ENERGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD - World Resources Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Acknowledgments This report presents the major global findings of the End-Use Global Energy Project (EUGEP), of which the authors are co-organizers. Results of this project are presented in more detail in a book of the same title being published by Wiley-Eastern, New Delhi, India. The authors acknowledge support for the research leading to this publication from the World Resources Institute, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Alida and Mark Dayton Charitable Trust, the Energy Research Commission of Sweden, the International Labor Organization, the Max and Anna Levinson Foundation, the Swedish International Development Authority, and the Macauley and Helen Dow Whiting Foundation. The authors are indebted to Sam Baldwin, Deborah Bleviss, Gautam Dutt, Harold Feiveson, Howard Geller, Frank von Hippel, Roberto Hukai, Eric Larson, Irving Mintzer, Jose Roberto Moreira, Lee Schipper, Robert Socolow, and Peter Steen for fruitful discussions, assistance, and encouragement in the course of research leading to this report, to Alan Miller for many discussions and reviews of early drafts that helped shape the presentation of our findings, and to David Sheridan and Kathy Courrier for their diligent editorial efforts in bringing this manuscript to its final form. J.G. T.B.J. A.K.N.R. R.H.W. in
Foreword The 1970s saw nothing less than a revolution in energy use in the industrialized countries. While energy demand had grown in lockstep with economic growth for decades, the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and 1978-9 shattered that historical relationship. So profound was the change that between 1973 and 1986 there was no growth in U.S. energy use while the economy grew by 30 percent. Comparable declines in the energy intensity of the economy occurred in Western Europe and Japan. This change confounded much conventional energy analysis, and has fostered a new breed of energy analysts who have been studying the energy problem, not with a primary focus on supply, but with detailed analysis of energy demand. Whereas conventional energy analysts posed the question: "What mix of energy supplies can best meet projected demand?" (with demand based on projected macroeconomic trends), this new breed asked instead: "What actual uses is energy needed for and how can those needs be most efficiently met?" Foremost among these "end-use" analysts have been the authors of this study, an international team of Jose Goldemberg (Brazil), Thomas B. Johansson (Sweden), Amulya K. N. Reddy (India), and Robert H. Williams (U.S.), with whom WRI has collaborated for several years. What the EUGEP (End Use Global Energy Project) analysts have found, and actual experience has demonstrated, is that it is possible to get far more bang for the energy buck than anyone dreamed possible before 1973, and far more than conventional energy analysis still suggests today. How much more is, in essence, the subject of this study. Building on detailed studies of the energy economies of the United States, Sweden, India, and Brazil, the EUGEP global energy scenario for 2020 suggests a per capita energy use in the industrialized countries of about half what it was in 1980 (3.2 kilowatts per person rather than 6.3 kilowatts). Envisioning a widespread shift in the developing world from traditional, inefficiently used non-commercial fuels to modern energy technologies used in high efficiency applications, the EUGEP scenario sees an average of 1.3 kilowatts per capita (contrasted to the present average of 1.0 kilowatts) supporting a living standard up to that of Western Europe today. Overall, even with population rising to 7 billion, the EUGEP scenario portrays a world in which global energy use is only 10 percent higher than it is today, a stark contrast to conventional projections which show an increase of more than 100 percent. The EUGEP analysis is neither a projection nor a policy prescription. It is rather an illustration (a rather conservative one in that it employs only commercially available or nearcommercial technologies) of what is technically possible. Nonetheless, its policy implications are profound. Foremost among these is the far greater flexibility and freedom of maneuver
Page 1 and 2: ENERGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD (iii
Page 3 and 4: Kathleen Courrier Publications Dire
Page 5: V. Changing the Political Economy o
Page 9 and 10: The Energy Crisis Revisited The sha
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Net Oil Imports and Their
Page 13 and 14: I. Some Surprises on the Demand Sid
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3. Cross-Section of a "Stres
Page 17 and 18: Table 2. Pre-Energy Crisis Trends i
Page 19 and 20: Figure 6. The Rapidly Changing Tech
Page 21 and 22: Figure 8. A High-Efficiency Wood St
Page 23 and 24: Figure 9. Alternative Projections o
Page 25 and 26: II. A Closer Look at the Energy Pro
Page 27 and 28: substitutes exist for fueling autom
Page 29 and 30: Tanzania. Each year human overuse l
Page 31 and 32: Higher CO 2 concentrations in the a
Page 33 and 34: would also buy time for the develop
Page 35 and 36: Figure 12. OECD Primary Energy Dema
Page 37 and 38: Figure 14. Primary Energy Consumpti
Page 39 and 40: might ensue. In short, the Middle E
Page 41 and 42: IV. Behind the Numbers E nergy is o
Page 43 and 44: Figure 15. Sectoral Distribution of
Page 45 and 46: Figure 17. Trends in the Apparent C
Page 47 and 48: containing less material per dollar
Page 49 and 50: Figure 20. The Material Intensity o
Page 51 and 52: Figure 21. Final Energy Intensity V
Page 53 and 54: Figure 23. Final Energy Intensity V
Page 55 and 56: many different technological possib
Page 57 and 58:
Table 4. Distribution of Petroleum
Page 59 and 60:
Table 5. Continued e. The average f
Page 61 and 62:
Detailed measurements in the late 1
Page 63 and 64:
Table 6. Energy Performance of Refr
Page 65 and 66:
Table 7. Final Energy Use in the Re
Page 67 and 68:
Table 8. Oil Use by Automobiles in
Page 69 and 70:
the next several decades was 37 mpg
Page 71 and 72:
Table 10. Continued d. The 39-kilow
Page 73 and 74:
million autos in developing countri
Page 75 and 76:
(the combined production of heat an
Page 77 and 78:
Table 12. Parameters Relating to th
Page 79 and 80:
Table 13. Final Energy Use Scenario
Page 81 and 82:
Table 14. Final Per Capita Energy U
Page 83 and 84:
Table 16. Alternative Scenarios for
Page 85 and 86:
Table 18. Alternative Final Energy
Page 87 and 88:
Table 20. Activity Levels for a Hyp
Page 89 and 90:
Table 21. Continued g. A 25 percent
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 28. Final Energy Use Per Cap
Page 93 and 94:
V. Changing the Political Economy o
Page 95 and 96:
are controlled to protect the poor,
Page 97 and 98:
plementing social goals. Far more i
Page 99 and 100:
energy performance targets. Such ta
Page 101 and 102:
Of course, energy utilities won't b
Page 103 and 104:
The era of energy-demand consciousn
Page 105 and 106:
more difficult to implement in deve
Page 107 and 108:
Efforts to modernize bioenergy woul
Page 109 and 110:
Table 24. Expenditures of Multilate
Page 111 and 112:
support projects need not rely much
Page 113 and 114:
These "threshold" countries are not
Page 115 and 116:
Notes 1. The World Bank, World Deve
Page 117 and 118:
35. H.S. Geller, The Potential for
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix A Top-Down Representation
Page 121 and 122:
Figure A-l A Top-Down Representatio
Page 123 and 124:
plausible expectations about energy
Page 125 and 126:
World Resources Institute 1735 New
show all

ENERGY FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD - World Resources Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?