Post on 18-Nov-2014
1
PREP Review MeetingThe Profitable Transition to Efficiency and Renewables
September 11, 2009Victor Olgyay
Amory B LovinsChairman & Chief ScientistRocky Mountain Institute
www.rmi.orgablovins@rmi.org
University of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, 5 March 2010Copyright © 2010 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved.
Profitable Solutions to Oil, Climate and Proliferation
Do you prefer to die of:
1. Climate change?
2. Oil wars?
3. Nuclear holocaust?
A stupid multiple-choice test
4. None of the Above
A stupid multiple-choice test
January 2009 McKinsey supply curve shows 70% of 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions can be abated at an average cost ~€4/tCO2e
By 2100, global CO2 emissions will
• triple — if we reduce energy/GDP by 1%/y
• level off — if 2%/y
• drop (stabilizing Earth’s climate) — if 3–4%/y
Profitable climate protection: How much can we do? How fast?
Yes!Feasible?
A 2004 roadmap for eliminating oil use by the 2040s
www.oilendgame.com
A realistic oil solution at an average cost of $15/bbl (2000 $)
Petroleum use
Petroleum imports
0
7
14
21
28
35
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
2030
2034
government projection (extrapolated after 2025)
plus optional hydrogen from leftover saved natural gas and/or renewables
plus supply substitution @ $18/bbl (max < $26/bbl)end use efficiency @ $12/bbl
Pet
role
um p
rod
uct
equi
vale
nt c
onsu
mp
tion
(mill
ion
bar
rels
/day
)
Sour
ce: L
ovin
s, A
mor
y B.
et
al. W
inni
ng th
e O
il En
dgam
e. 20
04 R
ocky
Mou
ntai
n In
stitu
te. w
ww
.oile
ndga
me.
com
. Te
chni
cal A
nnex
23.
* Il
lust
ratin
g 10
% s
ubst
itutio
n; 1
00%
+ is
feas
ible
U.S. Oil Use and Import, 1950–2035
...then substitution
Efficiency first...
Vehicles use 70% of U.S. oil, but integrating low mass and dragwith advanced propulsion saves ~2/3 very cheaply
150 mi/h, 94 mpg
Hypercar Revolution SUV (2000)67 mpg (114 w/H2), 1-y payback
Toyota 1/X sedan (2007)Prius size, 1/2 fuel use, 1/3 weight
Bright IDEA 1-T 5-m3 van (2009)3–12×-efficiency plug-in hybrid, needs no subsidy
Fuel Energy
Fuel Energy
87% Never Reaches the Wheels
7% Drag & Rolling Resistance
Fuel Energy
6% Accelerates the Car
Fuel Energy
0.3% Moves the Driver
Fuel Energy
Fuel Energy
2/3 is Weight Dependent
Fuel Energy
1 unit at wheels = 8 units in the tank
Radically simplified manufacturing
“We must leave oil before it leaves us.”—Fatih Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency, 2008
1989 U.S. electricity-saving potential: ~75% at an average technical cost ~1¢/kWh (2008 $)
Lovins House, Old Snowmass, Colorado, 1984
–47˚F with no heating/cooling equipment, lower construction cost
mid-1980s savings: ~99% of space- and water-heating energy, ~90% of household electricity, 10-month payback
Inside, a tropical environment with 32 banana crops, no furnace
Integrative design in retrofitting the Empire State Building
ESB approachLighting& Plugs
$8.7 M
Windows
Radiative Barrier
DDC Controls
VAV AHUs
Chiller PlantRetrofit
$2.7 M
$5.6 M
$2.4 M
$4 M
minus$17.4 M
$4.4 MAnnual
Savings
Conventionally, saving energy costs more and more
Savings
Cost
Conventionally, saving energy costs more and more
Savings
Cost
But integrative design can achieve expanding returns
Cost
Savings
World’s electricity usage
Worlds Electricity
Usage
World’s electricity usage
60% Motors
Worlds Electricity
Usage
World’s electricity usage
30% Pumps and Fans
Worlds Electricity
Usage
Saving electricity in industry: motors, pumps, and pipes
69% less pumping power, lower capital cost
10 Units-70%
Power Plant
-9%
Grid
-12%
Motor &Drivetrain
-55%
Pump &Throttle
-20%
PipeEnergy Output
100 Units
Coal EnergyInput
Energy efficiency: start downstream
10 Units100 Units 5 Units50 Units
Energy efficiency: start downstream
Examples from RMI’s industrial practice (>$30b of facilities)
>100× energy leverage in the EDS data center
30WEnergy intoData Center
17WEnergy
Into Server
9WEnergy
Into Chips
.3W–1.5WEnergy intoApplications
Under-Utilization 85%-97%
• Compute• Storage• Bandwidth
Fans10%
PowerSupply
35%InefficientBusinessProcesses
??%
Cooling33%
Lighting4%
UPS15%
Inefficient &Zero-ValueApplications
10%-40%
$.12W-.9WEnergy into
Business Process
.00?WEnergy into
Customer Value
100WEnergy intoPower Plant
Transmission 10%
Power Plant 67%
then cut utility losses by ~50%
…then cut support overhead by 90%
➙…then cut IT equipment’s internal losses by 75%…
➙First debloat software and ensure that
every computation cycle is needed ➙
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TW
h p
er y
ear
Year
Low- or no-carbon worldwide
electrical output (except large hydro)
Wind
Small Hydro
(<10 MW)
B
Biomass and Waste
Photovoltaics
Nuclear
Non-Biomass CHP
Total renewables plus decentralized generation
Actual Projected
Geothermal
Low- and no-carbon distributed generatorsare rapidly eclipsing central stations
The global power market is shifting rapidly to distributed generators
Output additions from nuclear fell behind PVs’ since
2007 and may never catch up!"#$
#$
"#$
%#$
&#$
'#$
(#$
)#$
"**#$ "**($ %###$ %##($ %#"#$
!"##
!$%&'$#!()(*'+),#-'.'/0123##4))5'$#6(1#4770+%)89#:;;<=><:<#
+,-.$
/012131425,67$
8964:5;$
Output additions from nuclear fell behind PVs’ since
2007 and may never catch up
What “nuclear renaissance”? Here it is...
41
end 2009: 56(24% of 1979
peak), or4-odd % of newcapacity underconstruction
Of the 56 “under construction” reactors shown by IAEA at 9 Feb 2010: • 13 have been under construction for >20 years; 24 have no official start date; half are late• 41 are in China, India, Russia, or S. Korea; 6 of 10 starts in ’08 and 9 of 11 in ’09 are in China• All 56 are centrally planned, usually by authorities with a draw on the public purse• Zero are free-market purchases fairly compared or competed against available alternatives
New nuclear plants will scarcely be able to offset old units’ retirements
Nuclear is now the costliest of the no- or low-carbon resources
43
2009 order ~10–13¢
2009 order ~9–13¢
2008 av. 8.4¢ net of 1¢ PTC
“Forget Nuclear,” at www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php; “The Nuclear Illusion,” Ambio, in press, 2010, preprint at www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
2007
US
¢ p
er d
eliv
ered
kW
h
Nuclear Coal Combined-cycle gas Wind
Waste-heat
cogenCC
cogenBldg
cogen Efficiency
MIT(2003)
Keystone (June 2007)
Moody's $7,500/kWe capex + Keystone O&M and financing: 15.2–20.6¢/kWh
Nuclear Coal Combined-cycle gas Wind
Waste-heat cogenCC cogen Bldg cogen Efficiency
kg C
O2
dis
pla
ced
per
200
7 d
olla
r
Coal-fired CO2 emissions displaced per dollar spent on electrical services
MIT study 03
Keynote high nuclear cost scenario (6/07)
Moodyʼs estimate (5/08)
1¢: 93 kg CO2/$2¢: 47 kg CO2/$
Carbon displacement at various efficiency costs/kWh
New nuclear saves 2–20× less carbon per dollar, ~20–40× slower, than efficiency and micropower investments
The cheapest and lowest-carbon sources save the most CO2 per dollar
U.S. coal-fired electricity avoidable by...
Efficiency = average of top 10 States (2005)
Industrial cogeneration
Photovoltaics on 3% of structures
Building cogeneration?Other renewables?
Queued windpower
Available windpower~½ new-coal cost
~2¢/kWh extra cost
Coal-to-gas redispatch
Efficiency at average cost ~1¢/kWh
+? >22×
Cheaper than operating an oldcoal-fired plant
Cheaper than power from a new coal plant
TOTAL
Costlier than a new coal plant now, but
cheaper by the time you could build one
Index (U.S. coal-fired electricity in 2009 ≡ 1.0)
0 252015105
Current System
Coal and Nuclear
Natural Gas & Oil
Energy Efficiency
& Renewables
Next Generation Utility
Energy Efficiency & Renewables
Combined-heat-and-power,Other distributed gen.
Coal and Nuclear
Demand Response& El. Vehicles
Transforming the electricity sector
PREP Review MeetingThe Profitable Transition to Efficiency and Renewables
September 11, 2009Victor Olgyay
www.rmi.orgablovins@rmi.org