There seems to be a lot of confusion about energy efficiency, on which the European Commission published proposals yesterday. Take this from a press release from the Eurelectric power generators’ federation: “energy efficiency is key to decarbonising Europe’s economy”. This is clearly wrong. Decarbonisation is mainly a question of the way power is generated. Using less energy might be a good idea for many reasons, not least saving money, but if the way power is generated is not changed, the benefits in terms of reducing emissions and combating climate change will be limited.
I’m with Dieter Helm on this. He is an Oxford University professor and advisor to various governments. His point is that if electricity generation could be 100 percent clean, and if the maximum number of products (cars, etc.) could run on electricity rather than fossil fuels, energy efficiency becomes irrelevant, beyond the eternal quest for lower bills.
Coal is the real key to decarbonising Europe’s – and everybody else’s – economy, according to Helm. Power generating capacity based on coal is increasing, swiftly wiping out any emissions reduction from efficiency savings. Interestingly, the amount of energy from coal globally was more or less steady between 1990 and 2002, but then started to climb, mainly because of installation of capacity in China. The amount of electricity from coal globally went up by 27 percent between 2002 and 2009.
There is surely a risk that emphasising energy efficiency, while broadly a good idea, detracts attention from the steady increase in the use of different emissions-intensive fossil fuels. The European Commission’s energy efficiency proposals will have the effect of making energy companies sell less, in principle reducing their revenues, though I’m sure ways around this will be found. But perhaps the power firms prefer this to being made to massively ramp up investment in the short term and phase out coal.
#1 by John Scowcroft on June 28, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Mr Gardner gets hold of the wrong end of several sticks. Eurelectric (which incidentally does not “just” represent power generators but also the distribution and retail arms of the business) and its members have committed to decarbonising their operations by 2050 – we recognise that this is essential if Europe is going to meet its climate commitments. Our study “ Power Choices – Pathways to carbon-neutral electricity in Europe by 2050” (available at http://www.eurelectric.org/download/download.aspx?DocumentFileID=63875) shows how this can be done at reasonable cost to the economy and to our customers. But a decarbonised electricity sector is not much use if other sectors do not reduce their carbon emissions. Hence our emphasis on energy efficiency on the demand side – a decarbonised power sector can drive decarbonisation elsewhere – electric vehicles (reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels – security of supply is another driver), electric heat pumps in households instead of gas-fired boilers, electric technologies in industry – these are all things which will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce emissions whilst increasing the efficiency with which we use our resources – (even a decarbonised electricity sector is going to require significant quantities of steel and concrete – even renewables need them) – which is why he is wrong when he says energy consumption becomes irrelevant if electricity is “100% clean”. A properly designed approach would mean less electricity being used as a result of more efficient equipment and more electricity being used to replace more carbon intensive processes. And because we would be able to use our plant more efficiently, we would not necessarily have to install significantly more capacity to meet the increased demand for electricity. If we don’t go down this road, our energy consumption path will just be unsustainable.
To sum up on this point, the electricity sector is not at all shying away from its duties and responsibilities to reduce its own carbon emissions. The point is that, without curbing our energy consumption patterns through important investments in energy efficiency, the efforts to decarbonise the economy will be much more costly and probably we won’t be able to meet our 2050 targets.
Mr Gardener is right when he says coal is the real key – but I’m not sure that his answer “get rid of it” constitutes a serious policy option – for sure, shale gas is a lower carbon option and changes the scene significantly– but it is still carbon emitting and to get where the science implies we will have to be in 2050, it is a “high carbon” emitter. Both coal and gas will, for a number of reasons, still be around for some time yet – which makes the availability of commercially viable CCS all the more pressing.
Moreover, the use of coal has certainly increased worldwide, but not in Europe. According to Eurostat, coal consumption in electricity generation was generally stable during the period 2002-2006 and then decreased in the period 2007-2009. In particular, we were using more coal in 2000 than in 2008 or 2009. (Source: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_105a&lang=en). And massive investments in coal, as Mr Gardener seems to suggest in his last paragraph, are just not there.
On the other hand, promoting energy efficiency to their customers is common practice among electricity companies: we have recently surveyed 170 companies all across Europe and the findings confirm this. Moreover, the survey also shows the barriers the sector is facing and the need for additional support from policy-makers. For more info, please check: http://www2.eurelectric.org/DocShareNoFrame/Docs/1/LHGDCHHAPBOONBKJHFDAFIFA57HT8B4LMQQLQDULVCGA/Eurelectric/docs/DLS/Energy_Efficiency_Survey_LR-2011-030-0376-01-E.pdf
In conclusion, energy efficiency is key to decarbonising Europe’s economy – in the power sector its main driver is the EU ETS, elsewhere policy makers are struggling to find a sensible approach – but to decarbonise the power sector and then let consumption rip is not a serious policy option.
#2 by Joe on June 28, 2011 - 8:07 pm
If it’s made clean, why bother conserving it? For that matter, as it has a price, why all the decades of distracting campaigning and beratement about how we use it?
It’s a product. People pay for it. If you use more of it, you pay more.
They should be able to do as they with with it without an endless stream of puritanical tch-tch-ing that busy and productive people with a life have obligations and families to attend to are bombarded with.
Frankly, all of this ‘taking up causes’ for many people appears to be the thing that takes place of being a productive person with a life, obligations, and a family.
When I was young, we only had to be told not to litter a few times. It didn’t require repetition akin to psychological programming in a re-education camp.
#3 by zeleneye on July 8, 2011 - 12:48 am
The problem is the need to reduce our emissions now and the fact that energy efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit in terms of delivering immediate emissions reductions. A lot of energy efficiency measures would also have a wider economic stimulus effect – job creation, quicker investment payback, immediate savings for consumers. On top of this, energy saving will make it easier and thereby quicker to transition to zero carbon electricity.
I think you need to be a bit more thorough.