My previous post took pot shots at another round of failed climate change negotiations, this time in Doha, Qatar against the backdrop of bombarding information on ever increasing effects of climate change augmented by human induced global warming. If the status quo is maintained, there’s no doubt that almost one fifth of the planet’s population would face horrors akin to a war time scenario in the second half of this century mostly in underdeveloped and developing countries.
But, while just as
science and technology was behind plaguing the planet, so it can purge it. As I
mentioned in my last post, solutions are already there. In labs, in patents,
and in thousands of research papers and reports. But rarely did policymakers
and corporations bothered to even remember that forget using them. But, being
the perennial optimist, I believe change may just be round the corner. While
there is no doubt that in the long term, a shift to cleaner energy resources is
the only answer. But, while the political will and corporate incentives are
still luke warm for clean and green energy, there is a fuel which is in our
hands and if used immediately, can give us enough time to set the stage for a
large scale global renewable energy invasion to occur. This fuel is energy
efficiency.
Energy
Efficiency - The Alternative Fuel
Energy efficiency,
sounding like a ubiquitous term in high school and freshman basic science text
books, is one of the two or three killer apps when it comes to permanently
mitigating climate change. A recent report titled World Energy Outlook 2012 by
International Energy Agency (IEA) stated that if economically viable energy
efficient technologies are applied across the globe from now on (beginning
2013), it will reduce the global primary energy requirement by half by 2035 as
compared to a scenario if they are not applied. Oil demand will peak by 2020
and by 2035, it’ll be 13 million barrels per day (mb/d) lower, a reduction
equal to total current oil production of Russia and Norway. And how will it
affect global warming and carbon emissions?
As I mentioned in my
previous post, we can’t afford beyond a 2°C rise in global average temperature
for the planet by 2100 in order to avoid disastrous effects of climate change.
This report says that existing power plants, factories and buildings etc. will already
emit almost 4/5th of the emissions by 2035 required to raise earth’s
average temperature by 2°C. If we continue ‘business as usual’, by 2017, the
total number of power plants, factories, buildings etc. would be enough to emit
all the carbon based gases which will raise Earth’s temperature by 2°C by 2100.
However, if we immediately start applying currently available energy efficiency
technologies across the globe, we will push the lock in period to 2022. It
simply means that instead of 2017, we will have another 5 years by which time
the earth will have enough plants, factories, buildings etc. to raise earth’s
temperature by 2°C by 2100. Thus, instead of following ‘business as usual’ path
of development (simply meaning the way we are going), if we start applying
energy efficiency solutions that are realistically possible according to IEA,
we have another 9 years by which time we must get a climate change treaty which
curbs carbon emissions and massively increase contribution of renewables and
other future clean energy resources in our daily lives.
How Efficient can we be?
Energy Efficiency’s report
card till date sports an F grade all the way. From 1974-2008, $38 billion was
spent on end use energy and efficiency innovation globally. Against this, $41billion was spent during the same time on nuclear fusion, supposedly the holy
grail of infinite clean energy. Against this, just a ‘paltry’ $530 billion were
spent on fossil fuel subsidies (now you know why you get diesel at less than
Rs. 50/litre even today when the global market prices should make it Rs. 65/litre
in India) and $88 billion on renewable energy subsidies in 2011 alone.
Regrettably, more than 80% of the energy efficiency potential in buildings and
more than 50% in industry remains untapped across the globe.
One of the biggest
potentials and markets for future growth lie in energy efficiency improvements
in supply chain infrastructure. If the supply chain infrastructure can be
improved on three fronts – improving the fuel efficiency of all 3 forms of
freight transport, achieving more efficient use of transportation by increasing
load factors and reducing average shipping speeds and by using smart traffic
management systems, substantial reductions in projected energy demand can be
made. A study showed that for a scenario of $100/barrel of oil and for
$250/barrel of oil (the second scenario being the most plausible in the decade
beginning 2020), for $100/barrel, the above 3 improvements in supply chain
infrastructure can result in a 38% reduction in energy in a 10 year time
horizon while for $250/barrel, the same 3 can cause a 51% reduction over the
same period.
A study by Mckinsey 2
years back stated that across the developing world, if energy efficiency
solutions are implemented across all major industries beginning 2011, then by
2020, 25% less energy will be required as compared to the business as usual scenario. This means a total energy savings greater than the total energy
consumption in China in 2009. In the 2 biggest carbon emitters on Earth, China
and India (1st and 3rd ranked in global carbon
emissions), application of energy efficiency to its full potential from 2011
onwards could have yielded energy savings of nearly 24% and 33% respectively by
2020 against a business as usual scenario (2 years have already passed and
nothing much was done in India).
For example, for the
Indian state of Maharashtra, it has been proven through a study that as
compared to the costs incurred on electricity loses due to in efficient water
pumps to the states’ farmers providing free electricity (electricity for
farming is free in India), the capital cost of installing more efficient pumps
would be lower than the cost of generating that extra electricity which got
wasted in the inefficient pumps. For a fact, Maharashtra loses sales tax worth
Rs. 9 per kWh ($0.20/kWh) for each kWh of electricity not supplied to businesses
which gets wasted in the inefficient pumps. Similarly, electricity loses due to technical inefficiency of the electricity grid can be reduced from 27% to 17% andwould result in savings of 69 TWh/yr and CO2 reduction of 55 Mt/yr.
We, the Consumers
But at the end of the
day, the end users must not be left out. Its critical that the end consumers
must be made aware of the choices that can be made with very little or no
hassles and that can result in net savings as well as reduced harm to the environment.
Some of the very basic choices that we as consumers in India (choices vary
according to geography and culture and lifestyles) can easily make are:
· Using Light Emitting Diode (LED)
lighting for our homes and trashing all CFLs, tubes and incandescent bulbs. While
many may feel CFLs is the answer, you must remember CFLs contain mercury which
is an extremely toxic substance. And, LEDs cost less than 50% of CFLs and
barely 15% of conventional lighting over an entire year. Also, LEDs life span
is over 5 times that of CFLs and nearly 35 times that of our regular tubes and
bulbs. Reduction in carbon emissions if using LEDs – just 10% of tubes and
bulbs and just 45% of CFLs.
· Use only BEE (Bureau of Energy
Efficiency) STAR 5 rated ACs and refrigerators. Although they cost higher than
2 or 3 star rated appliances, over a 5 year period, the net savings due to
lower electricity bills can be in excess of 30% as compared to overall costs of
2 star rated appliances.
· As much as possible, use public
transport and use bicycles or walk for travelling distances less than a
kilometre. For prospective car buyers, an easy internet search can reveal the
best reviewed and rated cars by users and experts for highest fuel efficiency. Since
cars across the globe are a status symbol, even for those going for higher end
cars, there are C & D segment cars available which have higher fuel
efficiencies than their counterparts which can easily be found on the net. The
most preferable should be LPG (known as CNG in India) based engines especially
in Indian metros as their overall costs over a 4 year period is 20-25% less as
compared to a diesel car considering an average distance of 12,000 km travelled
for a small to mid-sized car.
· Above all, the CO2 emissions are negligible as
compared to diesel or petrol. The 2nd preference must be a diesel
based car if and only if you are willing to drive it atleast 55,000 km
considering a 10-12,000 km per year travel. But if you planning to sell your car
for anything less than 45,000 km, and mostly travel in cities, petrol will be
overall cheaper considering whole life cycle costs since diesel cars, on an
average, are Rs.100,000 costlier than petrol ones. And of course, for the same distance
travelled, a same sized diesel car emits lesser CO2 emissions than a petrol
one.
· Water heaters and electric room heaters
are available readily in the Indian market that consume less than 50% energy
than the conventional units while providing the same amount of heating which
can add another 5% to your saved costs in terms of total spending on energy
especially in winters in northern and central India
