Energy intensity is a devious measure

Many evaluations and policy declarations are focusing on improvements in energy efficiency and in particular in improving energy intensity in economic terms (kWh/moneyvalue in GDP). This measure is good but could lead astray if the reader and the analyst is not careful. Especially comparisons between countries and sectors is dangerous. A country does not have to be inefficient because they have a high intensity in such terms. It is merely a reflection of a country’s comparative advantages for industrial activities. A country where mining is big business can not easily be compared with a country with a huge agricultural sector. They could both be efficient or inefficient. Intensities are better measures when they are expressed in physical terms such as km, m2, tonnes etc. that are connected to the activity itself. The IEA uses such and the so called ASIF-model, to decompose the energy use into the components; Activity (A), Structure (S), Intensity (I) and Fuel (F). All taken together would explain either the resulting energy use or the resulting carbon emission as follows: Result=A*S*I (*F)

The IEA (as well as many others) uses this method and describes it in detail in a publications where the energy use over the 30 years of IEA existence has been studied. Especially interesting is that they have specifically studied the effect of intensity improvements and showed that these have been very high. If they had not occurred we should need 50% more energy to uphold our present standard of living than we actually do. In other words, our welfare today is rather depending on energy efficiency improvements than growing energy use!