WEF report calls for accelerated efforts on energy efficiency
07 December 2010
A new World Economic Forum report developed in partnership with Accenture emphasizes the urgent need for energy efficiency to be at the forefront of the global agenda. The report, “Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda” was presented at the Green Solutions Event at COP16 in Cancun.
Energy demand is expected to increase by 40% by 2050. The estimated capital required to meet projected energy demand through to 2030 amount in cumulative terms to US$26 trillion. Of all the energy options, energy efficiency is able to provide the largest capacity for cutbacks in energy demand in the medium term. This potential can be measured in energy savings, cost savings and reduction in emissions. Research has identified that of the carbon abatement required, 57% could be achieved through implementation of energy efficiency measures by 2030.
Despite commitments to energy efficiency made to date, there is a substantial gap between policy and implementation, challenging the concept of energy efficiency as “low hanging fruit”.
The report looks at three stakeholder groups—policy-makers, international and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector—and identifies key challenges that must be overcome to accelerate energy efficiency implementation:
- Access to capital: Aggregating energy efficiency projects in a bankable way is not easy, so it is difficult to access capital;
- Regulation: Lack of the right regulatory structures means there is less incentive for investment in energy efficiency;
- Reporting: Measuring and reporting on energy efficiency is not uniform or well understood, leading to higher perceived risk and confusion;
- Skills and capacity: Lack of skills and supply chains to enable implementation of measures means there are insufficient energy efficiency investment opportunities; and
- Standards: There are no international standards for globally traded products reducing the market size and incentive for improvement.
Energy efficiency remains a big prize, but it cannot be delivered by one set of stakeholders. To create a step change and capture the potential of energy efficiency, we must ensure a more systematic and rigorous dialogue between the public and private sectors. The private sector can do more for its part by beginning to forge more innovative global alliances. New business models combined with new financing mechanisms to support global scale-up will demonstrate the positive business case for energy efficiency.
—Mark Spelman, Accenture’s Global Head of Strategy
Let's face it, higher energy efficiency will certainly not come from energy interested groups. Their powerful lobbies will continue fight any actions, laws or regulations that would reduce their sales and profits.
The only way to overrule those people is with regulations to promote higher energy efficiencies in all fields.
Of course, CAFE should be revisited with more aggressive (progressive) standards towards 50+ empg vehicles by 2020 and 75+ empg by 2025 and 100+ empg by 2030 etc.
HVAC standards could be raised from current 13 SEER to 20+ SEER by 2015, 25+ SEER by 2020 and 30+ SEER by 2030 etc. Technologies (up to 26+ SEER) already exist. The next step (30+ SEER) could certainly be developed much before 2030. A retrofit program could be used to accelerate the transition.
Federal residence's insulation standards could be tighten up by 25+% by 2015, 50+% by 2020, 75+% by 2025 and 100+% by 2030. Technologies already exist. It is just a matter of mandate and applications. A retrofit program could (and has been used) to accelerate the transition.
Sales of Incandescent lights should be banned. Replacement lights should supply 75+ lumens/watt by 2015, 100+ lumens/watt by 2020, 125+ lumens/watt by 2025 and 150+ lumens/watt by 2030 etc.
Trains, buses, trucks should be progressively electrified (PHEV/BEV). A minimum percentage of the national fleets should be done every year. It could start with 1%/year and be increased by another 1% every other year or so. An empg standard based of tonnes/mile or passenger/miles could be set. It could be an extension of CAFE.
Our current extremely high per capita energy consumption could be reduced by up to 50% and more by 2030.
Such program is easily doable. In the last 10/15 years we have reduced the energy consumed by our residence by 60+% and by our vehicles by 50+% and we have as happy as before.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 December 2010 at 11:07 AM
Energy companies want to sell less and make more. OPEC showed that if you control and restrict supply with increasing demand you control the show for decades to come.
Posted by: SJC | 07 December 2010 at 01:47 PM
The difference, with electricity, is that people could produce lots of it on their roof tops. It is difficult to do likewise with oil.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 December 2010 at 07:20 PM
You have the builder/buyer problem. The builder does not pay the utility bills, the buyer does. Until the buyer insists that the furnace and AC be better, they will use the cheapest ones they can get away with.
You also have the owner/renter problem in commercial real estate. The owner does not care, the renter pays the utility bills and the renter will not upgrade, it is not their property.
Posted by: SJC | 07 December 2010 at 11:50 PM
In the last 10/15 years we have reduced the energy consumed by our residence by 60+% and by our vehicles by 50+% and we have as happy as before.
Interesting observations Harvey. At the Hamtramck plant in Michigan GM has built a solar car port where 12 Volts can recharge with free energy from the sun (less PV installation$$)
http://www.liquida.com/blog-news/13943798/chevrolet-volt-gm-general-motors/
And this one million kWh carport in New Jersey:
http://www.greenpacks.org/2010/01/15/solar-carport-to-generate-one-million-kwh-annually/
With the abundance of NG, and continued efficiency, cost effective CCHP can further reduce the need for new grid power plants. We are making good progress. Unwarranted gloom and doom is the losing formula. Just look at AGW.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 08 December 2010 at 12:31 AM
SJC, you point out the big problem with building efficiency: the owner doesn't pay the utility bill.
-
why does your car need to be inspected annually (in many states) but your building never does? perhaps an energy audit of your building should be triggered by kWh/sq ft. Owner required to make a minimum improvement/year.
-
I know, "socialism". But we have regulations for plumbing, electrical, etc. standards. Why is this any different?
Posted by: danm | 08 December 2010 at 09:48 AM
I favor giving fixed income seniors a reduction of their energy bills after an efficiency inspection and upgrade. It does no good to give them 20% off the bills for a house that leaks heat energy.
Posted by: SJC | 09 December 2010 at 02:58 PM
danm, good points. I have been trying to introduce that principle in my consulting business here in Sydney to not much effect, unfortunately. Once the building is up it's left to slowly crumble over the next 50 years with the absolute bare minimum done to it.
Australians are pretty sensitive to the 'socialism' tag as well but it is just common sense to enforce certain standards of efficiency if we deem them vital to the health of our society. We all have to accept that government is integral to every part of modern living in a complex society. The people who scream "government out!" loudest at tax time tend to also be the ones demanding government help or compensation the quickest when anything goes wrong - they trip on the footpath, get swooped by a magpie and fall off their bike on a public street, or get in trouble on their overseas holiday. None of us live in Deadwood any more.
Posted by: Biff | 09 December 2010 at 09:30 PM
I can understand wanting a smaller and more efficient government with lower taxes, but until people can come up with a way to do that it is just ideology. If a government makes a profit we can all pay lower taxes and have better services.
Posted by: SJC | 11 December 2010 at 10:24 AM