It might look like a trivia question, but it’s quite the opposite.
As you might have seen, we posed a question on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal: What will make the single biggest contribution to meeting global energy needs in coming decades?
The correct answer is not oil. It’s not nuclear, solar or any other energy source. The answer is improved energy efficiency.
If you’re surprised, you’re not alone. Efficiency — technologies and actions that enable us to do the same, or more, only with less energy — is often overlooked as an answer to the question of how we will meet rising energy demand safely and affordably, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But the facts command attention. Here’s what our Energy Outlook concludes for the period 2005-2030:
- We estimate that improvements to efficiency will reduce global energy-demand growth by about 65 percent.
- Without improvements to efficiency, global demand for energy would rise by about 100 percent as populations rise and economies expand. But because of efficiency gains, we project the global demand increase to be only about 35 percent.
- Better efficiency will offset more than 75 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that could have been expected without efficiency gains.
Aside from the fact that efficiency is not tangible like oil or coal, I think one reason it gets overlooked is that people usually associate “efficiency” with items such as light bulbs, air-conditioners or refrigerators. While efficient appliances — or a fuel-efficient car — can reduce energy demand and costs for individuals, to see the true power of efficiency, you need to multiply those benefits on a global scale across all sectors.
Also, while efficiency will help save energy in homes and on roads through 2030, even larger savings will be found in the industrial sector.
Industry is not often at top of mind when it comes to energy issues, but it is the largest demand sector when you consider not just direct energy usage, but also the energy used to make electricity.
Through 2030, efficiency improvements will offset 60 percent of the demand growth in the two largest industrial subsectors: heavy industry and chemicals. Results will be even better in the energy industry subsector, where energy usage will be flat through 2030, even as demand for our products continues to rise.
At ExxonMobil, we’re pursuing a number of avenues to add to our record of improved energy efficiency. For example, we have identified ways to improve efficiency and reduce costs by 15 to 20 percent at our refineries and chemical plants — and we have captured more than 60 percent of these opportunities to date. We are on track to reach our goal of improving efficiency across our operations by at least 10 percent between 2002 and 2012.
Better industrial efficiency requires the application of energy-saving technologies such as cogeneration — the simultaneous production of electricity to power operations while capturing useful heat or steam for industrial processes. ExxonMobil is a leader in cogeneration, with an interest in 4,900 megawatts of capacity at more than 30 sites around the world — enough capacity to supply the electricity needs of more than 2 million homes in the United States.
Efficiency is often referred to as a “win-win-win” solution, and it’s easy to see why. By applying new energy-saving technologies and practices, we not only curb energy demand growth and extend the life of the world’s resources, but we also reduce carbon emissions.
In that way, efficiency is one tool that no one can afford to overlook.
Your not just talking about better ways of doing things but also doing things better,,Like replacing ALL the lites in a building to low energy use and than turning them ALL off when the building or area is not in use
Yes, energy efficiency is a very significant way to stretch our resources. However, then why not tax energy use at a significantly increased rate to:
1. Generate more needed revenue for our government by raising taxes that people can avoid, via the desired conservation of energy resources.
2. Provide greater incentives via tax avoidance to conserve energy of course.
3. The energy (carbon) tax proposed would provide the proper incentives WITHOUT specifying HOW energy use was to be reduced.
Very important because I believe the energy users can make the best choices on this.
4. Moreover, the increased revenues would enable our government to better support alternative energy choices – by excluding alternative (i.e. non-CO2 producing) energy sources from the tax, again letting the suppliers of energy make the technology decisions – rather than the government, who are experts in lawmaking, not energy.
Phil
The problem with the additional tax solution is no one will go for it. No one wants to pay more taxes. Secondly, all this does is force people to first pay the tax, then secondly pay for the efficiency improvements.
The best solution is for people to just simply do it. There is no reason a person cannot just turn some lights off, drive a bit less, or yes, even spend a small amount of money to save more. Also when making decisions to buy cars, buy ones say 20% more efficient than the one you have. You may have to switch car brands or buy a hybrid, but it can be done.
I have long ago decided that the only way to control my energy costs are to do the things I know how to do, and do them quickly. I didn’t like the CFL’s too much, so rather than whine about them, I simply went to LED’s in my high use areas, like the kitchen. Yes they are expensive, but not as much as a carton of cigarettes. The LED’s work great, and I like the whiter light so it is a win win. They pay out in… read more »
…2.9 years but last 6-10, so I am ok with the higher price.
Everyone should be aware of a May 26, 2001 front-page New York Times article (“It gets 78 MPG but US Snubs Diesel” you can read today at: http://www.Stealthdi.com/USSnubsDiesel.html )
The article spoke of: “heavy federal subsidies by the Energy Department and the Transportation Department for the production of prototype vehicles with hybrid engines… General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChyrsler each completed diesel- electric hybrid cars in early 2000 that could get 80 miles to the gallon, but have largely abandoned these projects because of the new air pollution rules. “
Actually, it was lobbying by the oil industry that killed those 80 MPG hybrids, as the article points out:
“The American oil industry, much more influential than Europe’s oil industry because the United States produces a lot of oil, has lobbied successfully to prevent rules requiring cleaner (diesel) fuel to take effect until June 2006.”
Why 2006? I do not know. But I recall an October 2006 TV commercial with an 18-wheeler going down the highway to the song “Blue Skys Coming My Way”, extolling the benefits of clean diesel. So diesel got clean… read more »
…by 2006– but those 80 MPG hybrids? –all forgotten. I suppose the oil industry got a very good “rate of return” on the money it spent lobbying to delay by five years the cleanup of diesel fuel. Now, I do not know if the “Oil Industry” in the article included ExxonMobil, but I have a feeling ExxonMobil would know who the entity(ies) was (were). Think of all the extra barrels of oil that would not have been sold had Americans had access to 80-MPG diesel-electric hybrid engines.
And now we are supposed to be “all excited” because the new Chevy Volt gets 40 (forty) MPG? Since the Big Three had those 80 MPG hybrids in 2000, why is it that, 11 years later, the best that GM can give us is 40 MPG? Give me a break!
-Robert Del Rosso
I drive a 1998 Jetta TDI 2.0 Turbo Diesel. At interstate speeds it gets 46-48mpg. If I slow to 65 the mileage goes up to 52 and if i slow to 60 I have gotten as high as 59.6 It has 140K on it and i plan on going to 250k or more. I don’t care what vehicle one drives if they would slow down 10mph their mileage would go up by 20%. What would 20% improvement by everyone do for the energy situation?
Efficiency will be crucial, even with electrical consumption. Technology is in place for increasing the electrical “efficiency” of home/small business circuitry. Have witnessed savings up to 30% with simple filters. cleanercircuits on web has details.