#negawatt

[haveyouusedthispokemon]

Have you used Ledlite on your team?

Yes, I’ve all evolutions

Yes, I’ve used at least one evolution

No, I haven’t used them

Voting ended onApr 2, 2024

Ledlite, Insulatex, and Negawatt are designed by @oripoke for Pokemon Flux

[the-fengverse]

Shiny Negawatt!

Found a shiny Ledilite while training post-game, leveled it up, then leveled it up using the new electirizer and got this beast! :D Her name is Luz and she is precious.

[sealedhomes]

The (real) cost and value of energy efficiency

(Nerd alert. This is Andy again, giving another light economic policy analysis of energy efficiency. Feel free to ignore if you are a normal person.)

People in energy policy circles tend to talk in relatively blase terms when it comes to energy efficiency. The conventional wisdom is that energy efficiency is massive, simple and cheap:

“The ‘fifth fuel’, as energy efficiency is sometimes called, is the cheapest of all. A report by ACEEE, an American energy-efficiency group, reckons that the average cost of saving a kilowatt hour is 2.8 cents; the typical retail cost of one in America is 10 cents. In the electricity-using sector, saving a kilowatt hour can cost as little as one-sixth of a cent, says Mr Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute, so payback can be measured in months, not years.”

The implication (intended or not) of this is that efficiency is the “low hanging fruit” and we don’t need to pay attention to policies and incentives of energy efficiency compared to solar, wind and other forms of clean energy.

And so while, for example, solar power receives government and utility incentives that represent $10,000 or more per home (30%+ of a $30k system), energy efficiency receives far less (typically $2,000-$3,000 per home for a much smaller project in an equivalent whole-house project).

But while the overall story of efficiency as the cheapest energy is true, the actual costs and benefits of energy efficiency tend to be obscured and sometime exaggerated.

There are a few key factors that drive this:

1. The “cost” of energy efficiency is the incentive cost

The “cost” of energy efficiency in reports and analyses by ACEEE and Lazard report the incentive cost per energy unit saved (typically kWh), not the actual cost of the measure. So, if a utility company gives a rebate of $100 for a more efficient refrigerator that saves 1000 kWh per year and lasts for 10 years, then the energy efficiency “cost” is $0.01 per kWh even though the full cost of the refrigerator was $1,000 not $100 (or $0.10 per kWh).

With a few exceptions (see below), these rebates cover part but not at all of the cost of energy efficiency measures. New York, for example, covers 10% of all qualified energy efficiency improvements while Massachusetts covers 75% of improvements up to a cap. This means states and utilities are not just simply building energy efficiency power plants, but must also have consumer participation.

On the other hand, solar, wind and, other energy sources are calculated just based on the actual costs to produce the energy (the $1,000 equivalent in the example above). If the cost of the energy is less than alternatives (and/or less volatile), then it’s a pretty simple cost-benefit equation, as we’ve seen with the fast adoption of solar in the last few years.  

Energy efficiency is different. As we’ve discussed at length on the Sealed blog, most people don’t believe in the energy savings and therefore discount them heavily. This is the problem we are Sealed are trying to solve.

But on the other side of the ledger, energy efficiency has major “non-energy benefits” - policy lingo for the physical value the improvements create. This ranges from the comfort benefits of insulation and air sealing, to health benefits for a more efficient boiler, and the control from a smart thermostat. And while some policymakers are trying to “quantify” these benefits, they are ultimately valued by each individual consumer differently.

Or as the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (NAPEE), the closest thing we’ve had to national energy efficiency guidelines, put it:

“This [cost-effectiveness] estimate would be termed the ‘program administrator cost’ for the saved energy; because customers typically pay a substantial portion of total efficiency investment costs, the ‘total resource cost’ of these savings would be higher than 2 cents.”

2. Current efficiency cost estimates are inflated by lighting

The 2 to 3 cents per kWh cost for energy efficiency that is regularly thrown around is also heavily biased towards lighting, which make up a large percentage of total savings via state and utility programs.

NSTAR (now part of Eversource, a Massachusetts utility, is a typical example (not picking on any one utility) that demonstrates this point. NSTAR gets almost 60% of its residential lifetime electricity savings from lighting at a cost of about $0.04 per kWh saved. Lighting, however, only makes up 20% of total residential program costs, with an average cost of $0.12 per kWh saved.

And even this obscures the scale of lighting, as many of the other “whole home” programs include lighting to get many of their savings. The main reason this occurs is that lighting programs are a lot easier for consumers to adopt because most of the time the “program” is giving away light bulbs for free.

Another way of looking at it is that energy efficiency programs have successfully given away free stuff (slow clap…), but have many more challenges with driving cheap savings via discounts on more expensive items (insulation, HVAC systems, etc.)

So lighting is a really cheap, easy form of energy savings. And that’s not a bad thing!

But it does mean that almost all economic analyses of energy efficiency are heavily weighted towards one technology, and that the remainder are not nearly as cheap when analyzed in a one-dimensional manner.

3. There are lots of other financial benefits from energy efficiency

Policy folks tend to simplify cost-benefits to a single fuel (usually electricity in kWh). And this makes sense from the perspective of a single utility that only delivers that fuel. But the reality is that most people use electricity and a heating fuel (natural gas, heating oil, etc.), and many efficiency improvements impact both of these fuels.

So the apples-to-apples comparison of the cost of energy efficiency to other fuels is the lifetime energy savings compared to the cost of a project.

If you improve your home by installing new insulation, sealing air leaks and installing a new Nest thermostat, it might cost $5,000, with $300 of electric savings per year and $700 of heating oil savings per year. That could mean electric savings effectively cost 14 cents per kWh and heating oil savings cost $2.50 per gallon.

There are also other utility benefits from reducing load (particularly peak load) that are quantified as an "avoided cost of energy" (e.g. $0.07 per kWh saved). Utilities use these calculations to determine what rebates and incentives are offered, which can buy down a project from $5,000 to $4,000, for example.

Unfortunately, these avoided costs are not passed on transparently and simply so consumers rarely receive the right price signals on which improvements will lead to the most grid benefits.

At the end of the day, energy efficiency is still usually cheaper than supply (both from the utility and consumer perspectives), but it is not as cheap as popular mythology.

That said, all that utilities and policymakers need to do is send the right price signals, and simply pay less than it costs to procure energy (i.e. avoided cost of supply). That doesn’t require all sort of crazy program structures, but rather simple negawatt incentives tied to actual, metered savings.

And even in the cases where energy efficiency is not cheaper for consumers, there are plenty of other good reasons to make energy-saving home improvements. And they will be more likely to make them if they receive the right price signals from policymakers via simple mechanisms tied to actual savings.  

But if we want to have an intelligent conversation on the subject and create rational public policy, everyone needs to start making apples-to-apples comparisons to other energy sources rather than just cite old studies that reflect the economics of subsidies to a single technology and a single fuel.

[senadahadji-blog]

Finding solutions to energy problems #negawatt#solar#energyefficientstrategies#energy#water#electricity#weather#education#ghana#westafrica @ispacegh @hackbigchoices @hubaccra 2015

[gesecnews-blog]

Assises de l'énergie 2014 à Dunkerque

Transition énergétique et emploi, avec Pauline Mispoulet (Gesec), Thierry Salomon (NegaWatt) et Philippe Destro (Observatoire National des bâtiments).

Oui, la TE est une chance pour l'emploi

[maatfeuloon]

Transition énergétique

Le mix énergétique est un sujet d’actualité avec le débat national sur la transition énergétique http://www.transition-energetique.gouv.fr/.

Face à l’épuisement des ressources et le changement climatique, il est nécessaire de réduire la part des énergies fossiles qui ont longtemps étaient nos seules sources d’énergie. (Charbon, pétrole, des gaz naturels et des hydrocarbures non-conventionnels comme le gaz de schiste) Le pétrole est partout que ce soit pour les transports ou encore pour fabriquer des matières plastiques. Mais  il n’est pas inépuisable. De plus, la  demande énergétique  est en forte croissance par les pays développés et des pays émergents .Le pétrole représente 1/3 des besoins mondiaux ; charbon ; 25 % ;Nucléaire seulement 6%.Les réserves de ces énergies fossiles (pétrole, uranium, charbon et gaz) sont  de plus en plus difficiles d'accès . Les inégalité de consommation sont flagrantes .En France les  habitants consomment 7000 kW /h par an ; Ethiopie, la consommation est 22 kW/h par an. Et 40% du monde n’a pas d’accès à l’électricité. Le bioéthanol reste controversé car  pollue les champs. Le téléphone mobile utilise 10% de la consommation mondiale Il devient nécessaire de renforcer l'efficacité énergétique, par exemple, une isolation plus efficace des bâtiments ou réduire nos consommations. Changer nos habitudes et éduquer à une sobriété énergétique est la solution immédiate. D’après M. Hoffman, il n’y a rien de mieux que le pétrole (efficacité, rentabilité, accessibilité,...) et ITER est un projet intéressant et ayant de l’avenir. Personnellement, je suis un peu effrayé par la création d’un mini-soleil ou de l’antimatière (à Genève) car je ne suis pas sur que ces manières de produire de énergies puissent être sous notre contrôle. L’éolien ne fonctionne que  dans une fourchette de vent de 15km à 90km/h et donc à coupler à une centrale à gaz 4000 éoliennes, répondent seulement à 2,5% de notre consommation. Le photovoltaïque a de forte variation d'efficacité et composé de silicium, une terre rare très chère Tous les labos recherchent un moteur électrique aussi puissant qu'un moteur thermique. Les lobbies bloquent-ils l'évolution ?

L’association Negawatt www.negawatt.org propose un scenario permettant à chacun d’avoir une certaine indépendance, de produire une énergie propre et renouvelable et de construire des habitats basse consommation.

Il existe aussi un fournisseur d’énergies renouvelables Enercoop http://www.enercoop.fr/mais aussi une association soutenant Energie partagée http://www.energie-partagee.org/ l’installation locale d’éoliennes, de panneaux solaires-qui n’est pas vraiment une énergies renouvelable pour l’instant, à quand des panneaux solaires photosynthétique, ou des tubulures pour chauffer l’eau comme en Chine (par exemple: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QduTrYYgnqk ‎?)- chez des particuliers.

Sobriété, efficacité, énergies renouvelables et contrôlables ; les maitres-mots de cette transition énergétique ?

[opentransition-blog]

Flux d'énergie en France depuis les sources primaires jusqu'aux usages finaux en 2010. Diagramme réalisé par l'association negawatt et disponible dans son dossier de synthèse Scénario négawatt 2011.

Source des données : non précisé 

[sarahlee310-blog]

Despite the lack of attention paid to the issue during this year’s presidential campaign (at least, before Sandy came along), Barack Obama’s first term was a bit of a quiet revolution for climate change policy in America. It’s true that within his first two years in the Oval Office, the president had abandoned any efforts at passing a cap-and-trade bill, which went from the policy of choice for both major-party candidates in 2008 to political poison in 2010. But that failure belied a massive shift in energy and climate change policy that Obama was able to accomplish with relatively little fanfare in just his first few months in office. This profound change came in the form of the stimulus bill.

More than 13 percent of the $700 billion American Recovery Act went to energy spending, most of it green. Of the $97 billion spent on renewables, smart-grid infrastructure, fuel efficient vehicles, and the like, the largest portion—$32 billion—went to energy efficiency and retrofitting projects. This was the biggest such investment in the history of history. It may even have finally heralded the arrival of a “Negawatt Revolution” that noted environmentalist and Rocky Mountain Institute founder Amory Lovinsdescribed 23 years ago.

The Negawatt is the general principle of cutting electricity consumption without necessarily reducing energy usage through things like energy efficiency. Lovins first introduced it in the keynote address to the 1989 Green Energy Conference in Montreal:

Imagine being able to save half the electricity for free and still get the same or better services! … You get the same amount of light as before, with 8 percent as much energy overall—but it looks better and you can see better. … In the space conditioning case—heating and cooling—you get improved comfort. ... It is doing more with less.