Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future

  • AuthorInterAcademies Council
  • Release Date1 October 2007
  • Copyright2007
  • File info Download Report
    (PDF, 9MB)
Show Table of Contents
2.6 Summary points

The energy intensity of the world’s industrialized and developing economies—in terms of total energy consumed per unit of economic output—has been declining steadily over the last several decades as technology has improved and as a greater share of wealth is derived from less energy-intensive activities. Taken together, however, these intensity declines have not been sufficient to offset population increases and economic growth; overall energy consumption has steadily increased—in nearly all nations and for the world as a whole. Moreover, despite evidence that the technical potential for further energy-intensity reductions is enormous, there is evidence that country-level intensities are converging over time and may not, absent further policy intervention, continue to decline at the same rate as in recent decades. Some experts warn that rising material standards of living could, at some point and in some cases, begin to reverse past declines with potentially sobering implications for the prospect of achieving long-term, global sustainability goals.

Given the significant technical potential that exists to achieve further, cost-effective intensity reductions and given the critical importance of relieving current and projected stresses on the world’s energy systems, concerted policy action to maximize the contribution of demand-side options along with supply-side solutions is justified.

    Governments should aggressively pursue cost-effective opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy intensity throughout their economies. Policies that have proved highly effective in different contexts and should be considered include appliance and equipment efficiency standards, including vehicle fuel-economy standards; building codes; financial mechanisms (for example, fuel taxes, tax incentives for efficiency investments, and feebates); information and technical assistance programs, including labeling for consumer products and energy audit programs; procurement policies; support for utility programs, including enabling regulatory reforms, where applicable; and support for efficiency-related research and development. The availability of low-cost capital and other financial incentives to promote deployment and innovation in energy efficiency improvements is essential.
    Facilitating technology transfer from industrialized to developing countries is particularly important. The importance of the technology transfer is so that countries with rapidly expanding infrastructure, building stock, manufacturing capacity, and penetration of energy-using devices can ‘leapfrog’ to more efficient technologies. Opportunities for efficiency improvement tend to be largest and most cost-effective when they are incorporated from the ground up rather than in later retrofit applications. Ensuring that developing countries modernize their economies as efficiently as possible is crucial to manage the considerable sustainability challenges that will otherwise accompany continued global economic growth.
    Applied social science combined with explicit policy experimentation could plausibly deliver dramatic improvement in our understanding of (a) the determinants of energy demand, (b) the effectiveness of policies designed to facilitate the adoption of energy efficient technologies, and (c) the role of efficiency improvements in moderating demand. Governments should actively support such research both through funding and, perhaps more importantly, by enabling policy experiments to measure the effectiveness of energy-efficiency programs.
    Barriers to the adoption of potentially cost-effective energy technologies often arise from the difficulty of effectively quantifying and aggregating myriad small opportunities for improvement and, particularly in buildings, on the need for performance monitoring, intelligent management, and integration of diverse systems. Information technologies combined with inexpensive monitoring systems might overcome some of these barriers delivering consistent energy savings to users that would otherwise have been unattainable without expert intervention. Such options should be aggressively pursued. In addition, it will be important to develop business models for identifying and implementing cost-effective energy efficiency improvements, perhaps building on experience to date with energy service companies.
    While a R&D push must be balanced with market pull, there should be an accelerated focus on the development of energy-efficient technologies in the following areas: Batteries that can make plug-in hybrids widely commercial (more robust to abuse), and can take many thousands of deep discharges without loss of storage capacity; Low-cost LED (light-emitting diode) lighting with a color-rendering index that is appealing to consumers; Tools for designing energy-efficient residential and commercial buildings; and Low-cost, efficient fuel cells that can run on natural gas for dispersed applications (home, industrial, and commercial).



An, Feng, Deborah Gordon, Hul He, Drew Kodjak, and Daniel Rutherford. 2007. PassengerVehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update. International Council on Clean Technology (ICCT). Washington, D.C.
An, Feng, and Amada Sauer. 2004. Comparison of Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG Emission Standards around the World. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, Virginia.
Boeing. 2007. Boeing 787 Dreamliner Will Provide New Solutions for Airlines, Passengers. Product information.
Chandler, K., E. Eberts, and L. Eudy. 2006. New York City Transit Hybrid and CNG Buses:Interim Evaluation Results. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report (NREL/TP-540-38843, January). Golden, Colorado.
Davis, S.C., and S. W. Diegel. 2006. Transportation Energy Databook: Edition 25. ORNL-6974. U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
de Beer, J.,G. 1998. ‘Potential for Industrial Energy-Efficiency Improvement in the Long Term.’ Utrecht University PhD Thesis.
de Beer, J.G., D. Phylipsen, and J. Bates. 2001. Economic Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Emission Reductions in Industry in the EU. Brussels: European Commission, DG Environment.
de Beer, J.G., E. Worrell, and K. Blok. 1998. ‘Future Technologies for Energy Efficient Iron and Steelmaking.’ Annual Review of Energy and Environment 23: 123-205.
de Beer, J.G., J. Harnisch, and M. Kerssemeeckers. 2000. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Iron and Steel Production. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Cheltenham, UK.
De Keulenaer, H. 2004. ‘Energy Efficient Motor Driven Systems.’ Energy & Environment 15 (5):873-905.
DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs). 2005. Industry Beats CO2 Reduction Targets. News release. 21 July 2005.
DEFRA. 2004. Future Energy Solutions, AEA Technology, 2004. Climate Change Agreements– Results of the First Target Period Assessment. Version 1.2.
Foyt, G., 2005. Demonstration and Evaluation of Hybrid Diesel-Electric Transit Buses – FinalReport. Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering Report (CT-170-1884-F-05-10, October).
Galitsky, C., L. Price, and E. Worrell. 2004. Energy Efficiency Programs and Policies in the IndustrialSector in Industrialized Countries. (LBNL-54068). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Harvey, L.D.D. 2006. A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District Energy Systems: Fundamentals,Techniques, and Examples. London: James and James.
Honda (Motor Company). 2004. ‘Honda Develops Hybrid Scooter Prototype.’ News release, 24 August 2004.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006a. World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris.
–––. 2006b. Raising the Profile of Energy Efficiency in China: Case Study of Standby Power Efficiency. International Energy Agency Working Paper Series, [LTO]/2006/1. Paris.
–––. 2004a. World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris.
–––. 2004b. Oil Crises and Climate Challenges: 30 Years of Energy Use in IEA Countries. Paris.
JR East Group. 2003. ‘Sustainability Report 1993.’ East Japan Railway Company. Committee on Ecology. Tokyo, Japan.
Lebot, B., A. Meier, and A. Anglade. 2000. ‘Global Implications of Standby Power Use.’ In Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 2000. Reproduced by Energy Environmental Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory.
Martin, N., E. Worrell, M. Ruth, L. Price, R.N. Elliott, A.M. Shipley, and J. Thorpe. 2000. Emerging Energy-Efficient Industrial Technologies. (LBNL-46990). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
McKane, A., and B. Medaris. 2003. The Compressed Air Challenge: Making a Difference for U.S. Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
R.L.Polk & Co. 2007. Hybrid Vehicle Registration Growth-Rate Slows in 2006. News release. February 26, 2007.
Ministry of Economic Affairs (The Netherlands). 1999. Energy Efficiency Benchmarking Covenant.
NRC(National Research Council). 2002. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC/NAE (National Research Council/National Academy of Engineering). 2004. The Hydrogen Economy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Owen, N.J., and R.L. Gordon. 2003. ‘Carbon to Hydrogen’ Roadmaps for Passenger Cars: Update of the Study for the Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry. Produced by Ricardo Consulting Engineers, Shoreham by Sea, West Sussex, United Kingdom. Commissioned by the Department of Transport.
Pender, M., 2004. UK Climate Change Agreements. Presentation to China Iron and Steel Association Delegation.
Price, L., S. de la Rue du Can, J. Sinton, and E. Worrell. 2006. Sectoral Trends in Global Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (LBNL-56144). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Sathaye, J., L. Price, S. de la Rue du Can, and D. Fridley. 2005. Assessment of Energy Use and Energy Savings Potential in Selected Industrial Sectors in India. (LBNL-57293). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Schipper, L. M., and M. Grubb. 2000. ‘On the Rebound? Feedback Between Energy Intensities in Energy Uses in IEA Countries.’ Energy Policy, Volume 28, Number 6: 367-388.
TMC/MIRI (Toyota Motor Corporation/Mizhuo Information & Research Institute). 2004. Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Automotive Fuels in the Japanese Context. Toyota Motor Corporation. Mizhuo Information & Research Institute. Tokyo.
Transport for London. 2005. TfL Annual Report 2005. London, United Kingdom.
UNDF, UNDESA, and WEC (United Nations Development Program, United Nationsl Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and World Energy Council). 2004. World Energy Assessment. Overview, 2004 Update. United Nations. New York, New York.
USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. Industrial Technologies Program, 2006. Save Energy Now.
USDOE. 2005. 2005 Buildings Energy Data Book. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Washington, D.C.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Mineral Commodity Summary: Iron and Steel. Washington, D.C.
Velthuijsen, J.W. 1995. ‘Determinants of Investment in Energy Conservation.’ Foundation for Economic Research (SEO), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
WEC (World Energy Council). 2004. Energy Efficiency: A Worldwide Review – Indicators, Policies, Evaluation. London: WEC.
Worrell, E., M. Neelis, L. Price, C. Galitsky, and N. Zhou. 2007. World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL-62806).
Worrell, E., N. Martin, and L. Price. 2001. ‘Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry.’ Energy, The International Journal 26, 2001: 513-536.

Document Date: October 1, 2007
Show Table of Contents