Hledik, R. 2009. How Green Is the Smart Grid? The Electricity Journal 22, no. 3: 29-41.
"A simulation of the US power system suggests that both conservative and more technologically aggressive implementations of a smart grid would produce a significant reduction in power sector carbon emissions at the national level. A conservative approach could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 5 percent by 2030, while the more aggressive approach could lead to a reduction of nearly 16 percent by 2030" (29).
Two scenarios are examined, as the concept of "smart grid" has not been fully concretized. Scenario one explores technologies that are currently available. The second explores an expansion of possible future technologies.
"At a basic level, the smart grid will serve as the information technology backbone that enables widespread penetration of new technologies that today's electrical grid cannot support. These new technologies include cutting-edge advancements in metering, transmission, distribution, and electricity storage technology, as well as providing new information and flexibility to both consumers and providers of electricity. Ultimately, access to this information will improve the products and services that are offered to consumers, leading to more efficient consumption and provision of electricity" (30).
A key aspect of smart grid technology is advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). This leads to dynamic pricing of energy.
There are a variety of pushes to produce more energy from renewable sources. These each have different goals. Doubling the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) would lead to 19% of energy being produced by renewables in 2030. T. Boone Pickens calls for 20% from renewable by 2020, as does the EU. The New Apollo program wants 25% by 2025. Google's energy plan calls for 60% by 2030. Repower America suggests that 75% come from renewables in the next 10 years.
The Brattle Group's RECAP model is used to explore these scenarios using EIA data and assumptions.
"Among the key outputs of RECAP is a forecast of the CO2 emissions from both existing and new power plants. This forecast depends on both the projected mix of new plants that will be added to the system, and the operation of all power plants that are connected to the grid. Implementation of a smart grid will influence both of these. In this study, there are four specific smart grid impacts that have been modeled" (37). These are: peak demand reduction, conservation, increased penetration of renewables and reduced line loss.
Three scenarios are explored out to 2030. Firstly, a business as usual forecast, which shows average annual increases in CO2 emissions of 0.7%. Secondly, the Conservative Scenario, which posits the effects of existing ICT technology on CO2 shows an average annual growth of 0.5%. Finally, the Expanded Scenario shows an average annual growth rate of -0.1%.
Overall, dynamic pricing leads to a nominal improvement in overall CO2 emissions. The combination of dynamic pricing and information displays leads to a 5% reduction in annual CO2 emissions. "By far, the single largest reduction comes from the cleaner mix of generating capacity that is enabled by distributed resources and an expanded transmission system, amounting to a 9.9% reduction in CO2 emissions" (39).
Showing posts with label Energy Efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy Efficiency. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Romm: The Internet and the New Energy Economy
Romm, J. 2002. The Internet and the New Energy Economy. Sustainability at the Speed of Light. Sweden, WWF.
In the period from 1996 to 1999, there was a drop of 3.2% per year in energy intensity, which is a measure of the amount of energy required to produce one output of GDP.
"Growth in the Internet Economy can cut energy intensity in two ways. First, the IT sector is less energy-intensive than traditional manufacturing, so growth in this sector engenders less incremental energy consumption. Second, the Internet Economy appears to be increasing efficiency in every sector of the economy, which is the primary focus of this paper" (131).
"In the late 1990s, a startling shift appeared in the statistics. The nation's energy intensity dropped 3.7% in 1997 and 3.9% in 1998. It is unprecedented for the US economy to see such improvements in energy intensity during a period of low energy prices and relatively low public awareness of energy issues" (133).
"Analysis by EPA and the Argonne National Laboratory suggests that one third to one half of the recent improvements in energy intensity are 'structural.' Structural gains occur when economic growth shifts to sectors of the economy that are not particularly energy intensive--such as the IT sector, including computer manufacturing and software--as opposed to more energy-intensive sectors, including chemicals, pulp and paper industry, and construction" (135).
Thus, one third to one half of the 3.2% average decline from 96-99 are structural, of which the internet economy represents an ambiguous portion.
"The Internet does not consume 8% of US electricity as Mills claims. The Koomey et al. analysis showed that this estimate is too large by a factor of eight. Computers, office equipment, and the like do not consume 13% of electricity, as Mills claim; a better number is 3%" (146).
In the period from 1996 to 1999, there was a drop of 3.2% per year in energy intensity, which is a measure of the amount of energy required to produce one output of GDP.
"Growth in the Internet Economy can cut energy intensity in two ways. First, the IT sector is less energy-intensive than traditional manufacturing, so growth in this sector engenders less incremental energy consumption. Second, the Internet Economy appears to be increasing efficiency in every sector of the economy, which is the primary focus of this paper" (131).
"In the late 1990s, a startling shift appeared in the statistics. The nation's energy intensity dropped 3.7% in 1997 and 3.9% in 1998. It is unprecedented for the US economy to see such improvements in energy intensity during a period of low energy prices and relatively low public awareness of energy issues" (133).
"Analysis by EPA and the Argonne National Laboratory suggests that one third to one half of the recent improvements in energy intensity are 'structural.' Structural gains occur when economic growth shifts to sectors of the economy that are not particularly energy intensive--such as the IT sector, including computer manufacturing and software--as opposed to more energy-intensive sectors, including chemicals, pulp and paper industry, and construction" (135).
Thus, one third to one half of the 3.2% average decline from 96-99 are structural, of which the internet economy represents an ambiguous portion.
"The Internet does not consume 8% of US electricity as Mills claims. The Koomey et al. analysis showed that this estimate is too large by a factor of eight. Computers, office equipment, and the like do not consume 13% of electricity, as Mills claim; a better number is 3%" (146).
Laitner: Information Technology and US Energy Consumption
Laitner, JAHS. 2002. Information Technology and US Energy Consumption: Energy Hog, Productivity Tool, or Both? Journal of Industrial Ecology 6, no. 2: 13-24.
The authors suggest that the wrong questions are being asked in the debate about ICT and energy consumption. Current questions are too limited. Instead, we should be asking questions like this: "What impact with the information age have on our ability to produce goods and services within our economy; and what impact will it have, in turn, on the nation's overall energy requirements? IN shot, will the information economy prove to be an energy hog, a productivity tool or both?" (14).
The author argues that yes, ICT does have an impact on energy efficiency. "Even with a small correction to reflect the influence of weather, it appears that the annual rate of change in 1996-2001 was surprisingly larger than many analysts might have expected on the basis of past trends. This is all the more surprising because it occurred in the absence of any significant price signals or major energy policy initiatives within the United States" (15).
"The initial evidence with respect to information technologies appears to support a trend toward decreasing energy intensity compared to the trends now represented in conventional forecasts. Nonetheless, as long as GDP grows faster than the decline in energy intensity, overall energy consumption will continue to increase, albeit at a smaller rate" (20).
The authors suggest that the wrong questions are being asked in the debate about ICT and energy consumption. Current questions are too limited. Instead, we should be asking questions like this: "What impact with the information age have on our ability to produce goods and services within our economy; and what impact will it have, in turn, on the nation's overall energy requirements? IN shot, will the information economy prove to be an energy hog, a productivity tool or both?" (14).
The author argues that yes, ICT does have an impact on energy efficiency. "Even with a small correction to reflect the influence of weather, it appears that the annual rate of change in 1996-2001 was surprisingly larger than many analysts might have expected on the basis of past trends. This is all the more surprising because it occurred in the absence of any significant price signals or major energy policy initiatives within the United States" (15).
"The initial evidence with respect to information technologies appears to support a trend toward decreasing energy intensity compared to the trends now represented in conventional forecasts. Nonetheless, as long as GDP grows faster than the decline in energy intensity, overall energy consumption will continue to increase, albeit at a smaller rate" (20).
Laitner and Ehrhardt-Martinez: Information and Communication Technologies: The Power of Productivity
Laitner, John, and Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez. 2008. Information and Communication Technologies: The Power of Productivity. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, February.
ICT helps to promote energy consumption savings. "For every extra kilowatt-hour of electricity that has been demanded by ICT, the US economy increased its overall energy savings by a factor of about 10" (v). There has been a delinking of economic growth from growth in energy consumption, and this report posits that ICT is a major contributor to this delinking. In addition, it indicates that we are probably not using ICT to its fullest potential.
"There is broad agreement that greater levels of productivity can lead to greater economic returns" (1).
"During the current historical period, gains in productivity are most likely to result from the continued development and application of new information and communications technologies" (1).
There is an outline of how ICT contributes to productivity, relying heavily on Jorgenson et al (2005). Then the topic of energy is explored: "...it does appear that ICT investments may actually be 'energy saving' more broadly speaking. That is, the same digital age investments that are driving a more robust economic productivity are also increasing the efficiency in how we use energy more generally" (3)
"As we implied in the previous section, ICT has not only transformed our economy and our lives, they ahve also reinvigorated economic productivity. What is less well-recognized is that ICT systems have revolutionized the relationship between economic production and energy consumption" (4).
"To more fully explore the ICT paradox and to gain a better understanding of the potential net energy benefits provided by ICT, this report explores the following questions: What is the enabling role of ICT investment and how might they be expanded to increase energy productivity beyond current patterns of improvement? How might a productivity-led ICT strategy provide greater energy security while contributing toward climate change mitigation efforts? What do current energy and efficiency trends look like and how do ICT provide a positive complement within the emerging trends? We begin by assessing where ICT fit within the historical and technological context and by discussing our working definition of the term 'energy efficiency" (4).
"Energy efficiency is a process that achieves the same ends with fewer energy inputs. It's about producing, transporting, traveling, lighting, cooking, heating, and communicating in ways that maintain or increase our productivity for every unit of energy consumed. In other words, energy efficiency is about providing the same goods and services using less energy. Energy efficiency and energy conservation are not the same" (6).
"In recent periods, there is no doubt that ICT have played a critical role in reducing energy waste and increasing energy efficiency throughout the economy" (8). Anecdotal evidence is provided.
Huber and Mills wrote in Fortune that PCs use much electricity, and they forecast that trend to continue. However, Koomey concluded that there was only an overall consumption of electricity of about 3% by computers in 2000 as opposed to about 15% by the former authors. The key question that this report attempts to address is not how much energy ICT uses, but what is the net effect of ICT on energy consumption.
There is then much anecdotal evidence that ICT is improving energy efficiency: processers in cars, smart homes, easy business transactions, etc.
The authors conclude with a statistical analysis of the relationship between ICT consumption and energy use, arguing that for every kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed by ICT, 6-14 were saved.
ICT helps to promote energy consumption savings. "For every extra kilowatt-hour of electricity that has been demanded by ICT, the US economy increased its overall energy savings by a factor of about 10" (v). There has been a delinking of economic growth from growth in energy consumption, and this report posits that ICT is a major contributor to this delinking. In addition, it indicates that we are probably not using ICT to its fullest potential.
"There is broad agreement that greater levels of productivity can lead to greater economic returns" (1).
"During the current historical period, gains in productivity are most likely to result from the continued development and application of new information and communications technologies" (1).
There is an outline of how ICT contributes to productivity, relying heavily on Jorgenson et al (2005). Then the topic of energy is explored: "...it does appear that ICT investments may actually be 'energy saving' more broadly speaking. That is, the same digital age investments that are driving a more robust economic productivity are also increasing the efficiency in how we use energy more generally" (3)
"As we implied in the previous section, ICT has not only transformed our economy and our lives, they ahve also reinvigorated economic productivity. What is less well-recognized is that ICT systems have revolutionized the relationship between economic production and energy consumption" (4).
"To more fully explore the ICT paradox and to gain a better understanding of the potential net energy benefits provided by ICT, this report explores the following questions: What is the enabling role of ICT investment and how might they be expanded to increase energy productivity beyond current patterns of improvement? How might a productivity-led ICT strategy provide greater energy security while contributing toward climate change mitigation efforts? What do current energy and efficiency trends look like and how do ICT provide a positive complement within the emerging trends? We begin by assessing where ICT fit within the historical and technological context and by discussing our working definition of the term 'energy efficiency" (4).
"Energy efficiency is a process that achieves the same ends with fewer energy inputs. It's about producing, transporting, traveling, lighting, cooking, heating, and communicating in ways that maintain or increase our productivity for every unit of energy consumed. In other words, energy efficiency is about providing the same goods and services using less energy. Energy efficiency and energy conservation are not the same" (6).
"In recent periods, there is no doubt that ICT have played a critical role in reducing energy waste and increasing energy efficiency throughout the economy" (8). Anecdotal evidence is provided.
Huber and Mills wrote in Fortune that PCs use much electricity, and they forecast that trend to continue. However, Koomey concluded that there was only an overall consumption of electricity of about 3% by computers in 2000 as opposed to about 15% by the former authors. The key question that this report attempts to address is not how much energy ICT uses, but what is the net effect of ICT on energy consumption.
There is then much anecdotal evidence that ICT is improving energy efficiency: processers in cars, smart homes, easy business transactions, etc.
The authors conclude with a statistical analysis of the relationship between ICT consumption and energy use, arguing that for every kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed by ICT, 6-14 were saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
