Earth Hour – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect
Earth Hour Singapore is back again and takes place this Saturday, 27 March 2010. Individuals, organisations and businesses are encouraged to switch off their lights for one hour from 8.30pm to 9.30pm, or longer. Earth Hour is organised by WWF and is “a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future.”
The switching off of lights is a symbolic act for everyone to take responsibility and fight climate change. Find out more about what you can do and pledge your support for Earth Hour.
Earth Hour has been successful in gaining support and participation over the past few years. For this year’s Earth Hour, we would like to remind everyone that Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights, it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect:
The Asymmetry Principle
In his book, The End of Energy Obesity: Breaking Today’s Energy Addiction for a Prosperous and Secure Tomorrow, energy economist Peter Tertzakian describes The Asymmetry Principle as:
the lopsided relationship between how much raw energy is available at the primary source — for example, at a natural gas well — and the small fraction of energy that is actually put to useful work at the consuming end — for example, in lighting a light bulb. The principle states that a unit of energy saved at the consumer level amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source. In effect, the asymmetry principle exposes the high levels of inefficiency in society’s energy systems and highlights the tremendous leverage offered by efficiency gains and conservation in mitigating source energy consumption.
He gave the example of a light bulb:
- 100 energy units of natural gas at source
- 40 energy units remaining due to conversion to electricity
- 35 energy units remaining due to transmission losses
- 2 energy units remaining due to conversion to light
In this example of a light bulb, reducing the consumption of one unit of energy (as light) actually saves the production of 50 units of energy (as natural gas) if you account for the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission and thermal conversion to light.
To put it simply, when you switch off the lights and save X units of energy, you are actually saving more than X units of energy as the energy savings amplify back to the energy source.
Therefore, energy conservation or reducing your energy consumption plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. When you switch off your lights or appliances at home during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the multiplying and amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream.
However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Take the example of last year’s Earth Hour:
In Singapore, turning off lights and electrical appliances during Earth Hour saw a 42-megawatt drop in electricity demand. This is equivalent to 40 per cent of the electricity demand in Ang Mo Kio for that hour, said Energy Market Authority (EMA).
However, there was no real decrease in carbon emissions.
Since we only used 1 per cent less electricity as we normally would have in that hour, the generation companies (gencos) burnt just as much fuel as usual, said EMA.
For actual reduction in the fuel usage and carbon emissions, everyone in Singapore (households and organisations) must play a part in energy conservation on a daily basis to reduce Singapore’s energy demand. Ad hoc or yearly Earth Hour actions will not be sufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources and carbon emissions.
The Rebound Effect
The Rebound Effect usually refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of new energy efficiency technologies or measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the new technology or measures. In other words, actual energy savings is less than expected savings.
For example, if you replace a 20W incandescent light bulb with a 10W energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you find that you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eat away some of the energy savings from the more efficient light bulb.
Here, we will adapt The Rebound Effect to explain that the actual energy or carbon emission savings could be less than the expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy or carbon emissions from one activity but use more energy or generate more emissions by switching to other substitute activities, then the actual savings is less than expected savings.
For example, you usually read a book on a Saturday night. But to support Earth Hour, you switch off your lights, thus saving X units of energy. In the dark, you can’t read so you switch on the TV and watch it for the whole night. The actual energy savings is thus less than the expected X units of energy savings.
Or instead of staying at home, you decide to drive your car to an event that celebrates Earth Hour. The additional carbon emissions could be more than the expected emission savings from switching off the lights.
You should still support Earth Hour but remember The Rebound Effect and remind yourself that the Earth Hour activities you take part in should not be causing more energy consumption or carbon emissions as compared to your usual activities.
The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect
Earth Hour is really about The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect. We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect.
We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy or generate more emissions.
So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.
Panel Discussion on the Smart Energy Economy
The panel discussion on the Economic Strategies Committee’s (ESC) recent recommendations for a Smart Energy Economy, was held this morning at NUS. The panelists include:
- Prof. Linda Yuen-Ching Lim: Professor of Strategy at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan
- Dr. Natasha Hamilton-Hart: Associate Professor and Deputy Head in the Southeast Asian Studies Programme of the National University of Singapore
- Dr. Tilak Doshi: Chief Economist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute
- Dr. Cheng-Guan Michael Quah: Chief Scientist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute
The panelists provided their frank views on the ESC recommendations and report, both good and bad. Some of the key views include:
Timid and Bounded
Dr Natasha called the report timid while Dr Michael called it bounded. Dr Natasha said that some of the recommendations were already what the government has been doing for decades. It also fails to look at the reality of some problems, including the income inequality of the rich and poor. Dr Michael said that there were no stretch goals and the KPIs were achievable. There is a need to create new thinking, look forward and keep pushing the boundaries.
Lack of Integration
Prof Linda said that there is a lack of a holistic approach to integrate all the strategies. Manufacturing, tourism or other sectors, and energy can’t be looked at separately. There is a need to integrate our energy strategy across the different sectors. The government is at a competitive advantage as it can do things other government can’t do easily.
Culture Change
Dr Michael highlighted the importance of culture change and a different kind of lifestyle while Dr Tilak spoke about the role of behaviour economics. Prof Linda commented on the difference between energy conservation and energy efficiency. There is a need to reduce our absolute energy consumption if we talk about energy security. Steps have to be taken to reduce our energy dependency and prepare for higher energy prices.
Committee of Supply Debate 2010: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources
Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and Dr Amy Khor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, gave their speeches during the Committee of Supply Debate under the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).
Here are some key points that they raised:
At Copenhagen, Singapore supported the Accord, and has since written to the UNFCCC Secretariat to associate ourselves formally with the Accord as a good basis for advancing negotiations towards reaching a legally binding global agreement on climate change. Though the Accord as it stands does not create legal obligations, it contains important elements that can facilitate the on-going negotiations. To date, about 100 out of the 194 Parties to the UNFCCC have associated themselves with the Accord. About 30 non-Annex I countries, including Singapore, have also tabled their emission reduction targets.
To play our part in international efforts to mitigate climate change, Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% from the 2020 business-as-usual scenario. This target is contingent on a legally binding global agreement in which all countries implement their commitments in good faith. Our target is credible and rigorous given our past efforts to reduce emissions and the constraints we face as a city-state, including our limited potential to adopt renewable energy.It is a substantial commitment by Singapore. Achieving it will involve considerable costs, and changes in lifestyle and business practices.
BCA will increase the mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards for Green Mark certified new buildings by 10% from today’s standards by the end of this year, and will also mandate the submission of building energy usage data from 2011.
Our consultations with large energy users indicate that a wide range of energy management practices exists today. We therefore see the need for minimum standards to ensure greater management attention is paid to energy. While this will ultimately benefit companies in terms of cost-savings, we also recognise the need to give companies sufficient lead-time to prepare.
By 2013, we will require companies in the industry sector consuming more than the equivalent of 15 GWh of energy each year to appoint an energy manager, monitor and report energy use to NEA, and develop and submit energy efficiency improvement plans. NEA will be consulting the companies involved on the detailed requirements.
To ensure a smooth transition, NEA will introduce the Energy Efficiency National Partnership, or EENP, in April to help companies build up the necessary capabilities before the mandatory energy management practices come into effect. We will also be reviewing our incentive schemes and exploring long-term energy efficiency financing options to cater to the needs of companies.
These energy management requirements for industry and energy efficiency-related legislation in other sectors will be consolidated in an Energy Conservation Act that will come into force in 2013. The Act allows for a co-ordinated approach to standards-setting for energy efficiency across all sectors, and will represent a major milestone in the government’s efforts to develop energy efficiency as a competitive advantage for Singapore.
As I announced last year, minimum energy performance standards or MEPS will be implemented for household air-conditioners and refrigerators in 2011.MEPS will remove the most energy inefficient air-conditioners and refrigerators from the market. Depending on the appliance category, all 0-tick models and some 1- and 2-tick models will be removed, representing about 20% of current sales volumes. A sufficient range of brands and models will remain available for consumer choice.
MEPS will help consumers save on electricity bills and is not expected to significantly increase the upfront cost of air-conditioners and refrigerators. A more efficient fridge that costs the same as one phased out by MEPS can save a household about $130 a year. When all the existing air-conditioners and refrigerators in Singapore comply with the MEPS standards, consumers will enjoy a total energy savings of about $20milannually.
We will tighten the MEPS standards over time. We will also consider extending MEPS to more appliances, such as lighting and televisions.
The public sector will continue to take the lead on environmental sustainability measures. From FY11, all Ministries will set energy savings targets. We will continue to study new measures that can be implemented.
In 2007, NEA commissioned a study involving local and foreign experts to understand our vulnerabilities to climate change.
The first phase of the study covering the physical impacts of climate change has concluded. The results have been peer reviewed by international experts who noted that the study adopted well-established methodologies and that the findings are plausible.
The study projects that the average daily temperature in Singapore could increase by between 2.7 to 4.2°C from the current average of 26.8°C by 2100 and the mean sea level around Singapore could rise by 24 to 65 cm by 2100. These findings are within the range of our expectations and consistent with global projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Source: MEWR
Loading ...
