![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/1531080.jpg?628)
The main argument against reducing the burning of fossil fuels is the growing demand for energy, and the inability of renewables to meet those demands, now, and into the future. Despite the popular myth that demand is growing, it is in fact shrinking. The facts change the whole tone of the debate.
Alan Pears from RMIT recently contributed a piece to The Conversation which explored this anomaly in the public discussion. You can find the full article here.
An excerpt is printed below.
In 2012, National Electricity Market electricity consumption continued its four-year decline. Everyone seems surprised that electricity demand continues to decline despite population and the economy growing. This highlights the limits of economic forecasting and the lack of “bottom-up” modelling based on real activity.
Changes in technology mean the energy implications of new appliances have changed. For example, a household that bought a new TV in 2009 typically increased its TV energy usage significantly relative to their old TV. Today, the same decision can lead to a reduction in TV energy usage of up to 60%. This kind of change is occurring across business, industry, households and transport.
Decision-making and behaviour change are also evolving. On average, people are buying smaller houses. They are doing more to cut energy waste by switching things off and using energy more efficiently. Around 10% of Australian households are now solar electricity generators. New office equipment and lighting are much more efficient. And so on.
Analysts who look at historical energy consumption trends are really using a “lagging” indicator. The impacts of new investment decisions are swamped by the (poor) performance of the existing stock, while major behaviour changes are not modelled in detail.
We need to model behaviour in more detail. We need to focus energy forecasting on “leading” indicators, especially the performance of buildings and equipment being added to the stock, and the performance of the equipment that is being replaced.
The nature of change involves a wide range of effects. Many modellers focus on factors such as the “rebound” effect, but ignore the effects that can amplify savings. These are technical, social and institutional. Consider some examples:
- When efficient lighting and equipment is installed in an office building or house, cooling energy use (and peak demand) are reduced, because less heat is generated inside the building.
- When water efficiency is improved, it often saves energy through reduced heating of water, or less pumping.
- When markets for energy efficient products grow, economies of scale and “learning effects” drive cost reduction and further product performance improvement. The efficiency of delivery, installation and sale mechanisms increases. If consumers like the results, they tell others, who are then more likely to invest, driving a virtuous cycle.
- When governments make regulations, such as requirements for more energy efficient buildings, innovation is accelerated, supply chains made more efficient, and profit margins reduced: these reduce the cost of compliance. Since Australia is well behind the leading countries, this innovation (and some of the innovators) may be imported from overseas, so it may happen very fast.
- Redefining services and shifting the way they are provided can have profound effects on energy use. Physical stores are being replaced by on-line retailing. Low power devices such as tablets and advanced mobile phones are replacing computers. And so on.
Systems can be very complex. Many complex factors are at work, delivering unexpectedly large energy savings. But we lack the data and analysis of these effects. So we may well continue to be surprised as energy use keeps declining.
Then the conclusions we can make about the effectiveness of a price on Carbon, the feasibility of investing in renewable technologies, and the need to invest in driving further efficiencies are completely different.
I'd suggest that while the changes we need to make to our energy systems sustainable are enormous, and what we need to do to make our climate stable are still great, the evidence suggests that what we are doing has us on the right path (reduced demand, reduced carbon intensity of power generated).
What we get instead from the likes of Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman is the ridiculous challenge to say by how many degrees the carbon price will reduce global temperatures.
I'm all for a debate. But lets stick to the relevant facts and issues instead of being drawn in to the bluff and misrepresentation that characterizes the conservative commentariat's meagre contribution.