New Report: How Efficiency Can Increase Energy Consumption

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/new_report_how_efficiency_can.shtml

New Report: How Efficiency Can Increase Energy Consumption

Today Breakthrough Institute releases "Energy Emergence," a new report finding extensive evidence and a strong expert consensus that a large amount of the energy savings from below-cost energy efficiency are eroded by demand rebound, and that in some cases the rebound exceeds the savings, resulting in increased energy consumption from efficiency, known as backfire.

Posted by Breakthrough Staff on February 17, 2011 at 10:34 AM

There is a large expert consensus and strong evidence that below-cost energy efficiency measures drive a rebound in energy consumption that erodes much and in some cases all of the expected energy savings, concludes http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Energy_Emergence.pdf">a new report by the Breakthrough Institute. "http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Energy_Emergence.pdf">Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena" covers over 96 published journal articles and is one of the largest reviews of the peer-reviewed journal literature to date. (Readers in a hurry can download Breakthrough's http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Rebound%20Briefing_2_16_11.pptx">PowerPoint demonstration here or http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Energy_Emergence.pdf">download the full paper here.)

In http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/founders_statement_on_energy_e.shtml">a statement accompanying the report, Breakthrough Institute founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote, "Below-cost energy efficiency is critical for economic growth and should thus be aggressively pursued by governments and firms. However, it should no longer be considered a direct and easy way to reduce energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions." The lead author of the new report is Jesse Jenkins, Breakthrough's Director of Energy and Climate Policy; Nordhaus and Shellenberger are co-authors.

The findings of the new report are significant because governments have in recent years relied heavily on energy efficiency measures as a means to cut greenhouse gases. "I think we have to have a strong push toward energy efficiency," http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate-text.html?pagewanted=5">said President Obama recently. "We know that's the low-hanging fruit, we can save as much as 30 percent of our current energy usage without changing our quality of life." While there is robust evidence for rebound in academic peer-reviewed journals, it has largely been ignored by major analyses, including the widely cited https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx">2009 McKinsey and Co. study on the cost of reducing greenhouse gases.

The idea that increased energy efficiency can increase energy consumption at the macro-economic level strikes many as a new idea, or paradoxical, but it was first observed in 1865 by British economist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons">William Stanley Jevons, who pointed out that Watt's more efficient steam engine and other technical improvements that increased the efficiency of coal consumption actually increased rather than decreased demand for coal. More efficient engines, Jevons argued, would increase future coal consumption by lowering the effective price of energy, thus spurring greater demand and opening up useful and profitable new ways to utilize coal. Jevons was proven right, and the reality of what is today known as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox">Jevons Paradox" has long been uncontroversial among economists.

…

[drmeow]

1. Badly written

It sounds to me like they are erroneously drawing cause/effect inferences which may be better explained by mediating and moderating variables. Reduction in the PRICE of energy causes an increase in usage. Economic growth causes an increase in usage.

"..."We will never get, we suspect, to a high enough price to justify building centralized thermal power plants again. That era is over." But between 1984 and 2000 the U.S. went from consuming 2,400 billion kilowatt-hours in 1984 to 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours in 2000. The new central station power plants built to meet this surge in demand were overwhelmingly fueled by coal and natural gas, significantly increasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

High energy prices are not the only thing which causes more power plants to be built - high demand causes it. Greater efficiency reduces demand so something else must be happening to increase demand. Could it be that population growth, economic growth, and an increased standard of living contributed to the increase in energy consumption between 1984 and 2000?

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of the article - namely that the net effects of energy efficiency may be an actual increase in energy use due to increased economic growth but IMHO they did a really crappy job writing it up.

[bananas]

2. Debunking the Jevons Paradox: Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/16/debunking-jevons-paradox-jim-barrett/

Debunking the Jevons Paradox: Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded
February 16, 2011

The “Jevons paradox,” asserts that increasing “the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.” It is mostly if not entirely bunk, as the scientific literature and leading experts have demonstrated many times (see “Efficiency lives — the rebound effect, not so much“).

But it lingers on in part because it is one of those quirky, ill-defined contrarian notions that the media can’t get enough of and in part because those who oppose clean energy, often for bizarre ideological reasons, keep pushing it.

So I’m reposting two debunkings written by Real Climate Economics expert Dr. Jim Barrett. As noted in the second post (whose Yogi Berra quote I repeated for my headline), “Though he discovered it nearly 100 years after Stanley Jevons, I believe (Berra's) exploration of the Jevons effect is more complete and accurate than Jevons’ own, as well as being vastly shorter. The notion that we could get so efficient at using energy that we’d end up using more is about as valid as the idea that a restaurant could get so crowded that it was empty.

“Barrett “has 13 years of experience working in the nexus of climate change, energy efficiency and economics and has written extensively on the role of efficiency in achieving environmental and economic goals.” He was a senior economist on the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and is now Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center.

This post by Dr. Barrett originally appeared on the Great Energy Challenge blog, in partnership with National Geographic and Planet Forward. It is reposted from Real Climate Economics.

<snip>

[Kolesar]

3. Efficiency Vermont claims 16,000 kW power savings off the winter peak

This is a good occasion to look up the data
http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/stella/filelib/2009EfficiencyVermontHighlight.pdf

They claim a 2% energy savings since the program started.

[Fledermaus]

4. Demand rebound is never greater than 100%

[bananas]

5. The Breakthrough Institute pushes right wing myths and partners with right-wing organizations

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/15/the-breakthrough-institute-attack-energy-efficiency-clean-energy-backfire-rebound-effect/

Rebound effect: The Breakthrough Institute’s attack on clean energy backfires
Top energy experts debunk their false assertions and misleading statements about energy efficiency
February 15, 2011

<snip>

Recently, the Breakthrough Institute launched a major attack on energy efficiency. They used talking points that right-wing think tanks have pushed for years (see The intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism: Heritage even opposes energy efficiency). This shouldn’t be terribly surprising to longtime followers of TBI. After all, last year they partnered with a right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, to push right-wing energy myths and attack the most basic of clean energy policies, a clean energy standard.

This year, Breakthrough’s attacks on clean energy were used by the Republican National Committee as part of their overall attack on Obama’s clean energy agenda. Again, not a big surprise. TBI’s work is consistently cited by those who want to attack environmentalists and climate scientists, “George Will embraces the anti-environmentalism — and anti-environment — message of The Breakthrough Institute.”

Yes, I know, The Breakthrough Institute will insist it’s purely a coincidence that they are the darling of the anti-science, pro-pollution right-wing disinformers. The fact that they push right wing myths and even partner with right-wing organizations to push those myths has nothing to do with it. Nor does the fact that they spent the past two years dedicating the resources of their organization to help kill prospects for climate and clean energy action — and to spread disinformation about Obama, Gore, Congressional leaders, Waxman and Markey, leading climate scientists, Al Gore again, the entire environmental community and anyone else trying to end our status quo energy policies (see “Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, Waxman, top climate scientists, progressives, and environmentalists“). Nor does the fact that they even attacked Rachel Carson, who died decades ago after helping launch the modern environmental movement!

The only reason I point this out is that the only reason the media pay any attention whatsoever to their endless shoddy analyses and misrepresentations and smears is that Breakthrough has tried to create the impression they are a progressive, environmental organization dedicated to promoting clean energy — so that when they launch their umpteenth attack on progressives and environmentalists and climate scientists and clean energy they can be seen as “contrarians.” Stop the presses — here’s an environmental group saying environmentalists are doing the wrong thing. No, please, stop the presses already.

<snip>