Page 15 - Driving Force for Energy Demand
P. 15
ving Forces for Energy Demand 2010
electricity demand (met largely by increased coal use) and by the manufacture of
metals, building materials and chemicals for infrastructure and for consumer
goods for domestic and export markets. Between 2000 and 2005, primary energy
demand unexpectedly jumped by 55% while GDP increased by 57%. In the three
years to 2005 alone, energy demand rose by 44%, almost entirely as the result of
coal-based electricity generation. That increase, 530 million tonnes of oil
equivalent, is equal to total primary energy use of Japan in 2005. Since 2005,
intensity has once again begun to fall, in part due to strong government action to
rein in energy-demand growth (Can, Letschert, McNeil, Zhou, & Sathaye, 2009).
While the global energy usage has become more efficient over the last 30 years
or more, energy efficiency has not resulted in a reduction in primary energy
consumption. For example, the heat loss of the UK domestic stock has decreased
by 30% and the efficiency of heating systems has improved by 30%, but primary
energy use has increased by 30% (Barrett, Lowea, Oreszczyna, & Steadmana,
2008). This is due to the fact that offsets in intensity generally results in
increased demand for energy services. For example, technology that could have
been used to increase vehicle miles per gallon in light duty vehicles has been
used to increase vehicle horsepower and weight. Likewise, improvements in the
efficiency of appliances and buildings have been offset by increased numbers of
appliances and building sizes (National Petroleum Council: Raymond, 2007). So,
while more efficient technologies reduce the energy demanded by the device, it
also changes the total expenditure on a service. For example, a low-energy
refrigerator will reduce the total cost of cooling food and low energy light bulbs
reduce the cost of providing lighting. If the total cost of a service is decreased,
the money saved is likely to be directed elsewhere to create a re-spending effect.
If the money saved is spent on a commodity with greater energy intensity, there
will not be growth with less energy. This phenomenon is referred to as the take-
back, or the Khazzoom–Brookes effect (Barrett, Lowea, Oreszczyna, &
Steadmana, 2008) by economists. The effect is such that energy efficiency
improvements may actually have a negative effect on the total primary energy
demand, explaining the 30% increase in energy demand seen in the UK while
they have seen large efficiency improvements. However, at the same time, if the
Posted by Etree Project Consultants Pvt Ltd only for knowledge sharing purpose. Page 15
electricity demand (met largely by increased coal use) and by the manufacture of
metals, building materials and chemicals for infrastructure and for consumer
goods for domestic and export markets. Between 2000 and 2005, primary energy
demand unexpectedly jumped by 55% while GDP increased by 57%. In the three
years to 2005 alone, energy demand rose by 44%, almost entirely as the result of
coal-based electricity generation. That increase, 530 million tonnes of oil
equivalent, is equal to total primary energy use of Japan in 2005. Since 2005,
intensity has once again begun to fall, in part due to strong government action to
rein in energy-demand growth (Can, Letschert, McNeil, Zhou, & Sathaye, 2009).
While the global energy usage has become more efficient over the last 30 years
or more, energy efficiency has not resulted in a reduction in primary energy
consumption. For example, the heat loss of the UK domestic stock has decreased
by 30% and the efficiency of heating systems has improved by 30%, but primary
energy use has increased by 30% (Barrett, Lowea, Oreszczyna, & Steadmana,
2008). This is due to the fact that offsets in intensity generally results in
increased demand for energy services. For example, technology that could have
been used to increase vehicle miles per gallon in light duty vehicles has been
used to increase vehicle horsepower and weight. Likewise, improvements in the
efficiency of appliances and buildings have been offset by increased numbers of
appliances and building sizes (National Petroleum Council: Raymond, 2007). So,
while more efficient technologies reduce the energy demanded by the device, it
also changes the total expenditure on a service. For example, a low-energy
refrigerator will reduce the total cost of cooling food and low energy light bulbs
reduce the cost of providing lighting. If the total cost of a service is decreased,
the money saved is likely to be directed elsewhere to create a re-spending effect.
If the money saved is spent on a commodity with greater energy intensity, there
will not be growth with less energy. This phenomenon is referred to as the take-
back, or the Khazzoom–Brookes effect (Barrett, Lowea, Oreszczyna, &
Steadmana, 2008) by economists. The effect is such that energy efficiency
improvements may actually have a negative effect on the total primary energy
demand, explaining the 30% increase in energy demand seen in the UK while
they have seen large efficiency improvements. However, at the same time, if the
Posted by Etree Project Consultants Pvt Ltd only for knowledge sharing purpose. Page 15
