Vattenfall presents the free lunch
By Hans Nilsson / Published on Mon, 2007-01-22 08:00Further reading
A suppliers paradigm-shift?
Negative marginal costs for energy efficiency improvements are no news to most of us. That happens when you calculate all relevant effects of a change and especially those where the change reduces costs for operation and maintenance.
A classic example was presented in Scientific American some 15-20 years ago when EPRI (Clark Gellings) on one side and Rocky Mountain Institute (Amory Lovins) on the other presented marginal cost curves for energy efficiency. Naturally they differed though both presented a potential for cost-efficient improvements.
Vattenfall has now produced a series of documents in which they also claim that the relatively low cost the Sir Nicholas Stern has mentioned to avoid the climate change catastrophe could be even lower. Normally energy supply companies do not want to talk about these demand side resources and far less contribute to their visibility, so essential to creation of a sustainable energy system.
(click image to enlarge)
And this what the original from The Scientific American looked like.
(click image to enlarge)
Tagged with
Rating
Related content
- - Electricity Markets and Quality of Supply Regulation
- - Electricity Markets and Price Regulation Methods
- - Electricity as leverage for the low carbon economy
- - CDM reform proposal: classify as additional all renewable energy and energy efficiency technology projects
- - Optimisation of Photovoltaic Plants : Economic Cable Sizing
People who read this also read
Popular content
- - Checklist for the electrical installation in the home
- - Report - Renewables Support Schemes and Grid Integration Policies
- - Virtual earthing electrode
- - What percentage of which car type (total 100%) do you expect in Europe in 2050? And ditto for 2020 and 2030?
- - Intelligent control of network-connected convertors
- 420718 page views this month
- 45692 email subscribers
- 5195 registered users
- 772 RSS readers (via feedburner)
Comments
energy efficiency more expensive than solar???
By Hans De Keulenaer / Published on Tue, 2007-03-13 9:07According to the report, the cost per tonne of CO2 was calculated as follows:
"Calculated as the annual additional operating cost (including depreciation) less potential cost savings (for example from reduced energy consumption) divided by the amount of emissions avoided. This formula means that costs can be negative if the cost savings are considerable. Possible costs for implementing a system to realize the abatement approaches are not included."
This is a correct method, but it is amazing to observe that investment in industrial motor systems - a no-brainer in energy efficiency circles - is deemed more expensive than more renewable technologies, even solar.
Reply
a suspicion
By Hans De Keulenaer / Published on Thu, 2007-03-15 14:49Thanks to Jim McConnach for this comment which clarifies a lot:
"I can only assume they have based the motor systems number on replacement costs, not new build. The incremental cost of high efficiency motors for new build would give a much lower cost of energy saving per kWh compared to full cost to replace an existing standard motor with a high efficiency one."
Reply