The International Energy Efficiency Scorecard…and Canada’s Position

Comments Off

Posted on 31st July 2012 by Richard Jones in Energy Management

PodiumThe American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently published its first ever report card on the energy efficiency of 12 of the world’s largest economies.  These economies represent over 78 percent of global gross domestic product, 63 percent of global energy consumption, and 62 percent of the global carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions.  The rankings included Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. Over 25 different energy efficiency indicators or “metrics” were analyzed for each economy ranked in the report and summarized into 4 major categories:  National Effort, Buildings, Industry, and Transportation. The rankings are determined by a total score out of 100 possible points.

Anyone want to guess where Canada finished out of these 12 countries before you read further?

If you guessed that we were the worst economy out of the 12, you were wrong…but not by much.  Canada finished one slot from the bottom performer – only Russia was worse than us.

On a scale of 100 possible points in 27 categories, the nations were ranked by ACEEE as follows:

  1. the United Kingdom;
  2. Germany;
  3. Italy;
  4. Japan;
  5. France;
  6. the European Union, Australia, and China (3-way tie);
  7. the U.S.;
  8. Brazil;
  9. Canada; and
  10. Russia.

Canada placed 8th for National Effort, 10th for Buildings, 11th for Industry, and 11th for Transportation.  So why should we care how energy efficient our economy is?  Here is what the ACEEE Executive Director Steven Nadel said in the press release accompanying the release of the results: “The UK and the leading economies of Europe are now well ahead of the United States when it comes to energy efficiency. This is significant because countries that use energy more efficiently require fewer resources to achieve the same goals, thus reducing costs, preserving valuable natural resources, and creating jobs. Unfortunately, our results show that nowhere is the vast potential for improvements in energy efficiency being completely realized. While many countries achieved notable success, none received a perfect score in any category – proving that there is much that all countries can still learn from each other. For example, the United States scored relatively high in buildings, but was at the bottom of the list in transportation.”

The full results are available at the ACEEE website.

Basic Management Principles Still Apply…Even to Energy Efficiency

Comments Off

Posted on 16th July 2012 by Richard Jones in Energy Management

, ,

Many years ago when I was an engineering undergraduate student, some of my wisest professors always told students to go back to “first principles” when trying to solve complex problems.  The phrase “first principles” meant that when bogged down in complexity, a person should back up and make sure that they are solving the problem by starting with the basics:  the foundational building blocks of engineering, or computer science, or the laws of physics.  Don’t strive for complexity until you understand the basics.

Today, with the amount of data, information, and research we have easily available, it is all too common for organizations to rely on complex solutions that violate this mantra of “first principles”.  A recent example of this is the City of Toronto report by their Auditor General on the lack of basic measurement and verification of energy efficiency upgrades.  Here is an excerpt:

Based on our review of various documentation, our discussions with management, as well as front line staff and a review of information provided by the external contractor responsible for the retrofit, it is clear that energy savings were realized.  However, it is equally clear that the extent of these savings

have not been adequately quantified by staff. Consequently, it is not possible to determine whether or not the amount of the energy savings realized were adequate to finance the original capital costs as required by the Program. We have also discussed this particular issue with the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation who also expressed concerns in terms of the non quantification of energy savings.

In addition, because cost savings were not appropriately quantified, it has not been possible to confirm that energy savings guaranteed by the independent contractor responsible for the Program have in fact been met. The guarantee provision has an impact on the final contract cost.

One of the basic “first principles” of managing anything is properly measuring it – “you can’t manage what you can’t measure”.  There are readily-available solutions and techniques for verifying energy performance in a facility before and after a major energy retrofit takes place.  As I’ve mentioned in an earlier blog, we are too prone to looking for the “silver bullet” solution of ground-breaking technology instead of doing the basics and doing them with excellence.  Omitting such a basic first principle as accurately measuring results and  implementing technology without this foundation is bound to lead to situations like that cited by the City of Toronto Auditor General.

The Energy Efficiency Silver Bullet

1 comment

Posted on 22nd May 2012 by Richard Jones in Energy Management

, , ,

We often hear the term “silver bullet” when talking about a technological breakthrough to solve a pressing problem.  I did a bit of research on the term “silver bullet”.  Wikipedia states that “The term has been adopted into a general metaphor, where “silver bullet” refers to any straightforward solution perceived to have extreme effectiveness. The phrase typically appears with an expectation that some new technological development or practice will easily cure a major prevailing problem”.

Many people and organizations interested in reducing our global carbon footprint are looking for a “silver bullet” type of solution when it comes to energy efficiency in buildings.  This would be the one game-changing technology that immediately allows us to meet our building energy needs at a much lower carbon intensity. It could be some new form of energy generation or a new type of highly efficient heating/cooling technology that can be easily retrofitted into existing buildings.

Anyone reading this blog have probably already anticipated what my next comment is going to be: there is no “silver bullet” when it comes to energy efficiency.

Building owners, operators, managers, and stakeholders need to stop thinking there is going to be one anytime soon.  The laws of physics and the economic models we are dealing with still rule.

So let’s stop waiting for someone else to discover a “silver bullet” that will magically solve all our energy issues.  Let’s just get on with making the required investments in existing technology, improving processes, and educating people we need to rise to our energy efficiency challenge.

Benchmarking – It’s A Start

Comments Off

Posted on 27th February 2012 by Richard Jones in Energy Management

, , ,

BenchmarkingOne of the most widely used axioms in modern business management is “you can’t manage what you don’t measure”.   Proper measurement of a building’s current energy performance is a fundamental of energy management.  Sometimes this measurement is done through the provision of an energy “audit” by a qualified engineering firm.  Many public energy efficiency agencies insist on an energy audit prior to providing any financial support for subsequent energy efficiency improvements.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of commercial and industrial buildings that have never gone through an energy audit.

In the absence of doing a full energy audit, another approach is to at least benchmark the energy performance of a commercial or industrial building through an analysis of its energy bills.  Even this simple undertaking has not been widely done, and is just starting to become a trend among larger North American cities.  The following article provides a good overview of the situation in the United States.

NY vs. DC: Who Wins in Building Energy Benchmarking?

As this article highlights, most of the benchmarking being done is a simple snapshot of utility bills compared against the square footage of the building.  This provides a starting point…but it is not enough.

The future?  I feel it is going to be real-time measurement of energy usage in a building as part of an energy audit.  This “dynamic benchmarking” provides an objective and accurate measurement of energy usage prior to any retrofit work and then a verification of actual savings following the energy retrofit.

 

 

 

The Energy Internet and Energy Efficiency

Comments Off

Posted on 20th February 2012 by Richard Jones in Energy Management

, , , , , ,

Last November I was privileged to attend the CIPEC Energy 2011 conference in Toronto.  One of the keynote speakers was Tom Rand, Founder and Director of VCi Green Funds, Lead Cleantech Advisor at the MaRS Discovery District in Toronto.  I found Tom’s keynote speech to be  one of the most enlightened and practical summaries of the role of energy efficiency in helping address our global carbon challenge.

I would highly recommend reading this summary of Tom’s comments at the Energy 2011 conference.  Please see this link.

Here are a few of the key takeaways I got from Tom’s keynote speech:

  • Think of clean energy as a tree with various fruits that are harder and easier to reach.
  • Energy efficiency and peak demand reduction are the two lowest hanging, easy-to-reach fruit.  We shouldn’t need policy incentives to do this – CEO’s should be doing them now because they have ROI’s that are attractive.
  • Need to unlock energy efficiency and demand management NOW if we ever expect to get to the more difficult systems such as shutting coal plants, etc.
  • First step:  Efficiency – more GDP, less energy
  • Second step:  Clean energy – more energy, less carbon
  • BUT – we need to focus on the easy things first:  energy efficiency.

More from the Energy 2011 in future posts.

Upcoming Article: Benchmarking – It’s A Start

« Older Entries