Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States

America’s Energy Future Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
America’s Energy Future Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appro- priate balance. Support for this project was provided by the Department of Energy under Grant Number DEFG02-07- ER-15923 and by BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foun- dation, GE Energy, General Motors Corporation, Intel Corporation, and the W.M. Keck Foundation. Support was also provided by the Presidents’ Circle Communications Initiative of the National Acad- emies and by the National Academy of Sciences through the following endowed funds created to per- petually support the work of the National Research Council: Thomas Lincoln Casey Fund, Arthur L. Day Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, George and Cynthia Mitchell Endowment for Sustainability Science, and Frank Press Fund for Dissemination and Outreach. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13716-4 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-13716-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2010925716 Available in limited supply and free of charge from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Keck W917 Washington, DC 20001 202-334-3344 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled stock Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin- guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy mat- ters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal gov- ernment and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of further- ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general poli- cies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
PANEL ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGIES LESTER B. LAVE, Carnegie Mellon University, Chair MAXINE L. SAVITZ, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Vice Chair R. STEPHEN BERRY, University of Chicago MARILYN A. BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology LINDA R. COHEN, University of California, Irvine MAGNUS G. CRAFORD, Philips LumiLeds Lighting PAUL A. DeCOTIS, Long Island Power Authority JAMES H. DeGRAFFENREIDT, JR., WGL Holdings, Inc. HOWARD GELLER, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project DAVID B. GOLDSTEIN, Natural Resources Defense Council ALEXANDER MacLACHLAN, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (retired) WILLIAM F. POWERS, Ford Motor Company (retired) ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, California Energy Commission DANIEL SPERLING, University of California, Davis Liaison from the Committee on America’s Energy Future JOHN B. HEYWOOD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology America’s Energy Future Project Director PETER D. BLAIR, Executive Director, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences America’s Energy Future Project Manager JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Staff MADELINE G. WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer, Study Director GREG EYRING, Senior Program Officer, Study Director THOMAS R. MENZIES, Senior Program Officer E. JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Program Assistant KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Program Assistant (until July 2008) iv

OCR for page R1
Foreword E nergy, which has always played a critical role in our country’s national security, economic prosperity, and environmental quality, has over the last two years been pushed to the forefront of national attention as a result of several factors: • orld demand for energy has increased steadily, especially in develop- W ing nations. China, for example, saw an extended period (prior to the current worldwide economic recession) of double-digit annual increases in economic growth and energy consumption. • bout 56 percent of the U.S. demand for oil is now met by depending A on imports supplied by foreign sources, up from 40 percent in 1990. • he long-term reliability of traditional sources of energy, especially oil, T remains uncertain in the face of political instability and limitations on resources. • oncerns are mounting about global climate change—a result, in large C measure, of the fossil-fuel combustion that currently provides most of the world’s energy. • he volatility of energy prices has been unprecedented, climbing in mid- T 2008 to record levels and then dropping precipitously—in only a matter of months—in late 2008. • oday, investments in the energy infrastructure and its needed technolo- T gies are modest, many alternative energy sources are receiving insuffi- cient attention, and the nation’s energy supply and distribution systems are increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters and acts of terrorism. v

OCR for page R1
vi Foreword All of these factors are affected to a great degree by the policies of govern- ment, both here and abroad, but even with the most enlightened policies the over- all energy enterprise, like a massive ship, will be slow to change course. Its com- plex mix of scientific, technical, economic, social, and political elements means that the necessary transformational change in how we generate, supply, distribute, and use energy will be an immense undertaking, requiring decades to complete. To stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about our energy future, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi- neering initiated a major study in 2007, “America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs.” The America’s Energy Future (AEF) project was initiated in anticipation of major legislative interest in energy policy in the U.S. Congress and, as the effort proceeded, it was endorsed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman and former Ranking Member Pete Domenici. The AEF project evaluates current contributions and the likely future impacts, including estimated costs, of existing and new energy technologies. It was planned to serve as a foundation for subsequent policy studies, at the Academies and elsewhere, that will focus on energy research and development priorities, stra- tegic energy technology development, and policy analysis. The AEF project has produced a series of five reports, including this one on energy efficiency technologies, designed to inform key decisions as the nation begins a comprehensive examination of energy policy issues this year. Numerous studies conducted by diverse organizations have benefited the project, but many of those studies disagree about the potential of specific technologies, particularly those involving alternative sources of energy such as biomass, renewable resources for generation of electric power, advanced processes for generation from coal, and nuclear power. A key objective of the AEF series of reports is thus to help resolve conflicting analyses and to facilitate the charting of a new direction in the nation’s energy enterprise. The AEF project, outlined in Appendix A, included a study committee and three panels that together have produced an extensive analysis of energy technol- ogy options for consideration in an ongoing national dialogue. A milestone in the project was the March 2008 “National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future” at which principals of related recent studies provided input to the AEF study committee and helped to inform the panels’ deliberations. A report chroni- cling the event, The National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future:

OCR for page R1
Foreword vii Summary of a Meeting (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press), was published in October 2008. The AEF project was generously supported by the W.M. Keck Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, Intel Corporation, Dow Chemical Com- pany Foundation, General Motors Corporation, GE Energy, BP America, the U.S. Department of Energy, and our own Academies. Ralph J. Cicerone, President Charles M. Vest, President National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Chair, National Research Council Vice Chair, National Research Council

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface A s part of the National Academies’ America’s Energy Future (AEF) proj- ect (see Appendix A), the Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies (Appendix B) was appointed to assess the potential of technologies to save money as well as energy within the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors during three time periods: 2009–2020, 2020–2035, and beyond 2035. Box P.1 contains the charge to the panel. The focus of the panel’s assessment was the potential of technology for improving energy efficiency, which the panel defined as accomplishing a given objective with less energy (see Appendix D for an extended technical definition). Conservation is generally understood to mean saving energy by changing behavior, such as by driving a smaller car or setting back the thermostat in winter. Given its task, the panel did not examine how much energy savings could be achieved by conservation. Instead, the panel identified energy savings that could be achieved through energy efficiency. In fact, energy efficiency technologies have been available for decades, but unfortunately, few have been implemented. The panel identified myriad barriers to getting these technologies adopted. It noted that if society were to give a higher priority to efficiency, perhaps because of higher energy prices, energy shortages, or concern about greenhouse gas emissions, deployment would be faster and the sav- ings would be greater. As the panel discovered, energy efficiency occupies a unique place in the energy debate. Energy efficiency requires none of the environmental disruption seen in extracting coal, petroleum, natural gas, or uranium; depends on no wind turbines or hydroelectric dams or thermal power plants; emits no greenhouse ix

OCR for page R1
x Preface BOX P.1 Statement of Task for the AEF Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies This panel will examine the potential for reducing energy demand through improving efficiency in transportation, buildings, and industrial processes using (1) existing technologies, (2) technologies developed but not yet used widely, and (3) prospective technologies. In keeping with the charge to the overall scope of the America’s Energy Future Study Committee, the panel will not recommend policy choices, but will assess the state of development of technologies. The energy effi- ciency panel will evaluate technologies based on their estimated times to readi- ness for deployment and will provide the following information for each: • Initial deployment times of less than 10 years: costs, performance, impacts; • eployment times of 10 to 25 years: barriers, implications for costs, R&D D challenges/needs; • eployment times greater than 25 years: barriers, R&D challenges/needs D (especially basic research needs). The primary focus of the study will be on the quantitative characterization of technologies likely to be available for deployment within the next 10 years. The panel will provide details on the technical potential of improving efficient use of energy in the United States using existing technologies as well as consider the applicability of existing technologies in other nations. It will also assess the poten- tial for improving energy efficiency by using technologies developed but not yet used widely in the United States or abroad, and by using prospective technologies with substantial likelihood of commercial use during the three deployment time- scales described above. gases or other pollutants; and can mitigate energy security risks associated with imported oil. The obvious benefits of energy efficiency technologies in making America’s energy supply more secure and environmentally sustainable, and the U.S. economy more competitive by reducing the prices of goods and services, deserve additional public attention. The panel’s chair and vice chair thank the panel members and John Heywood for their hard work and insightsand apologize again to their family members for taking them away from other activities. The panel appreciates inputs provided in presentations by experts at its meetings (see Appendix C) and in writ- ing (Anup Bandivadekar, International Council on Clean Transportation; Peter Biermayer, Sam Borgeson, Rich Brown, Jon Koomey, and Alan Meier, Lawrence

OCR for page R1
Preface xi Berkeley National Laboratory; Lynette Cheah, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy; Steve Dunn, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project; Mark Frankel, New Build- ings Institute; Mauricio Justiniano and Nancy Margolis, Energetics, Inc.; Mike Messenger, Itron, Inc.; and Christopher Weber, Carnegie Mellon University). Madeline Woodruff, the study director, was indefatigable and cheerful throughout the writing of the report and responding to reviewer comments. Greg Eyring helped pull the report together at the end. Tom Menzies supplied valuable material, comments, and data. Jonathan Yanger provided staff assistance through- out the project. Peter Blair, Jim Zucchetto, and Kevin Crowley guided the panel through the Academies’ processes and coordinated its work with that of the other panels and the AEF Committee. Lester B. Lave, Chair Maxine L. Savitz, Vice Chair Panel on Energy Efficiency Technologies

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers T his report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com- ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Philip Anderson, Princeton University, William Brinkman, Princeton University, Andrew Brown, Jr., Delphi Corporation, Clark Bullard, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Jonathan Creyts, McKinsey & Company, Inc., J. Michael Davis, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, John DeCicco, Environmental Defense Fund, Theodore Geballe, Stanford University (professor emeritus), Susan Hanson, Clark University, Trevor Jones, ElectroSonics Medical, Inc., Mark Levine, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Richard Morgenstern, Resources for the Future, Peter H. Pfromm, Kansas State University, xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv Acknowledgment of Reviewers Bernard I. Roberston, DaimlerChrysler (retired), Marc Ross, University of Michigan (professor emeritus), Jeffrey Siirola, Eastman Chemical Company, Anne E. Smith, CRA International, Robert Socolow, Princeton University, Dale F. Stein, Michigan Technological University, James E. Woods, Sain Engineering Associates, Inc., and Ernst Worrell, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Ecofys. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Robert A. Frosch, Harvard University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 ENERGY USE IN CONTEXT 21 1.1 Energy Use in the United States, 22 1.2 The Potential for Improved Energy Efficiency, 26 1.3 Approach to and Scope of This Study, 27 1.4 References, 39 2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 41 2.1 Energy Use in Buildings, 41 2.2 Energy Efficiency Trends, 50 2.3 The Potential for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 54 2.4 Approaches to Understanding Energy Efficiency Potential, 61 2.5 Conservation Supply Curves, 68 2.6 Advanced Technologies and Integrated Approaches, 80 2.7 Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 96 2.8 Market Drivers, 105 2.9 Findings, 109 2.10 References, 110 3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION 121 3.1 Scope and Content of This Chapter, 121 3.2 Energy Use in Transportation, 125 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi Contents 3.3 The Potential for Energy Efficiency Improvement in Passenger Transportation, 128 3.4 Freight Transportation, 158 3.5 Fuels Old and New, 167 3.6 System-Level Issues, 172 3.7 Challenges and Barriers, 175 3.8 Findings, 176 3.9 References, 178 4 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRY 185 4.1 Energy Use in U.S. Industry in a Global Context, 185 4.2 Potential for Energy Savings, 192 4.3 Opportunities for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Four Major Energy-Consuming Industries, 203 4.4 Crosscutting Technologies for Improved Energy Efficiency, 226 4.5 Barriers to Deployment and Use, 245 4.6 The Business Case for Energy Efficiency, 250 4.7 Findings, 252 4.8 References, 253 5 OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM FEDERAL AND 261 STATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 5.1 Overarching Findings, 262 5.2 Energy Efficiency Policies and Programs, 264 5.3 The California Experience, 279 5.4 The New York Experience, 284 5.5 Lessons Learned, 289 5.6 Changing Consumer Behavior, 291 5.7 References, 292

OCR for page R1
Contents xvii Appendixes A America’s Energy Future Project 299 B Panel Biographical Information 305 C Presentations and Panel Meetings 313 D Definitions of Energy Efficiency 315 E Estimating the Net Costs and Benefits of Energy Savings 317 F Equivalences and Conversion Factors 319 G Acronyms and Abbreviations 325

OCR for page R1