates some of the basic concepts in an energy system. A long chain of technologies, social structures and lifestyles converts the ultimate means, the primary energy, into the ultimate ends, whether we call this welfare, quality of life, well-being or the satisfaction of people's needs and wants.

The first link, supply technology, includes technologies like power plants, refineries, district heating plants, windmills, etc. They convert the primary energy, like coal, uranium, wind, etc. into secondary energy, (also sometimes termed energy ware (ISO 1997)), which is usually the type of energy sold to the final consumers. Electricity is a typical form of secondary energy. But also gasoline, charcoal, kerosene, and other forms of energy are marketed and utilized at the end-users. The supply technologies have usually been developed into rather efficient systems, because they are run on a commercial basis, often by big businesses.

The next major link is the end-use technology, which converts secondary energy into energy services, like a good indoor climate, cool storage for food, illumination, clean laundry, a warm meal, just to mention a few examples from the private homes. The end-use technology include for example houses, refrigerators, lamps, and cooking stoves. They are usually not very efficient at all. As we shall see later, they can typically be made three times as efficient, meaning that they can provide the same service with one third of the secondary energy input.

It is a prerequisite of the planning for sustainability to be aware that energy is of no direct value to human beings (when excluding food energy). Only the energy services can be useful. Hence it is highly misleading to use for instance the electricity consumption per capita as an indicator of people's well-being, even though it can seem to make sense for a statistic consideration.

In Figure 1 the energy chain is extended to include lifestyles, a term here used to cover the way we organize our societies, economic system, households, and life in general, recognizing that the level of energy service should not be taken as an ultimate end.

2.2 Sub-optimizing versus Integrated Resource PlanningAs mentioned, to some extent the energy supply system is quite efficient, simply

because it is optimized also from an economic point of view. This does not necessarily imply that it is optimized from the view of total cost, including the external cost, such as environmental cost. Even with those externalities included, however, optimizing the supply technologies constitutes a sub-optimizing only as compared to considering the whole energy chain in Figure 1.

Integrated Resource Planning, IRP, is a methodology which should avoid the sub-optimizing. The idea of IRP (or Least Cost Planning, which is a similar concept) is that we should not optimize the single links in the chain, but the chain as a whole. So far the IRP has been interpreted to include only the links up to the energy services. As an example, if it is less costly to save a kWh of electricity in the end-use than to produce a kWh, then the investments should be directed not to building new supply, but to save secondary energy and hence provide the energy services at the lowest cost. If this was taken seriously in Western Europe, for instance, there would hardly be a need for any new electricity supply system for a decade or two, since the investment in electricity savings would be more profitable, both from an economic and an environmental point of view. In most developing countries, an IRP would lead to a much lower need to invest in expensive supply systems.

It is important to recognize that you cannot optimize the energy chain as a whole by

5

separately optimizing the single links. You cannot optimize and sub-optimize at the same time. Each time an investment is made in an electricity supply in order to optimize the supply, it is a sub-optimization, because it might have prevented the money to be invested in more efficient end-use technologies, even if that would be more cost-effective and hence optimal. In economic terms: A more optimal electricity system is one that gives the consumer the energy services at a lower bill (including environmental externalities). The kWh-price might very well be for instance 20% higher in a more optimal system if the electricity consumption is say 40% lower.

2.3 Efficiency ParadoxThe problem of sub-optimizing becomes even more striking when you include also

the upper link in the energy chain in Figure 1, including the lifestyles (and economic system) in the chain. The more energy services you get, the less marginal benefit it will usually provide. You will not get twice as happy by having twice as much light in your house.

The efficiency paradox occurs when we focus too much on the efficiency of the technologies, for instance the end-use technologies. Typically, you will measure the efficiency of a refrigerator by how much it consumes annually per liter of storage volume. If you just buy a bigger refrigerator, you will - everything else equal - consume more electricity, but at the same time be termed more efficient, since it will consume less per liter. With bigger size light bulb you will use more electricity, but less per lumen light output, and hence be termed more efficient. The paradox is that you can become more efficient by consuming more. And this is actually often what happens, because attention is devoted almost entirely to the technical efficiencies.

The efficiency paradox, which also applies to the misleading use of energy consumption per GDP when comparing nations, arises from not taking into account the efficiency of lifestyles, the well-being per energy service. This cannot be measured in a normal and precise way, but might very well be more important than the easily quantifiable efficiencies.

There are other so-called efficiency rebound effects from emphasizing only the technical end-use efficiencies and pretending the rest of the economy can go on as usuall. The rebound effect depends on how the money saved is allocated. The full efficiency effect is achieved if the money saved is converted into more leisure time or other non-monetary purposes.

2.4 Three Main DeterminantsThere is no such thing as a decoupling between economic activities and energy

consumption. It is the economic activities which require the energy consumption in the production sector as well as in the other sectors. The observation that the energy intensity of the economy, in terms of energy consumption per GDP, is changing is no indication of a decoupling. No matter how energy efficient goods and services can be provided, twice as many of them still consume twice as much energy.

Similarly, energy consumption can never be decoupled from the development in the population, since it is the people, who through their economic activities consume the kinds of energy we are here talking about. No matter how energy efficient human beings learn to live, two of them still consume twice as much as one.

6

Figure 2 Population, energy service level as an expression of the economic activity, and energy intensity determine the energy consumption by E = P*S*I, when expressed by indices.

Therefore, the question of what determines the development in energy consumption and the associated environmental impact can basicly, as shown in Figure 2, be answered by the development in: 1) the population, P, 2) the economy or material standard of living, indicated by for instance the energy service, S, and finally 3) the technologies used to provide these services to people, expressed mainly by their energy intensity, I. If these three parameters are expressed by indices, normalized to a base year, then the index for energy demand in a future year is given by:

E = P * S * I

The simple equation can be applied to a single end-use in a country, for instance lighting. If in a future year lighting technologies are anticipated to be twice as efficient as what is used today (base year), then I = 0.5. If in the same year illumination per capita is expected to be 20% higher than today, the service index will be S=1.2. If, finally, population is expected to grow by 10%, making P = 1.1, then energy demand index for that purpose will be E = 1.1 * 1.2 * 0.5 = 0.66, meaning a 34% lower energy demand for that use.

Figure 3 shows a matrix of electricity-uses, applied in a project for Low Electricity Europe (Norgard and Viegand 1994). Horizontally, electricity consumption in each country is split up according to the final end-use technologies, while the vertical division reflects the various economic sectors of the economy. In this study a total of 175 elements were specified, although only one of the countries had data for all of them. For each element is ascribed a value of P (which is common to all end-uses in the country), S and I, and consequently a resulting E is calculated.

It is tempting to disaggregate the model into more matrix elements. For many purposes, however, a simpler model will be sufficient or better. For making political decisions on energy conservation policies, the model can be aggregated into a few types of end-uses only, and a few economic sectors.

7

Figure 3 Part of a matrix used in the Low Electricity Europe study (Norgard and Viegand 1994) with economic sectors and end-use technologies as the two dimensions.

At the extreme, the matrix can be reduced to just one element for a nation. This is actually already common practice, when comparing nations. In that case the future energy service level, S, is normally being indicated by the anticipated Gross Domestic Product per capita, while the future development in the energy intensity, I, of the technologies will be based on an estimated average. The use of GDP as an indicator for energy service is not, however, a good choice, as discussed later in section 4.1.

2.5 Planning as an Iterative Scenario ProcessEnergy planning should not be reduced to a mere fatalistic prediction of what is most

likely to happen, whether we are talking about supply or demand. The purpose of planning is normally to be able to shape the future. But if the planning activity is suggesting just one option - one way people could live in the future - the democratic element is lost. Even when we have to limit the options to those which are environmentally sustainable, there will be room for a vast diversity in the ways people can live. Obviously, however, some types of extravagant lifestyles might not be permissible, because they are unsustainable and hence severely shrink the options of other groups of people or of future generations.

The three determinants, the developments in population, economy, and technology are all being shaped by human activities, individually or through political and corporate systems. And so they will be in the future. The question is who are shaping them and towards which goals. In energy policy there has been a tendency to consider change in the technology as the only option for political regulation, ignoring population as well as economy and lifestyles as parameters in an energy and environment policy.

8

Figure 4 Graphic illustration of the iterative process of energy planning for sustainability. If the first scenario is found unsustainable the three determinants must be adjusted, and next scenario developed and judged, etc.

A process of integrated energy planning can be summarized as in Figure 4. A first set of parameters, P, S, and I, is established for instance by extrapolating present trends. The resulting energy demand is likely not to be acceptable, when the impact of the necessary energy supply is held up against environmental targets for sustainability, etc. The first assumed developments in P, S, and I, or some of them, must be adjusted, etc. in an iterative process, until one or more acceptable scenarios can be presented for public debate. In the three following sections are briefly discussed the three determining factors and their flexibility for changes.

3. POPULATIONI will be brief on the population issue, since it is dealt with in many other contexts

about development. The reason for bringing it into the discussion here on energy systems is that the environmental problems as we define them are all created by humans, and in general more people will make it more difficult to reach environmentally sustainable developments.

9

The Chinese philosopher Han Fei-tzu wrote 2,500 years ago "People think five sons are not too many and each son has five sons also. Therefore people are more numerous and wealth is less; the people work hard and receive little" (Keyfitz 1984). Today these words apply more than ever, now also in a more global perspective. The more people in the world, the lower overall quality of life will they be able to enjoy. Especially the environmental impacts from using renewable resources, which will have to dominate the supply side in a sustainable energy system, are very sensitive to population growth (Cincotta and Engelman, 1997).

In Europe the population density, and even more the energy consumption density, is higher than in any other continent. Therefore the present zero growth and even slight decline in many European countries' populations should be seen as a progress. There are, however, a tendency to ignore the environmental aspect when discussing population. Some have suggested that even in the densely populated Europe a growth in population would be desirable. Actually, these arguments are textbook examples in narrow-minded and short-term interests. Future unemployment among teachers, construction workers, etc. has been voiced seriously as arguments for increasing birth rates. An interesting pair of arguments for increasing birth rates are 1) the need for more consumers to buy products, and 2) the need for more labor to manufacture the products. The latter two are examples of arguments, based on the assumption that the aim of the economy is to ensure its own growth, rather than ensure the well-being of people.

4. LIFESTYLE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTThe energy service level, S, is here used to indicate the aspects of economic

development, which are relevant to the energy system. This service level can be indicated by different physical parameters like the dwelling size available per capita or the amount of cement produced per year. For a country as a whole is often used the GDP, which has earlier been described as quite insufficient to indicate the development of people's well-being.

4.1 Correcting the GDP as IndicatorWe will here briefly take up the discussion on which indicators are relevant to use

when aiming for a sustainable development. Attempts have been made to correct the GDP for some of the absurdities indicated above. One is the "Genuine Progress Indicator", GPI, shown for USA in Figure 5 (Genuine Progress Indicator 1995). With some rather modest and very reasonable adjustments of the GDP, the trend is a decline since around 1965, and with the present level lower than ever in more than 45 years. One of the changes is that in this GPI the cost of restoring environmental damage is counted negative rather than positive, as is the case in the GDP. Despite the indication that with the present trend people are getting worse off year by year, the politicians in USA and other affluent countries are dedicated to pursue the same conventional target, which means the downward trend for GPI.

Another alternative to GDP was the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, ISEW, which showed similar trends (Daly and Cobb, 1994). While these attempts clearly show the incompetence of GDP, none of them claim to have found the right indicator.

10

Figure 5 The conventional Gross Domestic, GDP, is here for USA compared with the Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI. (Redefining Progress 1995).

A major shortcoming of the above-mentioned attempts to adjust the conventional GDP might be that they still aim at just one number to encompass the diversity of what makes up a life and a culture. A solution with several indicators was suggested in section 1.2.

4.2 Value Changes Towards Saturation The shortcomings of using GDP as a welfare indicator is also illustrated by people's

preferences of more leisure time over more income. In many countries with a rather high material standard of living and a relatively high equity, such as in Scandinavia, a majority seems to prefer a society with more leisure over extra income and consumption, if offered the choice. They would like to have more time for hobbies and for being with friends and families (Platz 1988, Norgard and Christensen 1993). Also in the USA, millions are aiming for a better life through reducing consumption (Dominguez and Robin, 1993).

Such changes in people's values away from eternally growing income and consumption should of course be welcomed by governments dedicated to sustainable development. But in real life, these trends towards economic saturation, which have shown up once in a while during the last century, have always been counteracted vigorously by governments, whether left-wing or right-wing oriented. Today the countermeasures include tax policies, increasing income inequities, and allowing more advertisement, permitting longer shopping hours, promoting electronic shopping, and in general welcoming more aggressive marketing. Such steps seem quite natural for governments which give higher priority to growth in the abstract GDP than to a sustainable development aimed at human satisfaction.

11

4.3 Universal Needs and Cultural ValuesThe cultural diversity is, like the biological diversity, an important aspect of a good

life. The biological diversity constitutes an important pool of genes for future biological resilience and changes. Similarly, the cultural diversities constitute pools for cultural adaptation to the realities of a limited earth.

Basic needs for food, shelter, security, social contacts etc. are universally shared by all people. The cultural values determine the way we try to satisfy these universal needs under different environmental conditions, and they vary from one culture to another. The Western cultures in Europe and USA have been very successful in material production, which has led to societies that increasingly satisfy their needs by material means. Also the non-material needs for security, self esteem, social respect, etc., are sought satisfied by material means. Unfortunately these values, leading towards unsustainability are now being proliferated to most parts of the world.

It is necessary to change those cultural values which are behind the present consumption patterns of Western cultures if we are to reach a sustainable development with joy. As indicated above by people's preferences in Northern Europe, such changes are underway, but delayed by conventional economic expansion policy in government and by enormous vested private interests on a global scale.

4.4 The Blind Alley of a Service Growth EconomyThe material consumption in an economy changes in the course of economic

development. In early stages of industrialization, when a society's infrastructure is being built up with roads, houses, etc., the economy is rather energy- and material intensive, due to a high demand for steel, cement, and other building materials. Later the service sector comes to dominate the economy.

Politicians often suggest that when a country reaches a certain level of economic output, future economic growth will almost entirely occur in the service sector, which is understood to have a low energy intensity. The argument then implies that the society will automatically de-materialize. However, when taking into account the energy input-output activities between sectors, the outlook for this argument is not so optimistic. For Denmark this has been investigated by Jespersen (Jespersen 1998). He found that when taking into account the actual correlations between the economic sectors, an Euro worth spent in the so-called commercial service sector, would require only around 20% less energy than an Euro worth demanded from the manufacturing sector in Denmark. The difference is more marked when looking at what is termed the non-commercial service sectors, that is education, health care, child care, and other services which have typically been provided by the public sector. For this sector, the energy intensity was found to be around 65% lower than that of the manufacturing sector. Still, however, the energy intensity is significant and a continuous growth in this non-commercial service sector will push electricity consumption upwards.

Furthermore, even if possible, pursuing a path of all economic growth occurring only in this non-commercial sector will be a blind alley in the long term. For Denmark a 3.5% annual growth in GDP would in 40 years have to expand this person-related non-commercial service sector by a factor around 14! (Norgard 1995). With only 24 hours available per day this could pose some practical problems in the long run.

4.5 Durability and RepairabilityBesides the implications of more energy-efficient end-use technologies described in

12

the following, one extra option for reducing the use of energy and other resources in the production sector is to increase the lifetime of the durable goods. Roughly speaking, a doubling of the goods' lifetime could halve the energy necessary to maintain the stock of durable goods. This is only to a minor extent a technical problem. It is much more a question of challenging the cultural values about fashion and fast changes, which today is used as a means to spur the expansion of the economy. Efforts towards less replacement of goods and more repair would move some economic activities away from the large-scale industry to the small-scale repair businesses. Today the trend is clearly the opposite.

5. TECHNOLOGICAL END-USE OPTIONSThe last of the three determinants of the energy consumption to be discussed is the

technology. As suggested earlier, the end-use technology, which converts the secondary energy into the useful energy services, could be made more energy-efficient by a factor of three or more. This means getting more than three times the service without increasing energy consumption. Or, more appropriate for Europe and other affluent societies, reducing energy consumption to less than one third without affecting the energy welfare. Some basic principles and a few examples will illustrate this in the following. There are several sources for more information on end-use efficiency (Goldemberg et al 1988, Norgard 1989, Weizsäcker et al 1998).

5.1 More efficient housesIn almost all regions of the world the climate is uncomfortable part of the year,

either too hot or too cold. Indoors a more comfortable climate can be established. This can be achieved by adding an active heating or cooling system. But if the buildings are properly designed the need for such active cooling or heating systems can be reduced and sometimes entirely eliminated. Since we are mainly trying to cope with the temperature difference between indoor and outdoor, thermal insulation is an obvious necessity in solving the problem.

In cold regions, some basic heat supply is always available in the houses. The sunshine through the windows and the fact that people themselves give off body heat contribute to keeping warm indoors. The same does electric and other energy-using equipment. In normal houses several times more heat supply is needed for a comfortable indoor temperature. But if the house is very well insulated, 30 - 50 cm mineral wool for instance, it is possible to build houses with extremely low or no need for space heating at all, even in the cold German winter (Feist 1996). Windows with double or triple glasses and special coatings and gases in between can in some cases even become net contributors to the heating by allowing more solar heat in than they let heat out during nights and clouded periods. Furthermore, heat is a low-quality form of energy (low exergy content), which is often available at low cost in terms of required primary energy as well as in money terms.

The situation is different when the climate is hot. Here the "free heat" from people, windows, etc. adds to the problem of too warm indoor climate. The color of the buildings and their whole design are very essential for reducing the heat load and for obtaining some natural ventilation and cooling. Often experiences from traditional house construction in tropical climates can be transferred to new constructions. Window design is important for preventing heat load from solar radiation. Moving the air forces evaporation from the body and thereby

13

cools it. A simple and efficient mechanical cooling system is the ceiling fan. Furthermore, recent aerodynamic science has shown how to improve the efficiency of traditional ceiling fans, so they will require less than half of the electricity normally needed without even improving the motor (Parker et.al. 1999)

5.2 Low Energy Equipment

Figure 6 Potentials for reducing electricity intensity for lighting and appliances in Danish households as well as service sector, using various levels of end-use efficiencies (Norgard 1989)

Appliances and various equipment in households, shops, institutions, and offices consume a substantial part of a country's energy budget, mostly in the form of electricity. For the consumer each of these uses will typically appear to be rather small and insignificant. This is one of the many reasons why so little attention is devoted to reducing such energy consumptions. If, however, we analyze each little pump, refrigerator, fan, washing machine, computer, etc. it will soon become obvious that at essentially no extra cost they can be several times more efficient by purely technical improvements. Over the years, this has been shown in a number of studies (Norgard 1979, Johansson et al 1989, E-Source). Figure 6 shows the results of an investigation in 1989.

5.3 Producing Goods and ServicesEach time we purchase a shirt, a loaf of bread, a travel, etc. we also consume energy,

since such goods and services are produced and delivered with the use of energy. In a typical industrialized country this indirect or embodied energy consumption amounts roughly to the same as the direct energy purchased as electricity, gasoline, district heat, fuel oil, gas, etc.(Vringer and Blok 1995). Some of the products are purchased as private consumption, some as public consumption, and finally some are invested. Like in the cases above, energy for the

14

production processes can be reduced dramatically. Maybe not always to quite the same extent as in those cases, because in some industries, for instance, attention has always been devoted to avoiding energy waste, just for the sake of making good business. This is particularly the case for enterprises, where energy cost makes up a significant part of the budget, such as at steel works, cement factories and manufacturers of fertilizers. But in most cases, energy consumption in a company accounts for only 1 - 4 % of the budget.

Institutions as different as farms, car factories, and hospitals, might have a number of similar processes, such as drying materials, mixing chemicals, pumping liquids, etc. These processes can all be performed much more energy efficient, and experience from one institution can be transferred to another. This calls for more experts, institutions, and enterprises to specialize in end-use efficiency. As an example, osmosis is a process for separating fluids and solid compounds, which in principle is very simple and several times less energy demanding than the normal ways by evaporation etc. Osmosis is now being applied in businesses as different as sewage treatment and sugar production. No further concrete examples will be listed here.

The low attention given to energy savings, particularly in the production sector, is reflected in the fact that investment in energy-saving activities in industries will typically by the managers be required to pay back itself in saved energy in less than one year or maybe two. This implies a required annual yield of the investment of 50 to 100%. From a socioeconomic point of view a much longer payback time would be acceptable, and this would make significantly larger energy savings cost-effective.

From a consumer's point of view, one of the ways to reduce the energy consumption of the industry is by simply buying less and preferring long-lasting goods. As mentioned earlier, this is only to some extent a technical matter, since most goods in the affluent countries are discarded with no or only small and repairable break-downs. This is clearly the case for clothing.

5.4 Transporting Goods and PeopleSaving options in this sector are hard to divide into purely technical measures on the

one hand and structural and behavioral measures on the other. Trains, trucks, buses and cars can each typically be made at least twice as energy-efficient measured in for instance how many kilometers they can transport one person per liter of gasoline. Another way to make transport more energy-efficient is to reorganize the traffic away from individual transport to busses, trains and the like. The best way to save energy for transport is, however, to reduce the needs and desires for transport, since they are mostly generated by the societies we establish. To reduce those needs will usually involve some changes in lifestyles, but not necessarily towards the worse.

6. CASE STUDIES Energy-saving proposals appear more convincing when presented in an overall

scenario for a country or a region. In the following are described very briefly two such scenario studies, one for Western Europe and one for Scandinavia.

6.1 Low Electricity EuropeIn section 2.4 about the three main determinants was described how the PSI-

15

modelling processes outlined were applied to a study of how Western Europe could phase out the use of nuclear power as well as coal power (Norgard and Viegand 1994, Norgard et al 1994). Some of the results are shown in Figure 7. One scenario is based on a continued economic expansion in all countries, reflected most directly in the energy service, S. This economic growth scenario is in accordance with the anticipations and hopes of most politicians and economists. In the other scenario, the economies and hence the demand for services, S, gradually saturate, first in the most affluent countries. This economic development seems to be in harmony with the wishes of people in general. In both scenarios shown, the technological options for efficient end-use of the electricity, expressed by the energy intensity, I, were implemented vigorously. Population is assumed to remain almost stable, following the official predictions.

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN WESTERN EUROPE

16

0

50

100

150

200

250

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

YEAR

IND

EX, %

ECONOMIC SATURATION SCENARIO

EnergyServices

Population

Electricityconsumption

Intensity

S

P

E

I

Figure 7 The results of two scenarios from the Low Electricity Europe study with different economic development, one with continued economic growth and one with economic saturation (Norgard and Viegand 1994).

The two scenarios illustrate that if the necessary measures are taken to implement end-use technology with a low energy intensity, - high efficiency - the demand for electricity can soon decline in both scenarios. The decline is most marked in the scenario with economic saturation, in which the electricity demand stabilizes at a level around half the present.

The main lesson to be learned from the scenarios, however, is that in the one with continued economic growth, the electricity savings from the better technology are partly eaten up by the expansion in services, and when the technological options are used up, the growth in electricity consumption will again follow the growth in the economy. These are of course simplified pictures. We will not suddenly run out of technical options. But the trends are that the progress in efficiency improvements will slow down because they are approaching some theoretical as well as practical limits. If economic expansion is continued forever, it will sooner or later dominate the efficiency gains. Long before that happens the overall human welfare might actually be declining because the marginal gains from more energy services are outbalanced, among other things by the losses in welfare from deteriorating the environment.

With the saturation economy, which in this scenario leaves all Europeans with more energy services than the present average in Northern Europe, electricity demand ends up at a level around half of the present. For the energy supply side the consequence is that for long no new electricity supply capacity needs to be built. A gradual introduction of more renewables will of course speed up the reduction in CO2-emission as well as the technical development in these fields. A total conversion into renewable energy resources will at the end be greatly facilitated in terms of both economy and environment. The present West European supply from hydropower is around 20%. In the saturation scenario, it can then make up 40% of the supply and furthermore act as a buffer for the more fluctuating supplies from solar, wind, etc.

The saturation scenario is not necessarily the optimal scenario. Material affluence is at a very high level before saturation, and the marginal benefits from the last part are diminutive or maybe negative as earlier discussed in section 4 and Figure 5. This could point towards economic saturation at a lower level of energy service than here anticipated. If encouraged or just accepted by governments, also population could decline significantly over such a long period with a corresponding extra decline in electricity consumption. So future electricity demand in Western Europe could easily end up far below half of the present level.

6.2 Sustainable ScandinaviaThe PSI-methodology was applied also to a study for the Scandinavian countries,

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (Brinck et al 1991, Benestad et al 1993). In this study the level of disaggregation was a little lower than in the Low Electricity Europe study, but the Scandinavian project included not only electricity, but all forms of energy, also for heating, transportation, and industrial processes. Also the various energy supply options are investigated in the study of Scandinavia.

One of the scenarios is built on an assumption about an energy service development similar to that in the saturation scenario in Low Electricity Europe. This implies a material welfare like the one in the base year 1987 maintained stable till the year 2030. Primary energy consumption in the Scandinavian countries could be reduced by between 54 and 79%, most in Denmark. An interesting consequence of such a scenario is that as a whole,

17

Scandinavia, blessed with hydropower potentials, biomass, and wind, could by the year 2030 become a significant net exporter of CO2-free, "green" electricity with 113 TWh per year, or more than three times the present consumption in Denmark. This "green" electricity could - as also assumed in the Low Electricity Europe study - be available to the densely populated rest of Europe, less blessed with renewable energy options.

Since this Scandinavian study includes also the supply side, the major results deal with the emission levels for various pollutants, mostly SO2, NOx, and CO2. Therefore the supply side is included in this model, and the major results come out as reductions in CO2-emissions. It appears that there need not be any problems in reaching the CO2-emission reduction of around 90 - 95%. And if approaching this limit for CO2, the other SO2- and NOx-emission-targets are more or less reached automatically.

7. ENERGY POLICY AND DEBATE IN DENMARKThis section will present glimpses of the recent 25 years of Danish energy

development, but also describe the present situation as well as the Government plans for the future.

7.1 Denmark's Energy PlansWhen the oil crisis hit the world in 1973, Denmark was caught with a dependence on

imported oil for more than 95% of all its energy consumption. Since the forests were almost totally cut hundreds of years ago, the country's dependence on imported fossil fuels has earlier been severely felt during wars and other conflicts. For that reasons some traditions and knowledge about saving energy had been preserved and developed in the country.

18

Figure 8 Denmark´s actual consumption of primary energy is here shown with a solid line, while consumption as suggested in various energy plans by Government and energy scientists are shown dotted. The symbols are explained in the text.

The first Governmental energy plan appearing after the 1973 oil shock was mainly directed towards replacing the oil with other fuels, including nuclear. The anticipated future consumption of primary energy was as indicated by EP76 in Figure 8. This was not based on careful investigation of the demand side, but rather on extrapolation of passed trends. An alternative energy plan, without nuclear AE76, developed by university researchers and published the same year, was by an large also ignoring the energy demand analyses and options for energy demand management.

Second round of energy plans in Denmark came in 1981 and 1983 with a Government plan and a nuclear free alternative plan by university people, see in Figure 8 EP81 and AE83, respectively. Here for the first time was shown a marked difference in the suggested future energy demands of the two plans. While the Government's plan, which had now cost-effectiveness and security of supply as its major targets, anticipated a continuous growth in primary consumption, the alternative plan proposed a plan with emphasis on demand side management, resulting in a steady decline in energy demand.

Third energy plan from the Danish Government in 1990, Energy 2000 (Danish Ministry of Energy 1990), constituted a turning point in Danish Governmental energy planning, see EP90 in Figure 8. It had major features in common with the earlier 1983 alternative plan. The environmental problems, especially CO2 emission, were in focus, and for the first time the Government applied an end-use approach. As seen from Figure 8, the resulting demand for energy in the future also showed a similar declining trend as that of the alternative plan from 1983. There was, however, one major difference. Contrary to the alternative 1983-plan, the Government's 1990-plan was based on an economic scenario with continuous economic growth, although low and declining, dictated by the ministry of economics. The result was a more moderate decline in energy demand and in the long run a catch-up of growth of energy consumption, making it unsustainable.

The most recent energy plan from the Danish Government was published in 1996 (Danish Energy Agency 1995, Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy 1996), see EP96 in Figure 8. This action plan still stresses energy savings, but because of acceptance or anticipations of higher economic growth, the ambition for reducing energy demand has now shrunk to a mere 17% by the year 2030 as compared to the level in 1989. The main aim of this plan is a reduction of CO2-emission from Denmark by 20% in the year 2005 as compared to 1990, and by 50% in 2030. To a large extent these reductions are achieved by switching electricity production from coal to the cleaner, but more limited resources of natural gas. A scenario based on a saturating economy is in Figure 8 sketched as AE96.

After the total dependence on imported energy up to the 1973-crisis, Denmark has discovered oil and gas resources of its own in the North Sea, so that the country is now pumping up more than its own consumption. This does not make much difference, however, as far as economic and environmental aspects are concerned.

7.2 The Push for Nuclear Energy in DenmarkThe energy plans from Government as well as from alternative sources in Denmark,

outlined above, reflect the fact that the energy debate in Denmark has been more intense than in most other countries and with a broad public participation. The reason for this is probably, besides the long tradition of dependence on import, the situation about nuclear power. The

19

1973 oil crisis brought the nuclear energy option to the surface. For long the Danish Government had prepared for introducing this energy source in Denmark, mainly by establishing in 1958 a Nuclear Research Center at Risoe. The exceptionally low and declining oil prices in the 1960s, however, made the nuclear power option unattractive for the utilities from an economic point of view. But with the soaring oil prices and insecurity of oil supply in the early 1970s, the Danish electric utilities pushed for Government permission to build nuclear power plants.

Figure 9 Examples of early prognoses for Denmark´s electricity demand, here compared to actual development in electricity consumption. EL-´72 was suggested by electric utilities in 1972, etc. GOV-´74 came from Government in 1974 (Norgard 1998).

The total lack of end-use analyses and end-use planning was another serious characteristic of the utilities' push for nuclear. Figure 9 illustrates how the forecast of electricity demand essentially consisted of simple extrapolation of past trends. Even after the 1973 oil crisis the high forecast continued, also by Government, although now slightly modified. According to these forecasts, electricity demand would by year 2000 be more than 3 times what it now seems to end up to be. This is not so much due to a successful policy to save energy. Rather is it an illustration of the shortcomings of making mathematical extrapolations and no end-use analyses at all.

7.3 Grassroots Movement OOAPeople seemed worried about the prospects of having several nuclear power plants

spread out over the small and densely populated country. So when a group of energy activists early in 1974 started to provide information about the risk etc. of nuclear power, they soon got hundreds of supporters, and later hundreds of thousands (Christiansen 1983). The movement, OOA (Organisation for Information About Nuclear Power) was a true grassroots movement, and in the course of a decade OOA managed to change the public opinion through

20

well-attended meetings, media debate, and distribution of information material to essentially all of the 2 million Danish households. An extensive brochure presenting alternatives to nuclear power was printed in 2.3 million copies, (OOA 1980), and later brochures came out in 550.000 and 50.000 copies in the small country (OOA 1982, OOA 1983). In the Danish parliament, Folketinget, only a small left wing party of the several political parties objected to nuclear power in 1974. Eleven years later, in 1985, a majority in parliament voted to rule out nuclear power as an option in Danish energy supply. This decision was made a year before the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident.

The environmental risks and the social cost of nuclear power were the main arguments put forward in OOA's campaigns against nuclear power. But it is probably safe to say, that on top of the risk and cost of nuclear power the credible alternative options presented by OOA were what turned the opinion of the public, and also gradually changed the minds of the politicians. Nuclear power was simply not necessary. While the renewable energy supply options did play a spectacular role in these alternatives, the options for reducing demand seem to have been a decisive factor. This became convincing because as the years passed by, all official forecasts of energy demand turned out to be too high. This was the case for electricity as well as for primary energy in general, see Figures 9 and 8. When the second oil crisis hit in 1979-80, OOA opted strongly for end-use efficiency and other energy savings.

During all this work, OOA had important two-way cooperation with energy scientists at different universities in Scandinavia, especially through the publication of the alternative scenarios. After the Parliament and Government ruled out nuclear power, the reduction of CO2 emission has been the main issue of debate in Danish energy policy. But the planned phasing out of nuclear power plants in the neighboring countries Sweden and now also Germany are critically followed by OOA. Although now at low activity, OOA can take the main credit for a soon close-down of the Swedish plant in Barsebäck, only 20 km from Denmark's capital, Copenhagen.

7.4 Present Energy Saving Action in DenmarkThe plan, Energy21, from 1996 is still the official basis for the Danish energy policy,

with CO2 as the main target indicator. While the targets are quite ambitious, the political agreement on how to carry it through cannot always be mobilized. Nevertheless over the past 25 years of active energy policy in Denmark, some measures to promote energy savings have been implemented, as outlined in the following.

Economic incentives to achieve energy savings include taxes on energy, now especially according to their CO2 emissions. For non-industrial customers the various taxes (including a general 25% sales tax) on electricity now add an extra 150% to the price from suppliers. Gasoline taxes add up to around 250%. The taxes are part of a green tax reform aimed at transferring some of the taxes on labor (income taxes) to taxes on resources and pollution. However, the free trade within the EU makes it difficult for the Government to go very far with taxing energy for the internationally competing businesses. The CO2 taxes on industrial use of fossil fuel are therefore small and to a large extent reimbursed in one way or another.

Information measures include labelling of some electric appliances. In this field, Denmark together with the Netherlands have been pioneering in implementing labels in EU. The labels classify appliances into categories A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, according to energy efficiency, and they seem to have had a profound effect on Danes' choice of model while the

21

implementation and the impact in several other EU-countries is very sparse (Winward et al 1998). Some electric utilities offer files of all major appliances on the Danish market with information about electricity consumption as well as sizes and other features.

Governmental minimum efficiency standards have been used for new buildings since long before 1973, but gradually they have been tightened. For appliances the Danish Government has wanted similarly to implement minimum efficiency standards, but this was blocked by the European Union, because it was considered a trade barrier. Instead EU has introduced efficiency standards, which, however, are weak and without any noticeable effect in Denmark.

Recently the Government has introduced a ban on installation of electric space heating wherever district heat or natural gas is available, which is the case in around two thirds of the buildings in Denmark.

Another important recent change in Government's policy on energy saving has been to drop the strategy of leaving most electricity saving activities to the electric utilities. This has never been really successful, and a decade has more or less been wasted on that policy. One of the steps taken instead by Government has been to create in 1997 an Electricity Saving Trust (Danish Energy Agency 1996). To begin with the dominating aim of the trust is to subsidize the conversion of electric space heating in the around 50.000 homes and a number of public buildings into heating systems with more appropriate energy forms like district heat or natural gas. But the trust will increasingly promote the development and implementation of energy efficient electric equipment as well as encourage the environmentally benign way of life. The Danish electricity saving policy is further described elsewhere (Gydesen 1998).

7.5 Shortcomings of Danish Energy Saving PolicyThe ambitions of the present Danish Government are quite high when it comes to

sustainable development. Especially when compared to those of other countries. But in daily political actions it turns out that other aspects like economic growth are by politicians given a higher priority than the environment. In fact the economic policy and development dictates the background for the energy and environment policy instead of the other way around. One consequence of giving top priority to expansion in GDP is that the free market in Europe as well as in the world as a whole is supported by politicians much more than by the public in general and despite its negative consequences for the environment. When the economy grows, no matter whether this is really wanted or not by the public, general consumption must necessarily grow too. An ever expanding consumption cannot be in harmony with a policy aiming at living environmentally more benign, since this will imply a lower consumption in general.

For the time being, the largest outlet for the economic expansion pressure in Denmark occurs in the transport sector. The purchasing and driving of private cars is soaring, and so is the energy consumption in this sector. The Government is actually not passive to this development. It is promoting it! Car traffic is made easier with highways, bridges, parking facilities, etc. Also, while public transportation has become more expensive, the Government is maintaining low gasoline taxes. From 1980 to 1997 the ratio between real price of public transport and real gasoline price has increased by 85%. Finally the transport is subsidized by maintaining commuting cost - including car commuting - deductible on income tax return.

The dilemma between environmental aims and economic growth philosophy is often felt in the steps taken by Danish Government, which mostly take the country in the wrong

22

direction, towards more unsustainability.

8. CONCLUDING REMARKSIn the world as a whole we have the technology and the economic capacity to create

the material frames for a sustainable and good life for everyone. What is lacking is the political will to aim for this. In the field of energy and environment, the strategy would call for a low flow of energy, since all energy supply systems have some impact on the natural environment. Fortunately, this can be combined with the good life by means of clean technologies already available. Unfortunately, however, this is not the aim of the general policies in the world.

An urge for a liberalization of global trade has been sweeping anonymous over the world without any public debate and without even asking what are the benefits. Indeed a market economy is excellent on a certain scale. But when it leads to ever larger production and trade companies it is a threat to the environment as well as to democracy. It is no longer a free market. From a democratically controlled market we have then moved to a market controlled by the big market forces themselves. The criteria behind the economic theories of the advantages of a free market no longer exist.

Simultaneously to the wave of free market euphoria has come a growing awareness of the environmental limitations to human economic activities. This inevitably calls for more regulation of the market. Fortunately, a growing number of market economists now see the need for more regulation of the market, both for social and environmental reasons. The liberalization wave will maybe soon begin to flatten off.

In the free, expansion oriented economy, waste is a virtue and hence energy saving has no real basis there. This is what makes the efforts to save energy a difficult task. While the implementation of new energy supply systems like renewable energy can be in harmony with a growth economy, an energy saving strategy will usually be in conflict with it. Energy saving will require the support and promotion from grassroots movements. It has a touch of irony, however, that many environmental movements which are aiming at decentralized, environmentally sustainable energy systems often leave the responsibility for the most decentralized and environmentally most benign activity - energy savings - to the large scale suppliers of unsustainable energy! Instead the movements mostly focus on implementing new supply systems, renewable energy systems. While these systems indeed have to take over in the long-term future, they are not likely to change the present overall supply trends with nuclear and coal. This can be achieved only by challenging the growth in energy consumption. As an illustration: The very famed Danish wind energy program has over its 25 years of success history reached a level of supplying 7% of the electricity, or what is equivalent to a couple of years' modest normal increase in electricity consumption! This is not to blame the wind program which really is successful. The fault is with the growing demand for electricity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe paper has been inspired by the workshop, "Sustainable and Peaceful Energy

Future in Asia" held in Seoul in September 1998, organized by Citizen´s Nuclear Information

23

Center (CNIC), Japan and Joint Institute for Sustainable and Environmental Energy Future (JISEEF), Korea. I am grateful for this opportunity to exchange ideas. Also I want to thank Tarjei Haaland, Tetsunary Iida, Tom Guldbrandsen, Anne Rasmussen, and Bente Lis Christensen, all of whom have provided valuable comments to this paper, as well as Gitte Nellemose for graphic work.

24

REFERENCES

Benestad, O., L.Brinck, L.Emborg, B.Juul-Kristensen, N.I.Meyer, K.Pulliainin, E.Selvig, and A.Vattinen (1993): Energy and Environment - Nordic energy scenarios for 2010 and 2030", Energy Policy, Vol.21, pp.1225-1236.

Bossel, H. (1999): "Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, application" , A report to the Balaton Group, International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD, 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B OY4. Email: info@iisd.ca.

Brinck, L., L.Emborg, B.Juul-Kristensen, A.Kristiansen, K.Pulliainen, E.Selvig, A. Vaittinen, O.Benestad (1991): "Miljö och energi i Norden - energiscenarier för år 2010" , Nordisk Ministerråd, Store Strandstræde 18, DK-1255, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Christiansen, S. (1983): "The Danish Information Campaign About Nuclear Power 1974-1977 - An analysis of the background and a keyword description of the campaign model and the structure of the OOA" , The Organisation for Information about Nuclear Power in Denmark, OOA, Blegdamsvej 4, DK 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.

Cincotta, R.P. and R. Engelman (1997): "Economics and Rapid Change: The Influence of Population Growth" , Occasional paper, Population Action International, 1120 19th street, NW, # 550, Washington D.C., USA.

Daly, H. and J.Cobb (1994): "For the Common Goods", Beacon Press, Boston.

Daly, H. (1990): "Towards Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development", Ecological Economics, Vol.2, pp.1-6, 1990.

Danish Energy Agency (1995): "Denmark's Energy Futures", Ministry of Environment and Energy, Copenhagen.

Danish Energy Agency (1996): "Act on the Danish Electricity Saving Trust", Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.

Danish Ministry of Energy (1990): "Energy 2000 - A Plan of Action for Sustainable Development", Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.

Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy (1996): "Energy 21 - Danish Government's Action Plan for Energy, 1996", Ministry of Environment and Energy, Copenhagen.

Dominguez, J. and V.Robin (1993): "Your Money or Your Life", Penguin Books, New York.

E-Source, Inc.: Technology Atlas, Several Volumes, continuously updated, E-Source Inc., 1033 Walnut Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302, USA.

Feist, W. (1996): "Grundlagen der Gestaltung von Passivhäusern", Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH, Annastrasse 15, D-64285 Darmstadt, Germany.

Genuine Progress Indicator (1995): "The Genuine Progress Indicator. Summary of Data and Methodology" , Redefining Progress, One Kearney Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108, USA.

Goldemberg, J., T.B.Johansson, A.K.N.Reddy and R.H.Williams (1988): "Energy for a Sustainable World" Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi.

Gydesen,A. (1998): "Electricity Saving Policies i Denmark" in Development with Sustainable Use of Electricity (eds. Norgard, Gula, and Almeida) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

ISO (1997): ISO/CD 13600, Technical Energy Systems - Methods for Analysis, International Organization for

25

Standardization, Geneva.

Jespersen, J. (1998): "Reconciling Environment and Employment by Switching from Goods to Services? A Review of Danish Experience", European Environment, Vol.9,(Forthcoming in 1999).

Johansson,T.B., B.Bodlund, R.H.Williams (eds) 1989: "Electricity", Lund University Press, Lund, Sweden.

Keyfitz, N. (1984): "The Population of China", Scientific American, vol.25, no 2, pp.22-31, February 1984.

Meadows, D.H. (1998): "Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development", A report to the Balaton Group. The Sustainability Institute, PO BOX 174, Hartland Four Corners, VT-05049, USA.

Norgard,J.S. (1979): "Improved Efficiencies in Domestic Appliances", Energy Policy, Vol.7, no.1, March 1979.

Norgard,J.S. (1989): "Low Electricity Appliances - Options for the Future", pp. 125-172 in Electricity (eds. T.B.Johansson, B.Bodlund, R.H.Williams) Lund University Press, Lund, Sweden.

Norgard, J.S. (1995): "Efficient Technology in an Inefficient Economy", in Proceedings of the 1995 ECEEE Summer Study: Sustainability and the Reinvention of Government - A Challenge for Energy Efficiency , ed. A. Persson, The European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Stockholm, Sweden.

Norgard, J.S. (1998): "Models of Energy Saving Systems - the Battle Field of Environmental Planning", Forhtcoming in special issue of International Journal of Global Energy Issues in 1998 or 1999.

Norgard, J.S. and J. Viegand (1994): "Low Electricity Europe - Sustainable Options", European Environmental Bureau, Rue de la Victoire 26 bte 12, B-1060 Brussels, Belgium.

Norgard, J.S. and B.L.Christensen (1993): "Towards sustainable energy welfare", Perspectives in Energy, Vol. 2, pp. 313-332, 1992-1993.

Norgard, J.S., P.S.Nielsen, and J.Viegand (1994): "Low Electricity Europe", pp. 399-417 in Integrated Electricity Resource Planning (ed. Almeida et al), Kluwer Academic Publisher, NATO Series E 261, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

OOA (1980): "Denmark Without Nuclear Power", translation of a brochure: “Danmark uden atomkraft", The Organisation for Information about Nuclear Power in Denmark, OOA, Blegdamsvej 4, DK 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.

OOA (1982): "We say: Give up Nuclear Power", translation of a brochure: "Vi siger: Opgi' Atomkraft", The Organisation for Information about Nuclear Power in Denmark, OOA, Blegdamsvej 4, DK 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.

OOA (1983): "An Alternative Energy Plan for Denmark", translation of a brochure: "En alternative Energiplan for Danmark", The Organisation for Information about Nuclear Power in Denmark, OOA, Blegdamsvej 4, DK 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.

Parker, D.S., M.P. Callahan, J.K. Sonne and G.H. Su (1999): “Development of a High Efficiency Ceiling Fan”, Florida Solar Center, 1679 Clearlake Road, Cocoa Florida 32922, USA. (www.fsec.ucf.edu).

Platz, M. (1988): Working Time (in Danish), The Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen.

Vringer, K. and K. Blok (1995): "The direct and indirect energy requirement of households in the Netherlands", Energy Policy, Vol.23 (10), pp.893-910.

Weizsäcker, E.von, A.B.Lovins, L.H.Lovins (1998): "Factor Four - Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use", Earthscan, London.

26

Winward, J., P.Schiellerup, B.Boardman (1998): "Cool Labels, The first three years of the European Energy Label", Energy and Environmental Program, Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

27