ER100 Lecture 2: page 1

ER100/200 & PubPol 184/284

Energy and Society



Lecture 2: Energy and Society
Professor Kammen


Last update: September 1, 2013
1. How Energy Use Shapes Society & the Environment
2. Units, forecasts, and back of the envelope


ER100 Lecture 2: page 2



Readings Reminder
(wont happen regularly)
Rubin, EE, Rates of Technology Adoption, Pages 669 677.

Lovins, Amory (1976) Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken,
Foreign Affairs, 55(1): 6596.

ER reader:
Chapter 1 (a review and refresher) optional/reference for those
who have done these sorts of problems before.

Last week: Op Ed pieces from last week .. (not forgotten!)
Thursday: Bose read carefully

ER100 Lecture 2: page 3



Getting Comfortable with Energy Units

1 barrel (bbl) of crude oil = 42 gallons = 6.12 x 10
9
joules, so ?
1 MToe = million tons of oil, equivalent = 10
13
joules, so ?

A useful unit calculator http://www.iea.org/statist/calcul.htm
You will also find the unit conversions in the Reader and Appendix a
key resource for getting comfortable with the units.




We now will begin to use energy unit analysis to analyze,
both the technical and policy aspects of energy conversion
and use.
ER100 Lecture 2: page 4
Energy Units and Scales
(Source: IPCC Energy Primer)
zettajoule (ZJ)
Quick recap: exponentials to common basis are additive!
10
3
x 10
6
= 10
(3+6)
= 10
9
or 1000 MJ = 1 GJ
ER100 Lecture 2: page 5
To make sense of the world,
make consistent comparisons
5
ER100 Lecture 2: page 6
Energy Orders of Magnitude
(EJ = 10
18
J)
5,500,000 EJ Annual solar influx
1,000,000 EJ Fossil occurrences
50,000 EJ Fossil reserves
440 EJ World energy use 2000 (14 TW)
100 EJ USA primary energy supply
50 EJ OECD transport energy use
20 EJ Saudi Arabia oil production
4 EJ Italy oil reserves
1 EJ NY city or Singapore
energy use

Stocks; flows (yr
-1
)
ER100 Lecture 2: page 7

ER100 - Lecture #3 - Page 7
Energy Stocks & Flows for the Earth
(the whole story, but only an engineer could love it like this

ER100 Lecture 2: page 8
Dung Patty Preparation in India
ER100 Lecture 2: page 9
Back of the envelope calculation:

How much gasoline is used in the U.S. for all
light duty vehicles (passenger cars, SUVs and
light trucks) in 1 year?

You may need to give the answer in gallons,
barrels, and quadrillion Btus per year, etc
ER100 Lecture 2: page 10
First make a model, balancing accuracy against
the time needed to create the calculation
Back of the envelope, spreadsheet, or code
A simple model
Gas used per week (gallons) =
If a car gets 20 mpg in normal use, for a 1000 mile trip, the simple
estimate is that the car will use 50 gallons.
Back of the envelope calculations:
General approach
miles driven
week
x
gallon
miles
ER100 Lecture 2: page 11
BOE calculations: Unit analysis
You can always multiply some number by 1
without changing its value.
Example: Calculate the average load over 1
year (kW) for an electricity end-use that
consumes 10,000 kWh per year

In that equation, the hours and the years
cancel, yielding kW.
10, 000 kWh
year
x
1 year
8760 hours
= 1.14 kW
ER100 Lecture 2: page 12
Back of the envelope calculation:
Answer:
The average rated fuel economy is 25 miles per gallon for
light duty vehicles, but 21 mpg on the road.
A typical car is driven about 12,000 miles per year, and
there are about 100 M households, each household owns
just under 2 cars/light trucks, for a total of about 200 M
vehicles.
= 114 B gals/year
= 2.7 B barrels/year
= 7.4 M barrels/day
= 14 quadrillion Btus


200 million vehicles x
12 ,000 miles/yr
vehicle
x
gallon
21 miles


114 billion gallons x
Barrel
42 gallons


2.7 billion barrels
year
x
1 year
365 days


114 billion gallons
year
x
125,000 Btus
gallon
x
Quadrillion
10
15
Btus

ER100 Lecture 2: page 13
How about a more complex model?
If a 1000 mile trip does not have same
highway/city split as normal use, we must rely on
a more complicated model, Such as:
Gas/week (gals) =
assuming 15 mpg city, 25 mpg highway, and 95:5 split
between highway and city driving, yields 41.3 gallons
Assumptions about how many miles driven are
buried in the first model. There are always
buried assumptions
the Nisssan Leaf may not like the assumptions.
City miles
week
x
gallon
City miles
+
Highway miles
week
x
gallon
Highway miles
ER100 Lecture 2: page 14
Use your simple model
to test new cases

Engine downsized ~15%
Idle-off and regenerative braking
Efficiency increased ~50%
Batter state of charge kept in narrow range
Engine downsized ~33%
Larger battery and grid charging
Energy for short trips is from grid
Deeper discharge of batteries
Plug in hybrid with cellulosic ethanol in the tank: 100+ miles per gallon
Breakthrough: stationary and mobile energy sources now linked
ER100 Lecture 2: page 15
August 15, 2003: 8:15 PM
August 16, 2005Speeding from the scene of the crime, a Chinese boy tows a floating plastic bag of stolen
natural gas last week.
What about this vehicle .
ER100 Lecture 2: page 16
1942... 2002...
ER100 Lecture 2: page 17
BOE calculations: some advice
Once youve made a model, plug in the numbers
you know, and make assumptions for those you
dont know.
Dont get hung up on a particular number! Set
up the calculation and get data later.
Dont be afraid to approximate to speed things
up (e.g., to divide 4000 by 35, divide 3500 by
35 instead to get 100).
Keep evolving your model to check out
interesting cases, like the fuel vs. EV slide
ER100 Lecture 2: page 18
BOE calculations more to do
Bound the problem
Plug in high and low estimates for key parameters
Combine all high estimates in one scenario, and all low estimates in
another
Test sensitivity of each variable to arbitrary changes in inputs
Create a data sheet, and get comfortable with the key
units and conversions
Understand commonly used units (Quads, TWh, joules,
Mbtus, MMBtus, kW vs kWh, tons)
(dont memorize, organize!)

ER100 Lecture 2: page 19
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CEC Data
Business as Usual
AB 32 Scenario
% Change from 1990 levels
AB 32 Emissions Reductions
ER100 Lecture 2: page 20
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
U
.
S
.

G
H
G

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
G
T

C

e
q
.
)

Historic U. S.
emissions
Business as usual (EIA)
Kyoto protocol
Intensity Target:
President Bush (2004) and
China (current)
IPCC Assessment: Climate Stabilization Zone
Kammen, September 27, 2006 A day to remember, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27,
The Cascade of Commitment:
IPCC Science, CA and US targets
The Obama climate target
The California target
EU Copenhagen plan
ER100 Lecture 2: page 21
Check the Units, carbon emissions are often expressed at gC/MJ,
and at present Global emissions are 16 gC/MJ, and global energy
use is 420 EJ so:

=16gC/ MJ
=
16gC
MJ






420EJ
[ ]
10
18
J
EJ






1MJ
10
6
J






1ton
10
6
g






1GT
10
9
tons






=
6700x10
18
GT(C)
10
6
x10
6
x10
9
=[7x10
21
]/[10
21
]GT(C) = 7GT(C)
ER100 Lecture 2: page 22
Check the Units, carbon emissions are often expressed at gC/MJ,
and at present Global emissions are 16 gC/MJ, and global energy
use is 420 EJ so:
ER100 Lecture 2: page 23
red=defense, black=space, orange=health, blue=energy
Major U.S. Public R&D programs
Nemet, G. F. (2007). Policy and innovation in low-carbon energy technologies. PhD Dissertation, University of California.
ER100 Lecture 2: page 24
IPAT
Often useful to think of environmental
impact as the product of three factors:
Population may increase (in poor countries)
Affluence should increase in poor countries
Can improved technology offset rising
population and affluence?
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
Impact = Population Affluence Technology
pollution $ pollution
people
y person y $

| | | |
| |
=
| | |

\ .
\ . \ .
ER100 Lecture 2: page 25
The IPAT Identity: Why so handy?
The controversial
"Ehrlich" identity is often
used to decompose
growth in resource use,
efficiency of resource
use, and emissions.

Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology
One version of this might be :
Energy Use [J] = Population
$ GDP
person

Energy[J]
$ GDP






ER100 Lecture 2: page 26
The IPAT Identity In Use:
Energy Use [J] = Population *
$ GDP
person
*
Energy[J]
$ GDP
Carbon Emissions = Population *
Energy
person
*
Carbon
Energy
Or,
If all are exponential, then we have a very simple formulation:

P = P
1
P
2
P
n
P = (p
1
e
r
1
t
) (p
2
e
r
2
t
)... (p
n
e
r
n
t
) = (p
1
p
2...
p
n
)e
(r
1
+r
2
+ r
n
)t
P = Pe
rt



ER100 Lecture 2: page 27 Source: Scientific American Special Issue on energy 1970
ER100 Lecture 2: page 28
ER100 Lecture 2: page 29
ER100 Lecture 2: page 30
Whites Law
Culture advances as the quantity and quality of energy used
increases. This relationship can be captured formally as an
equation.

C = k x E x T
Leslie White, 1973

C = culture
E = energy
T = technology
k = scaling (efficiency) constant
ER100 Lecture 2: page 31
The Chase Manhattan Bank stated, in its
1976 Energy Report, that
there is no documented evidence that
indicates the long-lasting, consistent
relationship between energy use and GDP
will change in the future. There is no
sound, proven basis for believing a billion
dollars of GDP can be generated with less
energy in the future.

31
0
50
100
150
200
250
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
primary energy
consumption
(quadrillion BTU/year)
"hard path" projected by
industry and government
around 1975
"soft path" proposed by
Lovins in 1976
soft technologies
(which do not include big
hydro or nuclear)
oil and gas
coal
renewables
nuclear
coal
oil and gas
actual total
consumption
reported by USEIA
US energy use/$ GDP already cut 40%, to
very nearly the 1976 Soft Energy
Pat1976h
Amory Lovins Soft Energy Path: 1976
US energy use/$ GDP already cut 40%, to
very nearly the 1976 Soft Energy
Pat1976h
Update: Amory Lovins Soft Energy Path: 1976
0
50
100
150
200
250
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
primary
energy
consumptio
n
(quadrillion
BTU/year)
"hard path" projected by
industry and government
~1975
soft
oil
c
renew
nucl
c
oil and gas
actual total consumption
reported by USEIA

coal
USEIA Annual
Energy Outlook
Reference
Case,
2004 and 2006
"soft path"
proposed by
Lovins, Foreign
Affairs, Fall 1976
ER100 Lecture 2: page 34
Energy Star
Home
Average
Dane
Average
Berkeleyite
ER100 Lecture 2: page 35
U.S. Energy & Economy
0
100
200
300
400
500
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Indexed
(1950=100)
GDP
Carbon
Source: EIA, BEA, PCAST
37% improvement
GNP
Energy
Carbon
ER100 Lecture 2: page 36
U.S. Efficiency Improvements
0
100
200
300
400
500
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Indexed
(1950=100)
GDP
Carbon
Source: EIA, BEA, PCAST
37% improvement
Savings >$170 billion annually, since 1990
ER100 Lecture 2: page 37
ER100 Lecture 2: page 38
ER100 Lecture 2: page 39
Two Views
Pessimists (Mathusian or Cassandra)
Developed economies unsustainable; developing
cannot follow in their path; technology is not
keeping pace with resource depletion,
environmental impact
Optimists (Cornucopian or Dr. Pangloss)
No barriers to growth; substitutes will be
developed for scarce resources; economic
development and technology produce net
improvement in environmental quality
ER100 Lecture 2: page 40
The ER100 Bet:
Simon offered to bet $1000 that
the price of any five commodities
would decrease from 1980 to
1990. Ehrlich et al. selected Cu,
Cr, Ni, Sn, W. Simon won.
Simon subsequently offered to bet
that any set of environmental
measures relating to human
welfare would get improve.
Ehrlich et al. selected CO
2
, N
2
O,
O
3
, temperature, SO
2
in Asia,
tropical forest, per-capita grain
and fish, species, AIDS, sperm
counts, rich-poor gap.
Simon declined.
ER100 Lecture 2: page 41
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sr
Cs
Tl
Ta
Only 4 of 47 elements increased in price over the last century
P
r
i
c
e
/
P
r
i
c
e

i
n

2
0
0
0

ER100 Lecture 2: page 42
Caution and a Method: Know the Trend:
Environmental Indicators vs. Income

Kuznets Curves
ER100 Lecture 2: page 43
Index
Natural
Baseline
Disruption By
Disturbance:
Human
Natural Agriculture
Traditnl
Energy
Industrial
Energy
Other
Activity
Land Use
(10
6
km
2
)
135
ice-free land
15
cultivated 2/3
harvested
5
sustainable
fuelwood
0.15
(2/3 hydro)
1.5
cities,
transport
0.15
Water
Use
(km
3
/y)
50,000
total runoff
(2/3 unusable)
2,000
irrigation
?
800
process,
cooling, evap
500
all other
0.2
(of usable)
CO
2

Emission
(Gt
C
/y)
150
NPP
(net primary
productivity)
~1
forest
clearing
0.2
fuelwood
6.3
fossil-fuels
0.5
cement,
urbanizatn
0.04/y
CO
2

Added
(Gt
C
)
594
preindustrial
atmosphere
100 40 280 10 0.35
CH
4

Emission
(Mt
C
/y)
160
wetlands,
termites,
ocean
210
ruminants,
paddies,
burning
?
100
natural gas,
coal mines
65
landfills,
sewage
2.3
ER100 Lecture 2: page 44
Index
Natural
Baseline
Disruption By
Human
Natural Agriculture
Traditnl
Energy
Industrial
Energy
Other
Activity
Nitrogen
Fixation
(Mt
N
/y)
200
biological
fixation
60
fertilizer
1
30
fossil-fuel
combustn
1
industrial
processes
0.5
N
2
O
Emission
(Mt
N
/y)
9
oceans,
soils
4.4
soils,
ruminants
? ?
1.3
industrial
processes
0.4
Sulfur
Emission
(Mt
S
/y)
100
decay, sea
spray
0.8
burning
0.3
burning
60
coal, oil
burning
10
smelting
0.7
React HC
Emission
(Mt/yr)
800
vegetation
30
burning
4
burning
30
combustn,
refining
20
Industrial
processes
0.1
ER100 Lecture 2: page 45
Index
Natural
Baseline
Disruption By
Human
Natural Agriculture
Traditnl
Energy
Industrial
Energy
Other
Activity
PM
Emission
(Mt/yr)
500
sea spray,
volcanoes,
dust
40
burning,
wheat
handling
15
burning
40
fossil-fuel
combustn
50
industrial
processes
0.3
Lead
Emission
(kt
Pb
/y)
25
volcanoes,
dust
0.4
burning
0.2
burning
230
gasoline
additives
100
metals
production
13
Mercury
Emission
(kt
Hg
/y)
25
outgassing
0.7
burning,
biocides
0.2
burning
3
oil, coal
burning
13
mining,
mobilizatn
0.7
Oil
Emission
(Mt/y)
0.5
natural
seeps
3
tankers,
platforms
2
lube-oil,
waste
10
Radiation
(Mrem)
800
radon,
cosmic rays
?
1
reactors,
coal burning
150
medical,
fallout
0.2
ER100 Lecture 2: page 46
Rockstrom, et al, 2009
The Paper of the Year, 2009 . A recycled idea
ER100 Lecture 2: page 47
Rockstrom, et al, 2009