The Rosenfeld Effect on Energy Efficiency: Simple, Effective, and Achievable Now

Arthur Rosenfeld Turns Off The Lights

California has been a world leader in energy-use and water-use efficiency for at least the past three decades.  Despite increasing energy demands via a variety of modern devices in California homes and businesses, the state’s residents today use about the same amount of electricity per capita that they used thirty years ago.  In the meantime, the per-capita electric power consumption of the rest of the USA has increased forty percent (40%).

California’s energy efficiency programs are largely attributable to Arthur H. Rosenfeld.  A pioneer in understanding communicating energy efficiency, Rosenfeld, a nuclear physicist, was appointed to the California Energy Commission in 2000.

According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s energy efficiency gains “…are so closely linked to Rosenfeld that they’ve been dubbed the Rosenfeld Effect in energy efficiency circles, where the 83-year-old has taken on rock star status.”

Energy Symposium: “The Rosenfeld Effect” held April 28, 2006 at the University of California, Berkeley

Arthur H. Rosenfeld Receives Enrico Fermi Award for Scientific Achievement

"Arthur Rosenfeld shows a lamp in his home developed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that has two 55-watt fluorescent bulbs, each producing as much light as a 240-watt incandescent bulb. Rosenfeld is leaving the state's energy panel after two five-year terms." 
-- Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2009

Photograph by Peter DaSilva for The Los Angeles Times, December 18, 2009.

Energy Conservation A Superior Alternative To New Power Sources

Rosenfeld recognized in the 1970s that conserving energy was and is cheaper and smarter than continually creating new power sources.  To prove this fact, Rosenfeld began collecting energy-use data and providing it to California energy regulators.  The result is borne out in California’s current energy efficiency standards that are now among the most effective in the world. 

For example, California recently enacted the nation’s first energy efficiency regulations for televisions sold in the state.  The rules, approved unanimously by the California Energy Commission, require cutting the amount of electricity used by new television set by one-third starting January 1, 2011.  On January 1, 2013, the electricity use of new sets must be cut by fifty percent.  According to Rosenfeld, Television-related power use has more than tripled since the sale of flat-panel TV sets began to increase in the early 2000s.  Rosenfeld’s data show that “TV-related power usage has more than tripled to ten (10) billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, accounting for nearly ten (10) percent of residential energy consumption.”

The Los Angeles Times reported on January 11, 2010:

“Rosenfeld was appointed to the Energy Commission by Gov. Gray Davis in 2000 and reappointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. In his last key vote as an energy commissioner, he applied that same conservative thinking to energy-guzzling big-screen televisions, which currently account for about one-tenth of residential power consumption in California.”

“New efficiency mandates go into effect Jan. 1, 2011, and become more stringent two years later. They're expected to save Californians $8 billion in energy costs over a decade. Some TV makers weren't happy. Rosenfeld wasn't surprised.”

"The first time we put standards on a product, we tend to get objections that this will be the ruin of civilization as we know it," he mused. "But then people get used to it."

*****

“Climate change experts say more heroes will be needed after last month's disappointing climate talks in Copenhagen, when major nations failed to sign a concrete agreement on carbon reduction. Rosenfeld is seen as an example of how dogged persistence at the local level can turn the impossible into the achievable.” -- Marc Lifsher in The Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2010

The 83-year-old Rosenfeld is leaving his California Energy Commission position the week of January 11, 2010.

CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT MILESTONE

Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco, California views installation of electric vehicle charging stations at San Francisco City Hall.
Photo courtesy of San Francisco Office of the Mayor, published in the New York Times, February 19, 2009.

1,000 USA Cities Now Support Reducing Greenhouse Gases Emissions

As of Friday, October 2, 2009, one thousand mayors nationwide in the USA have signed the

U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

The 1,000 mayors represent approximately 86.3 million USA citizens from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The United States Conference of Mayors
The Voice of America’s Mayors in Washington, D.C.

Seattle, Washington Mayor Greg Nickels launched the initiative on February 16, 2005 as a grassroots effort to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Nickels recognized that his effort was necessary because at the time our federal government was not seen to be acting forcefully on the threats of excessive greenhouse gases emissions.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels
Photo courtesy of Office of the Mayor
Published in Environment News Service, September 30, 2009

The U.S. Conference of Mayors for decades “…has formally adopted and actively promoted policy positions on a range of issues affecting energy production and use…” together with impacts on our environment.

Lobbying by our nation’s mayors led to $2.7 billion in block grants authorized in 2009 by the federal government for states, municipalities and native tribes for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Continuing authority for such grants – again the result of lobbying by our mayors – is embodied in the federal climate change legislation recently introduced by USA Senators John F. Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

The Kerry-Boxer Bill is cited as
“The American Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act”

The stated intention of the bill is:
“To create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels upholds that energy and economic solutions must come from the top 100 metropolitan areas of the USA. These areas represent seventy-five percent (75%) of our nation’s gross domestic product, and consume the bulk of domestic and imported energy resources.

The United States Conference of Mayors released a report on Friday, October 2, 2009 that lists city-by-city accomplishments in energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. The 52-page report is entitled:

“The Power of 86 Million Americans: 1,000 Mayors Committed to Climate Action – Selected Profiles of Mayoral Leadership.”

The report highlights specific actions being taken in our nation’s municipalities ranging from “…changing city fleets to alternative fuel vehicles, to retrofitting city-owned buildings with energy efficient technology to collecting methane gas from landfills for electricity use.”

Notable results include:

• Seattle, Washington reducing its 1990 carbon footprint by eight percent (8%) in 2005,
• Los Angeles, California reaching its Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases reduction targets in 2008, four years ahead of schedule,
• Boson, Massachusetts increasing its solar power capacity by three hundred percent (300%),
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania adopting a plan to retrofit one hundred thousand (100,000) homes with energy-savings features during the next seven years, and
• Cleveland, Ohio setting a standard of converting to twenty-five percent (25 %) of its electricity consumption to be provided by renewable energy sources.

The United States Conference of Mayors believes that our mayors are “…on the front lines of impacting human behavior…” on a wide variety of issues, including those of energy and greenhouse gases emissions reduction. In this regard, comments from the group’s September 30, 2009 Press Release are instructive:

“Global warming is real and demands our immediate response. It is in our national interest to act now and exhibit our global leadership."

“We are especially pleased that the Senate has responded to our request that the bill include a provision for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. By doing this, these Senate leaders are acknowledging the important role cities play in creating green jobs and achieving energy independence and climate protection. The Conference has worked long and hard to establish this innovative program as a cornerstone of our national climate protection strategy."

“In these hard economic times, we know that many people are without jobs and are struggling. This bill will help jump start new green industries that will create new jobs at a time when they are desperately needed. These green jobs are the future of our economic competitiveness.”


Earth At Night: The Lights Of North America

Source: "Earth from Space: The Human Presence"
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Data (1994-1995) compiled courtesy of Marc Imhoff, Craig Mayhew, and Robert Simmon, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and Christopher Elvidge, NOAA/National Geophysical Data Center

Energy Efficiency Potential In The USA

"Heated Earth"
Earth image from Earthobservatory at NASA, Compiled by iStockphoto/Adam Korzekwa, Science Daily, January 28, 2009.

New McKinsey & Company Report Focuses On Barriers To Achieving Energy Efficiency

A significant tool in the portfolio of climate change solutions is improved energy efficiency across a broad range of applications throughout global society. Although energy efficiency has been widely touted as desirable for at least the past several decades, its full-scale potential remains far from being realized.

In July 2009, McKinsey & Company through its electric power and natural gas division published an important report entitled, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy.”

"The report is the product of a year-long effort by McKinsey & Company in close collaboration with 13 leading U.S.-based companies, government agencies and environmental NGOs."

See both the Preface and pages 143-144 for lists of contributors.

The focus of the collaborators “…has been to identify what has prevented attractive efficiency opportunities from being captured in the past and evaluate potential measures to overcome these barriers. Our goal is to unlock the efficiency potential for more productive uses in the future.”

The report examines in detail the energy saving potential “…for greater efficiency in non-transportation uses of energy…” and reaches this central conclusion:

“Energy efficiency offers a vast, low-cost energy resource for the U.S. economy – but only if the nation can craft a comprehensive and innovative approach to unlock it. Significant and persistent barriers will need to be addressed at multiple levels to stimulate demand for energy efficiency and manage its delivery across more than 100 million buildings and literally billions of devices. If executed at scale, a holistic approach would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion, well above the $520 billion needed through 2020 for upfront investment in efficiency measures (not including program costs). Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 percent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually.”

The report acknowledges that decline in energy demand attributed to energy efficiency is only one tool in reducing carbon-emitting energy production. There will be demand for new clean energy power plants, both to serve regions of growth and to retire “…economically or environmentally obsolete energy infrastructure…” such as nearly all existing coal-fired power plants.

The collaborators reaffirm that energy efficiency represents an emissions-free energy resource. “If captured at full potential, energy efficiency would abate approximately 1.1 gigatons CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent; also, CDE) of greenhouse gas emissions per year in 2020 relative to BAU (Business-As-Usual) projections, and could serve as an important bridge to a future era of advanced low-carbon supply-side energy options."

[For BAU = Business-As-Usual projections, the collaborators used the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2008 to focus on the 81 percent of non-transportation energy with end uses that the collaborators were able to attribute.]

The report has a thorough glossary, a detailed explanation of methodology, a 20-page reference list, and sidebars to explain and complement the highly informative graphics.

The graphs throughout are very informative. For example, the graphic on page 11 shows itemized energy efficiency potential -- expressed as cost savings -- for building components and other actions relative to the year 2020.

You can download the 165-page document as a 6.4-megabyte .pdf file:

McKinsey & Company, 2009, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy: McKinsey Global Energy and Materials, Electric Power & Natural Gas, July 2009, 165p.

Another way to look at energy efficiency potential is a flow chart recently published by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy. The diagram shows "Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008: ~99.2 Quads."

[One Quad = 1 quadrillion BTUs]

The flow chart shows a grey box in the upper right labeled "Rejected Energy 57.07 (Quads)".

[1 Quad = approximately 293,071,000 megawatt hours.]

"Rejected Energy" means that out of 99.2 Quads produced from all energy sources, about 57.5% (fifty-seven and one-half percent) is wasted. Wasted energy is that energy produced that is not used for the services we demand, labeled as "Energy Services" on the flow chart. Improved energy efficiency would make better use of that wasted energy and/or would reduce total energy demand.

In a typical statement on USA energy waste, Clark Energy Group (2009) says:

“Electricity from the (USA) grid is tremendously inefficient as less than half of the energy utilized to produce grid electricity is used productively. In fact, much of grid electricity’s energy is lost from waste heat during the generation process, transmission losses, converting between AC and DC current, and the like.”

Click on the chart below to enlarge it and make it more readable.

Flow Chart for Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008: ~ 99.2 Quads.
Graphic prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy.

Reegle Launches A Map Of The Clean Energy World

The Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) announced on April 27, 2009 that it now provides a global map to assist researchers with information on clean energy topics by country.

The “Reegle Maps” application provides a visual entry point to clean energy news and projects by countries and regions. The map allows searches by sectors under the major headings of:

• Climate Protection
• Cogeneration
• District Heating Systems
• Energy Efficiency
• Renewable Energy
• Rural Electrification,
  
• ...and many subheadings under these major headings.

“Reegle acts as a unique state-of-the-art search engine, targeting specific stakeholders including governments, project developers, businesses, financiers, NGOs, academia, international organizations and civil society.”

“Reegle’s information gateway provides information and data on all the various sub-sectors within sustainable energy at a global level including:

• Jurisdiction and laws
• News and announcements
• Political declarations and discussion papers
• Project activity and financial reports
• Statistical data
• Studies, manuals and reports
• Tenders, grants and bids”

The REEEP was launched at the Johannesburg, South Africa World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. The REEEP’s goal is to accelerate the global marketplace for energy efficiency and renewable energy. The partner organizations actively facilitate financing mechanisms for sustainable energy projects, and structure policy initiatives for clean energy markets.

The REEEP lists of partners, international organizations, MOU organizations, governments, and international processes offers an impressive overview of global attention to creating a new energy economy.

USA National Science Board Wants Your Input On A Sustainable Energy Future

NSB Task Force on Sustainable Energy Public Review and Comment Opportunity

The USA National Science Board released for public review and comments the 61-page draft report, Building a Sustainable Energy Future (NSB-09-35) and dated April 10, 2009.

The report contains a wealth of information on USA energy science, technology, economics and policy by way of tight summaries based on an extensive reference list.

The public invitation for review and comments says:

"The fundamental transformation of the current extractive U.S. fossil fuel energy economy to a sustainable energy economy is a critical grand challenge facing the Nation today."

"Transforming toward a sustainable energy economy requires national leadership and coordination, a new U.S. energy policy framework, and robust support for sustainable energy research, development, demonstration, deployment, and education (RD3E). In its report, the Board makes a number of recommendations to the U.S. Government and offers guidance to the National Science Foundation."

"Given the importance to promote national security through increasing U.S. energy independence, ensure environmental stewardship and reduce energy and carbon intensity, and generate continued economic growth through innovation in energy technologies and increases in green jobs, we hope that you will take this opportunity to express your views on the draft report."

"Submit comments by Friday, May 1, 2009, to Tami Tamashiro, Executive Secretary, Task Force on Sustainable Energy, at NSBenergy@nsf.gov. If you have any questions, contact Ms. Tamashiro at (703) 292-7000."

From the report:

U.S. Energy Supply (p. 9-10):

Today, 85 percent of the U.S. energy supply comes from the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal), and nuclear electric power provides 8 percent. Sustainable energy sources derived from water (hydroelectric), geothermal, wind, sun (solar), and biomass account for the remaining 7 percent of the U.S. energy supply. Dramatic advances and investment in the production, storage, and distribution of U.S. sustainable energy sources are needed to increase the level of sustainable energy supplies.

U.S. Energy Consumption (p. 10):

U.S. energy consumption varies by economic sector and by energy source. About one-third of energy delivered in the United States is consumed by the industrial sector, and one-half of that is consumed by three industries (bulk chemicals, petroleum refining, and paper products). The transportation sector accounts for the second highest share of total end-use consumption at 29 percent, followed by the residential sector at 21 percent and the commercial sector at 18 percent.

Across all sectors, petroleum is the highest energy source at around 40 percent, followed by natural gas (23 percent), coal (22 percent), nuclear electric power (8 percent), and renewable energy (7 percent). The transportation sector has historically consumed the most petroleum, with its petroleum consumption dramatically increasing over the past few decades. In 2007, petroleum accounted for 95 percent of the transportation sector’s energy consumption.

Recommendation 2: Boost R&D Investment (p. 16-17): Increase Federal investment in sustainable energy R&D

• Support a range of sustainable energy alternatives, their enabling infrastructure, and their effective demonstration and deployment. Funding should support investigation into a wide range of sustainable energy RD3E topics, including, but not limited to:

Advanced, sustainable nuclear power;

Alternative vehicles and transportation technologies;

Basic S&E research that feeds into applied energy technologies;

Behavioral sciences as it relates to energy consumption;

Carbon capture and sequestration;

Economic models and assessments related to sustainable energy;

Energy efficiency technologies at all levels of generation, transmission, distribution and consumption;

Energy storage;

Information and communications technologies that can help conserve energy and/or use it more efficiently, such as broadband cyberinfrastructure;

Renewable energy supply technologies (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal,
hydroelectric, biomass/biofuels, kinetic, tidal, wave, ocean thermal technologies);

Smart grid;

“Systems” approach to large-scale sustainability solutions, including full life-cycle analyses of energy systems (e.g., advanced fossil-fuel technologies andbiomass-derived fuels); and

Zero-energy buildings.


Recommendation 3: Facilitate Essential Policies (p. 17):

Consider stable policies that facilitate discovery, development, deployment, and
commercialization of sustainable energy technologies to reflect advances in basic and applied
research

• Understand the explicit and implicit subsidies of current energy sources that impede conversion to the use of sustainable energy sources, and actively work to establish research-based strategies that encourage greater market deployment of sustainable energy technologies.

Conclusion (p. 22):

This report marks a concerted effort by the Board to join with colleagues and stakeholders throughout the Federal, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors to address the challenges and opportunities for sustainable energy in the 21st century. The recommendations made herein to the U.S. Government strive to promote leadership of harmonized efforts in moving toward a sustainable energy economy. In addition, the Board offers guidance for NSF that aims to prioritize innovation in sustainable energy, by supporting sustainable energy RD3E that leads to the development and deployment of viable sustainable energy technologies. With resolve and invigorated initiative, the United States is positioned to successfully build and support a sustainable energy future.

Appendix A: History and Context of Sustainable Energy (p.25-44):

Provides interesting reading on the topics listed under Recommendation 2 above, the current state of USA energy supply and consumption, and a USA legislative timeline from President Truman's signing of the Atomic Energy Act (McMahon Act) in 1946 to President Obama's signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Climate Masters Program Comes To New Mexico In May 2009

The New Mexico Environment Department is offering the Climate Masters program at the Santa Fe Community College, Santa Fe, NM beginning May 26 and ending July 28, 2009.

The Climate Masters program is a free series of classes focused on climate change, what you can do to reduce greenhouse gases emissions in your daily life, and strategies for motivating others to do the same. In exchange for the 30 hours of course training, you will be asked to donate 30 hours of volunteer options in your communities.

For resources information, see "Resources for Climate Masters" at the University of Oregon's Climate Leadership Initiative, and the "Climate Master Handbook -- A Guide to Shrinking Your Climate Footprint and Motivating Others to do the Same".

The Wedge Game – Solving the Climate Problem By 2055

Targets For Legislative Proposals In The USA Congress Of Mandatory Cap And Trade Programs For Greenhouse Gases Emissions, courtesy of World Resources Institute (WRI) – December 8, 2008.

The top (red) line shows historical and projected carbon emissions for the USA for 1990-2050 under conditions of "business as usual." The other lines show estimated carbon emissions reductions trends for 2010-2050 under different legislative proposals.

WRI offers a high resolution image of this graph plus details about the methodology, assumptions and references that went into creating it. WRI updates the graph each year.


A World In Transition

In the brief span of about two years – between the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2009 – our global society has greatly accelerated its transformation towards a new energy economy. Considering where we were just two short years ago, those of us in the business of climate change and economic improvement solutions should be very encouraged by this progress. In late 2006, global warming and climate change science and solutions were barely on the radar of our general public and the popular media.

As we begin 2009, concrete measures to better understand our Earth’s systems together with actions to manage climate change dominate global news, global politics, and the thinking of people at all levels of our global societies. Two years ago, I would have told people that such an expansive level of activity was a decade or more away.

By about the middle of 2007, my correspondents and audiences were demanding a story far more comprehensive than scientific accounts of global warming and its impacts. People were demanding solutions. And like people everywhere, they were demanding (and offering) straightforward solutions. And most were (and remain) convinced that somehow there would be an easy-to-understand and easily implemented single solution. How do we fix this quickly? What is the single most important thing we can do? What technology do we need? How much will it cost?

Unfortunately, there is no “silver bullet” solution to drastically eliminating the bulk of our polluting greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in a reasonably short time. However, we can solve a major part of our emissions problems beginning now and using currently available technologies.

Often described as “silver shotgun” approaches, there are solutions scenarios that comprise several concurrent actions. These are actions that make sense physically, economically, and politically – actions that might be understandable and palatable across a broad spectrum of political, economic, cultural, spiritual and other viewpoints.

In 2004, prominent carbon management researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton University introduced the “stabilization wedges” concept for solving our climate problem for the next 50 years using current technologies. This work continues to advance, and now is a joint project of Princeton University, BP, and Ford Motor Company. The project is called the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), and it seeks practical solutions to the greenhouse gases emissions problem.



The “stabilization wedges” concept is based upon using a suite of seven low-carbon energy technologies and enhancing natural carbon sinks. The concept name comes from the “wedge” or cut in emissions depicted on a graph of carbon emissions projected for 2005 – 2055. Each “wedge” represents a carbon-cutting strategy that can grow from zero in 2005 to one billion tons of carbon emissions by 2055.

Thus, pursuing seven “wedge” strategies would cut carbon emissions by seven billion tons, keeping global carbon emissions flat for the next 50 years. Pursuing more than seven strategies would reduce our carbon emissions below today’s levels by 2055. The CMI demonstrates that at least 15 “wedge” strategies are available now, showing there is already a more than adequate portfolio of tools available today to control carbon emissions for the next 50 years.



The CMI shows opportunities for cutting carbon emissions using current technologies in combinations of actions under these headings:

Efficiency & Conservation

Increased transport efficiency
Reducing miles traveled
Increased heating efficiency
Increased efficiency of electricity production

Fossil-Fuel-Based Strategies

Fuel switching (coal to gas)
Fossil-based electricity with carbon capture & storage (CCS)
Coal synfuels with CCS
Fossil-based hydrogen fuel with CCS

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear electricity

Renewables and Biostorage

Wind-generated electricity
Solar electricity
Wind-generated hydrogen fuel
Biofuels
Forest storage
Soil storage

The CMI provides briefs showing how GHG emissions reductions are calculated for each opportunity in this list. The briefs include commentaries on the pros and cons of each technology and how they interact with each other. The numbers in these commentaries should be useful to those wishing to understand the dimensions of combatting GHG emissions.

The CMI has produced a “Teachers Guide to the Stabilization Wedge Game.” This is a team-based exercise in which players build a portfolio of stabilization strategies and assess their impacts and costs. Those interested in explanations of our climate and carbon problem – and the relative contributions and costs of solutions using the strategies above – might want to examine this guide and its associated resources.

A significant feature of the “wedge” concept and game is that people may choose their preferred combinations of strategies from the above list, and reject strategies that might be less palatable for various political, economic or other reasons. For example, if you do not like current-technology nuclear or coal-fired electricity as a part of the suite of solutions, you can select a balancing alternative from the list of 15 opportunities. You might also consider the extra costs and benefits of substitututing compensating amounts of current-technology wind- and solar-generated electricity, for example.