National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: TO SUPPLY ENERGY: THE SUN
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES." National Research Council. 1980. Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18632.
×
Page 101

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 A HIGH-ENERGY-PRODUCTIVITY SOCIETY: CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCIES This scenario is not presented as a prediction of what will happen but is intended to explore the questions: What would life be like in the United States in 2010 if, instead of increasing the total consumption of energy, we consumed approximately the same amount? Would major life- style changes be required for such a situation, or would only some rather insignificant behavioral changes be required of society? Does a signif- icant reduction in per-capita energy use necessitate a lower overall standard of living? In this scenario, as in others prepared for this study, a 35-percent increase in the U.S. population, stabilizing at about 280 million in 2010, is assumed. During this period, it is assumed that prices for energy will quadruple (relative to those for other commodities), the GNP will increase at an annual rate of 1 percent per capita per year, and government's share of personal income will remain relatively constant. Finally, it is assumed that the United States economic system will remain essentially unchanged. That is, it will continue to be fundamen- tally a market economy with considerable individual freedom in the dis- position of personal income. This scenario assumes that higher energy costs will become the pri- mary impetus for society to choose behavioral patterns and technologies that result in a 72-quad national energy economy. It differs in an important way from the other scenario presented here (Chapter 6), in that it does not depend on any substantial change in dominant societal values or lifestyle patterns. It does assume significant increases in the efficiency with which energy is used (achievable with known technol- ogies) , as well as minor changes in living and working patterns. The assumed behavioral patterns are not alien to this country. In fact, they are characteristic of some families and some commercial operations now. 67

68 SETTING OF THE PROBLEM From 1950 to 1970, U.S. energy consumption and GNP grew together. These data are the basis for the argument that there is, and will be, a rela- tively fixed relationship between total energy use and economic product. Such interpretations of available data elicit beliefs that, if energy consumption were reduced, GNP would decline, lowering the standard of living and resulting in unacceptable lifestyle changes. Because of this widely held belief, the following question is explored: Can a plausible scenario for 2010 be envisioned for which explicitly assumed behavioral and technological changes result in reduced energy consumption and in- creased per-capita income? To approach this question, a discussion of past and present data on consumer expenditures is in order (Bureau of the Census, 1975a, 1975b; Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1976; Kravis et al., 1975). Table 13 dis- plays a breakdown into five categories of the GNP in the United States over time. Since 1941, the major components of the GNP have approxi- mately maintained their relative positions as a proportion of total GNP. In descending order, these components are: services, nondurable goods, durable goods other than structures, structures, and energy goods and services. Table 14 shows personal consumption expenditures in somewhat more detail (10 categories). Although there have been no drastic changes since 1945, some trends are observable. Relative expenditures for food Table 13 Components of gross national product in billions of 1972 dollars per year Component Year 1929 1941 1950 1960 1973 Structures 41 41 66 88 140 Other durable goods 33 43 65 89 191 Nondurable goods 98 131 163 199 300 Services 109 159 186 295 481 Energy goods and services 25 30 53 69 121 Source: Nordhaus (1976a)

69 Table 14 Personal consumption expenditures, 1945-1970, in percent per year Type of product Year Food, beverages, and tobacco 1945 1950 1960 1965 1970 Clothing, accessories, and jewelry 36.4 30.4 26.9 24.8 23.2 16.4 12.4 10.2 10.0 10.0 Personal care 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.7 Housing 10.4 11.1 14.2 14.7 14.7 Household operation 13.0 15.4 14.4 14.3 14.0 Medical care 4.2 4.6 5.9 6.5 7.6 Personal business 3.9 3.6 4.6 5.1 5.7 Transportation 5.7 12.9 13.3 13.4 12.6 Recreation 5.1 5.8 5.6 6.1 6.5 Other 3.2 2.4 3.3 3.5 3.9 Total3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 •a Details may not add due to rounding. Source: Nordhaus (1976a) and clothing have declined while those for housing and medical care have risen. The percentage of total expenditures allocated for trans- portation more than doubled shortly after World War II and then leveled off. This change is attributed primarily to increased incomes, which led to purchases of single family homes in the suburbs, increasing travel requirements for work, shopping, and schooling; the increase in income also permitted more travel for recreation. In terms of energy intensities, the picture since World War II is mixed. Transportation is energy intensive, whereas medical care and personal business (insurance, financial services) are relatively low in

70 energy intensity. Clothing and food, for which percentage expenditures decreased over time, are in between. (Note that these intensity esti- mates are historically based and do not reflect potential energy savings from behavioral or technological changes.) Given the above assumptions regarding population, GNP, and energy- price increases, what set of consumer responses might be undertaken to change the overall consumption pattern so as to maintain current levels of energy use until the year 2010? The assumed quadrupling of energy prices relative to other economic goods results in the latter's being substituted for energy, and tends to reduce the consumption of energy- intensive goods and services (e.g., space heat or plastic cups). To reduce building-energy consumption, indoor use of sweaters in winter or reliance on natural ventilation instead of air conditioning in summer are obvious substitutions. The substitution of public for private transportation is one means of reducing gasoline consumption. Consumers may also reduce their total distance traveled or lower energy consump- tion in the home by changing their thermostat settings. Manufacturers, especially those requiring significant energy inputs to their production processes, will also be inclined to reduce energy use from economic considerations. New industrial plants may also con- tribute to these savings if the savings potential is large; the most energy-efficient technologies could be directly implemented without losses incurred from prematurely retiring existing equipment. In exist- ing plants, installing new conserving technologies and improving house- keeping practices generally can produce somewhat smaller savings. Owners of commercial establishments should be expected to respond similarly. Countering this energy-conserving behavior is the assumed rise in real per-capita income, which allows consumers to spend more on all goods and services, including energy. However, the expected net effect is a reduction in per-capita energy use because the 42-percent increase in GNP is proportionately much smaller than the 400-percent energy-price in- crease. If energy consumption did not decrease, the proportion of dis- posable income spent for energy goods and services would rise dramatically, at the expense of other purchases. The energy-price increases assumed imply an increase in the flow of energy-related information to both producers and consumers. Both groups will be induced to learn how to save energy. Life-cycle costing concepts are expected to become more widely used by both consumers and producers in their decision processes. For example, producers should be more likely to manufacture energy-efficient appliances and publicize this efficiency to potential consumers. The next section quantifies the effects on household energy con- sumption resulting from specific behavioral and technological changes. These changes are indicative of responses to increased relative energy prices and to legislation intended to dampen energy-demand growth. The section that follows presents similar analyses for behavioral and technological changes to reduce the energy demand for transportation. The primary focus is on changes involving residential heating, cooling, water heating, and transportation because energy is consumed directly for these functions and because consumers can, to a considerable extent, regu- late their level of consumption.

71 The next section presents a detailed scenario quantifying energy use by function for a hypothetical 72-quad U.S. energy demand in the year 2010. The scenario incorporates the material on energy conserva- tion potential presented in the previous sections, as well as analyses of energy-conservation measures applicable to production in the indus- trial sector; the latter information is presented in the footnotes to Table 22. The final section sketches how such a scenario might be implemented. Detailed qualitative analyses of implementation tools and their impacts are given for some of the measures. The analysis presented is only partial because of the complexities involved in technological and behavioral changes and because only one resource (energy) is singled out for attention. Energy savings can be achieved, but the implications of these savings in terms of the ex- penditures of other scarce resources (for example, water) have not been estimated. Ideally, all resource requirements should be considered si- multaneously, because saving one resource at the expense of another may not be prudent. ENERGY SAVINGS IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS The 1976 levels of energy use in residential buildings (by housing type and end use) are given in Table 15. Estimated energy savings for a number of technological and behavioral changes are given in Tables 16 (cooling) and 17 (heating). The estimates are drawn from the Buildings chapters of the CONAES Demand and Conservation Panel (1976) report. Possible energy reductions for heating water are given in Tables 18 (conventional systems) and 19 (solar systems), based on work performed at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. ENERGY SAVINGS IN TRANSPORTATION Table 20 gives a breakdown of passenger trips made by private car during 1969 and 1970. Although the activities are loosely classified, one should note that only a small fraction of all miles driven are for va- cation or for recreational purposes. Most trips are made to accomplish specific tasks, such as travel to work or to shop. Columns in Table 20 give (by trip type) the percentage of total trips, the percentage of total miles driven, the average trip length, the load factor (persons per vehicle), the fuel economy relative to a warmed-up vehicle, and the percentage of total gasoline consumed. The relative economy was derived from calculations of trip length and effective fuel economy made by Austin and Hellman (1975). Fuel economy depends strongly on whether the automobile is warmed up; the reference cited gives rea- sonable figures for actual fuel economy relative to the fuel economy achieved after 40 miles of relatively stop-free driving. Their calcu- lations also take into account stops and to some extent traffic con- gestion. The most dramatic finding is that, although trips of under

72 Table 15 1976 energy end use in quads3 in residential buildings Energy use Single family Multi-family Mobile house house home Space heating 7.24 1.39 0.30 Water heating 1.58 0.65 0.12 Refrigeration 0.90 0.40 0.06 Cooking 0.56 0.22 0.03 Air conditioning 0.98 0.18 0.04 Other 1.48 0.67 0.09 Total 12.74 3.51 0.64 Units of housing stock (millions) Average energy consumption per unit (108 Btu) 48.3 2.6 21.5 1.6 3.0 2.1 aUnless otherwise specified Source: Adapted from Demand and Conservation Panel (1976) 1.5 miles constitute only about 3 percent of all miles driven, they con- sume nearly 12 percent of all fuel. Reducing total miles driven saves most fuel if the number of shorter trips is reduced. Table 21 gives estimates of the percentage of vehicle miles in each class and overall and the percentage of gasoline that would be saved if specific changes in automobile use actually occurred. The Austin-Bellman relative fuel economy results generally hold for all kinds and sizes of vehicles. (These results do not hold for diesel automobiles, which per- form better than conventional cars in congested or slow traffic relative to fully warmed-up highway use, or for electric vehicles, which require no warming up and do not idle, thus eliminating the major losses of fuel in shorter, intra-city trips. However, it is assumed that the impact of either diesel cars or electric cars will be less than the potential im- pact of changed driving habits in conventional cars.) There are cars now on the road that average 44 miles per gallon (mpg) in city traffic and 52 mpg on the highway. Should diesel vehicles become common, the fleet average fuel economy would, of course, improve. To account for

73 Table 16 Actions to reduce space-cooling requirements in residential units Actions Savings (percent) Comments Increase thermostat setting Open windows to cool when possible 8% per degree F raised 12 to 73 Use window unit to cool 100-X X% of house instead of cooling all of house with central unit Install a high-efficiency Up to 50 window unit instead of an average window unit Highly variable, depending on loca- tion; Lower savings in more extreme cli- mates3 Window units are usu- ally more efficient; therefore this is probably a conser- vative estimate. Using currently mar- keted air condition- ers Pilati (1976) Source: Adapted from National Research Council (1979) improved fuel efficiency of conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, con- servative figures (considerably lower fuel economy than technically possible) of 25 mpg (city) and 35 mpg (highway) are assumed and then applied to driving-habit savings for these vehicles. The relative sav- ings made by changing driving habits and lifestyles are multiplied by the overall reduction in fuel intensity (gallons/mile) offered by more- energy-efficient vehicles. The tables illustrating the nature of reduced driving and resulting gasoline use are for discussion purposes only. They are illustrative and not predictive. We do not know the gasoline price required to bring about the changes discussed, nor can we predict how cities might be designed to reduce the need for travel except to say that more compact cities decrease the need for travel, especially travel to work. AN ENERGY-CONSUMPTION SCENARIO FOR 2010 The two previous sections presented estimates of the energy-saving poten- tial from a variety of behavioral and technological changes. Table 22 combines the impacts of a number of assumed changes to give a detailed

74 g 01 • A 1 i CO l 3 Vi , 5 rH IH O CU CU iH CU 3 CO o Vl j: co 3 rH CO iH •H 0 J2 CU 0 CO CU 1 i«H O O 0 U ~ CO 4J U -H 4J 00 0 CO .- C u co c 0 0 Vi CU CU 0 3 0 0 CO -H • c c — 4J -o B O O •H Vi - M o o 0 rH u CO . • — • CU CO ai co • 0 T3 — — '-. *1 - — 7. rH iH lH c J2 O CU ca g 3 oc Vi CU 0 CU CU f\ • o o -H -a 4-1 B O Vi •O o co o £ •H CU rH •H Vi 4J 3 0 CU a co -H i4H 4J co y I-H 4J CO C| rH 0 PH CU 4J — 4J (0 0 4 O CO Vt i •a co CO co Vi C g CO 00 O1 t>^ ^H ^ -H (X 4J CU •H CU O iH cS •H 4-1 • 'vO « r^ ex 0 4J CO > CO •H O X ~- 0 03 CU vD o J3 Vi to r^ > f* CU CO O CO 00 03 Vi — — : U • WO • ~ 1 o\ J3 Vi CU 0 01 4-1 cx CO Vi 0 — '--:- — 3 B 0 rH O 0 • 4J -> « (X 0 Vi 3 0 3o M iH O O CO -H CO O T3 * •H •• m oi n OI co y iH -H ^4H CO 4-J 4J CU O CU •H 4-1 -H co m ca y co -H y pC 4j q) at •H 00 4J 4J - 4J tt C0 y c M -H 00 CO ^ B rH § -.-—-. VI 5 OOrH rH CO 3 rH 3 0 -H rH 4J oo y MH o CU B i-l -H tX-H 00 4J cx co Vi OI ol CU 0\ O H H > 3 CU PH O PH co co co D.-H CO rH 0 < OJ rH -H CO ^_ 4J 0 CU •a co CU Vi •o CU OI c 0 > fa CU •H CO CO T3 CO CU 0 — 03 01 CU 3 00 -H CO 03 CU 4J O CO « 4J « jC 4J 0 0 0 14H 00 oo -a CU c o ca O Vi CU CU J= i*-! CU -H (X CU •0 Vi §c 0 U 4J CO rl U m «o CU Vi 01 G 00 CU M{ CO m CU 3 Vi •H CO CU O c o cx-o o 3 4J 00 CXrH •H -H CU O cr c c 4J CU CU -H k4 ft-? Vi s 1*^ M U 4J Vi CO *J Zl CO CO 00 CU CU lO c — 43 •H 4J CO CU JS 1 CU u CO (X O co 4-1 B j3 p. CU CX 0 3 CO 2 -a u 0 O CX•H •H : co 3 CM rH CO 1 CM CU 4J •a 00 4J CU OI c 0» CO M i4H CO Vi •H 4J 3 CU o e 0 .C rC U V4 •H o U Vi 00 o •H U Vi g. 4J 4J CU •4H -H J3 3 03 CO 0 •H 4J O rH CO a 4J IH Vi U 4J ai s rH rH CO CO rH c 4J o CO 4-* O 4J O rH •H CU £» CO •H 4J co m 4J p£i CU CU Vi en 0) & 4-1 CO o m Vi 00 rH O1 3 M U E . CO Tt CU i4H O 4J CO OJ o o : a c X iH -* 5 £9 § TJ • VI CU r^TJ 4J 01 rl H 3 4J T3 CO "c § y 4_i rH CU CU 3 X = V c o Vi y o >, rH 4J CO CO y 8 Vl 01 CM rH •H CU 3 00 O 4J CO 4J 0 a) r i4H JD 4J ^ T3 vO 4J co -a CO -H 4VI -o ca a ,3 cS 0 M (S o U H 93

75 A CO 60 r.^i CO CO M 60 60 CU 0 0 • M cd rH • • •H ^H •o cu (Xi •H . '* rH ^*J (U rC c O r-j o •H i-l £; 1) > w c 3 -3 rH 01 <U 3 0 cd a •g rH S 3 a •" a a • cd cd — 6 TJ cd d m CU •H 60 O /-x rH •u t-> G CU M cd o oo -H m ^ U o 0) MH pj 4_l r~~- •H cu P-I r4 '|[ yQ •• •H O\ co -o CO rj g CO fr« rH -J O. rH § •H 4J CU -H co fi CO a at rH CO rH <H M 4J CO cx CU 60 CD cu (* £ CO d 04 T< o •» cd 0 9 CO : M rH E CO g ,— V ^-, "— .v 60 cd ot « O h CU rH rH rH t-4 d - (X l-i CO •H > O •H rH O 0 H cd > 4J 01 •H at 0\ Q\ O^ ^ • u O 0 •H 14-1 ex O -H rO T3 4J iH l-l i-| cd cx co 8 01 cd 1 rH Z 4-J CO 0 "O •H CO cd C 3 M CX o « cd ^^ 41 CO CO (0 > 4-1 J2 O\ M Jj cu M h M CU c a • *> •o cons CU CU CU 01 A 0J U CT> •H CO a 1 60 cd •H CU CU rH C/3 ^ O v£> s •H 93 M CX M -H CU 3 0 0- PJ W g 60 o c H -H •H d o 0 -H 0 4J -F1 Tl CO T3 co 0 ^O •H O CO P O IH 1 CN O O rH m o\ o <u cu 00 m CN CN rH rH 4J (X O cd O- x: cx & 4-1 M •H O •o CU rH CO O :=> M 4-J • o c ^ u 00 * *» vO to d « c d o cu 0 -H 60 O 3 rH -H CU -H rH 0 -H o h rH > •H •H 4J _^ •H ^4 •H -3 .C CU cx cd u cd o •H T3 u CXrH ^ 4J O O •H 3 IH CO o TJ rH S rH ** •a • CU 4J 0 d CO M 4J C CO u O O 60 iH .d IH rH o CO •H Vl •H P-i 60 O rH CO £ 4J o CO 4-l V1 3 cd JJ l-l rH d cd 0 e o 4-1 S o jj <U rH cu O rH O O IH 3 •o 4-1 js cd CO d •o 3 •H 0 V-i a •H •M S CU •H d co O Ij [ ^J O •H y cd M -H d •H CO tH £t at . P. •0 60 ^ •H MH •O co 01 M CO S co s 01 d •H CU 60 (0 CU 3 *J M) 0 01 IH o •3 a 00 CO CU CU ^ J f4 O X a « o 4J 4-1 rH CX -H •H 3 0 T3 •H u o -H rH cu u cd > ~ cu O O 0 0 &^ IH j3 4J rH CO v.i cd *o cd •U S cd 43 •H -H O o ^ <Q m •H CU 3 O C- o -«• i 4-J cd 4J cu p 4-l U 0) 3 3 f£j •H rH 6 4J «t 4-1 CU •H 4-l rH IH (( I-i X 4-i iH 3 M 9 Cd 4J iH j cd rH V 4-1 3 O co o O rH CO O \Q rH CO rH o CO : O M 0 4-1 43 CU 3 ps M 3 4-J -H M 0 CM CO 4-l •H CO cd CO CO 4-J -o CO co o 3 O CU pj 0! T3 d 0 O U Pd M (2 <• M M CO

76 Table 18 Energy saving changes in water heating systems Action Energy saved, in percent Insulate heater with 4-5 inch insulation 9 Reduce use to 40 gallons per day by using flow restrictors, warm water for dishwashing and clothes washing, care taken with all water use 12.5 Reduce temperature and assume 62 gallons used at 120° F instead of 50 gallons at 140° F 16.5 Combination of three above actions 30 a All figures based on calculations made at Lawrence Berkeley Labora- tory with the standby losses of the A. 0. Smith water heater. The losses are consistent with Quinn (1972). We assume a 30-gallon water heater and 50 gallons per day use at 140° F for a household of three. Table 19 Energy savings in water heating through use of solar energy Action Energy saved, in percent Install solar water heaters 50 Reduce temperature to 120° F and reduce use to 40 gallons per day 30 Combine two actions above 65 •a Based on calculations made at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

77 CU 00 rH CU cd cd cn 4J rj 4J 3 rHrHCM 1-^ 00 0 "I \O <r U-i o CU 41 rH •» r» iH CM U1 CM rH CM -3' O CJ MH CU CO -J. CS rH rH CO 3 CU O U-I PU CU 3 > J. | T3 •H cd rH CU m in -a m o r- O I~-OOOO vC \O O TO ON uo 00 CO rH IM O OOO O O rHOOOO CU rH CU u PS CU a M UH J O <r<r<r o o m coinminin 0 a o cd rHrHrH CM (N CM COCMCMCMCM cd CU jj cn iH *^ 3 a rH CO t CU CU 1 rH 3 co cn MH I4H CU o- no 0 cO CU O rH DO cd ,C 3 T3 73 T3 »T ^H CNJ ^j »J LO \D r~» C3 ^3 ^D ^J f^ U >^^ 4-I j_J 0) eo a. ^>\OO OO^vOiO ^ OCMOiHCO •H iH vO iH CM iH iH CO <c 01 *H ^ cn ,1 rH M i-l a. CU 00 >o 0 0 ™j •rt CU ^^ 01 1— 1 t 43 U-I ( a fa OJ 73 o ^ CU o fH y CU rH T rH to CD •H CU 4J '& o ex 00 QJ cd i— 1 O iH vOvOroiri o vocNirH-^m cd cd IH 4-l > <roocM rHr-.o^ m CNJCMCOIOCO M ** 3 0 4J CO •<!• ,H rH rH rH CO •H rH a CU rH 0 rH o cd ca .H cd M 4J CU g 4J ex CU 0 4J rH 3 •H PL, •H o CU M ^ &-s ^ o-j cd m •H » f» CO ^ CU 00 •O ^ 00 t •H CJ CU CU cd i-K -*" cd 4J CO 4-J rH ca CO ^ r-^ I~- ^S- rHCM <f rHi— I^3-O\O c3 rj cx m 3 CU •H CM-tfvO rHiO.^.fH ON OONiHCMC-! cd m w a w u MH &-, CO CO rH 1— t CO rH CM h T3 M O 4J p^ CU CU a ON ^i 0 ! — | PH •O S_^ 4J cd ,0 CU g § •g 4-I 3 •H 4J o 4J 0 0 M rH g cu cO 4J CO CO -H y-^ rH O cd cu rH CO > CU U Vi ^- nj ^ ,Lj e cu o M 0 cj O rH > 01 cj co ca oo *3 ecu l •H CO M •B rH cd rl O CUCOi-l3rH0 rH0O O I H rH 0 cd CN 4-1oicd^)cd•H cdo-H -H 3CU cd -9 <9 cd iH O •a ca CU CX 304J UCXVl4J•HC10 4J4JCOM4-> a OJ cu • 0 44 M g-HO X-HCX01O 4J-H rHCO-HCOOIO 4-I T3 CU EcnH IHT3OXE-I cdrH cdocoo1j3H 4J •H •§> cx J 44 O 3 -H OJ J3 4-1 Uo1-HCO-HrH4)J D. 4-I UJ rH .0 cfl H Vjt->oa es^o 3I-l O>>PL,O cd 3 a rH « •H CU U 3 IM O cd T3 O 3 M « O 3 fa u cn a U • a 43

78 Table 21 Potential reduction in miles traveled and gasoline use, compared to 1970 Automobile use Reduction in total vehicle miles traveled (percent) Reduction in fuel use (percent) Using 13.7- Using 25- Using 35- mpg car mpg car mpg car Work Increase load factor in commute to 2 17.0 16.4 24.7 27.2 Decrease business miles 20% 1.6 1.4 4.0 4.9 Family business — 50% reduction in trips 7.8 11.8 16.7 18.4 Civic, education, religious 0 0 2.6 3.5 Social Vacation0 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.2 Visitsd 0 0 5.2 7.0 Pleasure 1.6 1.3 1.9 2.1 Otherd 5.3 5.8 9.2 10.7 Total savings 33.8 37.1 65.2 75.0 5% longer to account for pick-up and drop-off ^Average number of trips per day reduced by half; average distance per trip increased by 20% °Vacation is 20% closer to home or eliminated Shorter trips walked or eliminated; average trip length increased

79 energy-consumption scenario for 2010. Estimates of the energy saving potential are discussed in the footnotes to Table 22, in the appendix to this chapter. In Table 22, the first column gives 1972 energy consumption by end use. (More recent data indicate that energy consumption in 1975 was quite similar to that in 1972.) The energy-saving potentials for each technological and behavioral option adopted, given as percentages of 1972 consumption, are shown in the second column. Current energy con- sumption is multiplied by one hundred minus the potential energy saving percentage, and then divided by 1972 population (207 million people) to yield potential energy consumption per capita (or per household, where applicable) for each activity, if the conservation measures were uni- formly implemented. This result is then scaled up or down depending on the relative per-capita activity level (2010 versus today), shown in column 3. This activity-level factor attempts to account for the effects of rising per-capita income and saturation of each energy-consuming end use. Finally, the projected population estimate for 2010 of 278.8 million people is used to scale up per-capita energy use in calculating the total energy consumption by end use for 2010, given in the fourth column. Footnotes, in column 5, refer to the appendix, where specific conserva- tion measures that could bring about the energy saving for each end use are indicated. Although energy-price responses are not directly modeled, they are incorporated in the calculations through the saving factors. The esti- mates in Table 22 agree closely with those of the Demand and Conservation Panel (1976). In the residential sector, the Demand and Conservation Panel results are based on an engineering-economic model in which energy prices are included. In the commercial sector, roughly estimated overall efficiencies for each building type were assumed. The industrial-sector results are also based on judgmental actions expected to take place if energy prices quadruple. Energy savings in the transportation sector are assumed to result from increased energy prices in the case of the behavioral changes and from higher efficiency standards in the case of the technological changes. The standards and/or technological changes may also arise from higher energy prices. For a complete description of sectoral responses, see Demand and Conservation Panel (1976). A summary of the estimates presented in Table 22 is given in Table 23. The overall conclusion is that, without any drastic reorganization of living, working, and transportation patterns, per-capita energy con- sumption can be lowered. In the face of a population increase of 35 percent between 1972 and 2010, the postulated set of behavioral and tech- nical changes results in only a 2-percent increase in energy consumption. Per-capita energy consumption decreases by 24 percent.3 aAn analysis of the energy-conservation potential for California with similar input data and assumptions (although with a considerably more detailed treatment of the growth and decay of energy using stocks and calculation of energy savings) yields results consistent with the find- ings in this chapter. See Benenson et al. (1978).

80 CU m 1-1 O O CM CM LO f^- ON i~H co a * « rH fH rH rH fH CM (M u ^ r^ CTI o • If CO ^J- \D OO O CO « « fa • CO CM H o • • •• rH rH h CO \O CO rH iH IH rH rH rH CM rH rH CM §Sc Vi O CU i-l O X-N B 4J rH CO CU O.O T3 B CM CO rH rH \O »0 r^ rH ^ in r^ ^j. in ON in co eo oo r^ -& • • •• •••••• • • • rH 3 3 CO O rH O O vO CO ON CO ^ in rH in O ir., f^ CO rH CO CO 0 CT 4J C -H ^ rH iH rH rd O O fa H 0 CO 00 0 •rH cd ^ 41 CO •o oi c oi Vi 0 >-, CU a -H o toO CO r-l h CO >, CO CU i CU 4-1 4J CX IJ -H i-l ^ CM O O O O (M 0 0 0 CO CM O CM \D § B o > a. rH U-l O CM rH CO rH rH 0 i-l coo rH rH rH iH CN r- W 4J O O 4J U rH CO O * CM O o rH /-v CM CO CO 4J i-l 00 0 C 4J 0 CU •H 0 .H O i t» h r^ O O O O in o m in 0 co U CO CU \O OO CO ^ <r r» m rH rH m CU o co ^a CO ~ 4J W •o CU •H >, S-< i M e co M i-l T3 CU CO CU 0 V 3 X ai ai cr M rH CM ON r» (O \OCMOO rHCMr^-^-^* m CJN OO f^ c CO CO CM r^ C5 rH O o O ^3- ^ ON CM CO rH vO O « m CM oo •H 4J 0 r- rH rH rH fH o o ON 1 H 0 r-l 4J CO CO CU CU o u co cn at CO 10 •O OI £ O 0 a o cn n h iH rH •H O CU C rH 0 4J rH c 0 CO O re CU •H Tt 1H u 0 4J 4J U ^4 0 rH T» CO 0 co o -H CO CU CU 60 MCU Vi a 4J 1H 4J U 3 0i tJ CU CO CO 0 U IH •H e 1H G G CU 00 C 00 CU CO CU CO Ol a1 •i-l •o GOG 00 CU G 00 M 0 H O e •H -H iH T3 HO 01 E IH CU 4J 4J 4J CO i-l O •H CU rH O 00 O £ rH CO •H CO CU CO •H rH 4-1 rH CO •H iH u •O CO CU T3 CU O 4J rH CO CO -H u Vi a i-( O § 1-1 J3 c js a O 4J 4J 4J Xt O 4-1 CO -H rH •H rJ CO CM 4J O CO 4-1 0 0 M O 4-l0 o CM c 0l a i-. 'H H X>CUH OB J^ViXiOI H O 4J 4 J CU O CU rH T3 CO IH 4-1 Ou CU 3 rH D.O UCU3rH IH O O CU O •H a -H co a MU in u )-i 3 j= cn w 0 3 ij Vi 4J « •< < H O i w £ 4J CO CO < 3 < 8 O CO CU CU Q H CO a H u

81 in CM • GO Ox O rH CM co ^ in \o ^ CO CM CM CM CM CM CO CO co co co co co in m in O m ON CM CM MS CM t~ CO VO in vo in vo "4- • • St CO 0 rH O m co o rH O CO CM in *3- vO CM rH O oo CM in co co CM co in oo CM CM rH rH CM NO NO CO CM CM rH CO CO m CM m m IH r» in o vO o CM -a" rH OO CO CO rH O O o «* i-l -3. CM •* CO CO CM -3- ^ • h CU a 1 0 0) j; 4J O vO CM in iH vO ON rH CM rH CM >O rH t^ O •* m ON m CM CM 4-J O r-l O CO rH O IH o co CM in o m CM C5 CM -JJ. O rH rH •H CM co t— T3 d 0l 00 a f- (X ( •H cd 60 1 . i 5 •O CU M •o to rl SCO cd O CU o o CU C 1 rH (X O /-\ 60 ex o £X X-N 4-l G G G cd ^ rH •H 0 O iH T) O CO M •H d •H cd CO 0l c o ^ 3 4J 5 4-l .H 0l 3 CO 4-1 D. cd vj 4J •O en to cd CU iH «H 0 O M •H M 4J O IH T3 CO •U 0 CU CO d u •O 60 a1 CU v-' 60 U O •5 a 3 CU V 3 1 0 3 •H 01 13 o 9 1 MH HH 0 CU C ciO •H 'O 4J U O O 0l M d • o 4-l § CO •H CM 4-J 3 Vi •H CO 8 rH O 3 t-> 3 3 rH 0 O CO 3 CO 01 *J CO •H •O d. T3 cd •H rH 0l TJ V d C E 4-l rH rH <J T3 r-l JJ Vi O O b-, 4-l M CO 4-l 41 0 3 r-l CO Cd 3 c cd o u Vi CU Vi M O | ' LJ O M O is rH tj C 3 4-l •HO0 >> 0 -H cj B 9 t* | U U 1H •H -H 4-1 cd 34-l0 ago. CU 4J U O d 0l 4-1 A d a e to •« C O M T3 42 CU tO 0 0l •H 3 rH CO O CL. CO C« H d A 4i H § § •H l-c M H M jj 4l 0l 0 O rH IH CO CU O M (X, (8 rS J3 rH 60 4J CO •H 3 rH MH GO U o o • 4-J cu ^1 ^ o 4= 43 O O O U O f*4 M 0l O iw d iH cn •O iu a o « 3 0l rH CU s 41 r-j 01 O d (/] •< M H cd .a u V

82 Table 23 Summary of energy consumption scenario for the United States in 2010 Factor _^ Year Percentage of change 1972 2010 Population (millions) 207 278.8 +35 GNP (billion 1972 dollars) 1,500 2,862 +90 Energy consumption (quads) 71.2 72.3 + 2 GNP, per capita (dollars) 7,246 10,264 +42 Energy consumption, per capita (million Btu) 343 259 -24 These energy-consumption figures refer to nonrenewable raw-energy sources measured at the point of extraction (before cleaning, conver- sion, and transmission). In addition, the 2010 scenario includes about 4 quads of solar energy to provide some space heating and cooling and hot-water heating. This amount of raw energy, measured at the point of extraction, would otherwise have to be provided by nonrenewable resources to maintain the comfort levels assumed. The solar-input equivalent was calculated on the basis of the assumed savings factors for passive solar houses and solar water heaters, on the per-capita energy consumption per residential unit for the end uses affected (space heating and cooling and water heating), and on the population, savings-factor, and activity- level increases we postulated. We assumed that all other things were held equal, but a number of factors could alter our calculation in either direction. Among these are the extent of appliance saturation and the fuels required, average house size, and the number of each type of resi- dential unit. Thus the estimate of total energy use and the fossil-fuel equivalent provided by solar energy is extremely tentative. Although it is difficult to project total expenditures for energy in 2010, it is assumed that the rise in energy prices is to some extent offset by decreased per-capita energy consumption. Therefore, the pro- portion of personal consumption expenditures spent for energy goods and services is assumed to remain near the historical percentage (approxi- mately 10 percent) of the total GNP. Much concern about decreased per-capita energy consumption is focused on the relationship between energy and output, the assertion being that if per-capita energy consumption were reduced, per-capita production would decrease. However, the behavioral and technological

83 changes assumed In this scenario do not decrease the per-capita pro- duction of goods and services. Consumers retain approximately the same levels of comfort in space heating and cooling and in water heating. These services are merely delivered more efficiently, and some care is taken in their use. Transportation services are used more efficiently. For those who engaged in long commutes and experienced the accompanying traffic jams of the 1970's, reductions in trips and vehicle miles trav- eled for conducting business and obtaining services may likely be per- ceived as a benefit rather than a hardship. Finally, in the industrial and commercial sectors, the savings hypothesized per unit output do not stem from production cutbacks but from more efficient energy use derived from known technologies. However, the estimates in Table 23 of overall energy consumption are affected by the GNP growth-rate assumption as well as by the estimates of saturation and savings potential by sector. For example, the assumed growth rate of overall industrial output, and accordingly the growth rates of the particular industrial sectors as delineated, enter the calculations directly as scaling factors of per- capita energy consumption in industry. These assumptions are stated explicitly in the footnotes to Table 22 (see the appendix to this chap- ter). The above results relating income to energy use are in accord with two conclusions of the Modeling Resource Group: that (1) GNP is an im- portant determinant of the demand for energy, all else being equal, but that (2) the reverse relationship may not hold because there appears to be considerable opportunity for lowering the growth rate of energy with only minor effects on real income. As long as the reduction of energy use is gradual and foreseen and does not exceed the normal turnover of capital and labor, the reduction could be absorbed without significant unemployment of capital and labor (Nordhaus, 1976b; National Research Council, 1978). The analysis on which these conclusions are based assumed that the government effectively implements economic policy to maintain full employment. Another important issue is the relationship between energy consump- tion and employment. This has been discussed in the more narrow context of the employment impacts of energy conservation; it is argued that the decision to cancel construction of a power plant (because of decreased demand) means the loss of construction jobs. But this is too limited a aThis conclusion holds for an energy-price elasticity of -0.5 or greater. As detailed by the CONAES Modeling Resource Group (National Research Council, 1978), there is some econometric evidence to support the accu- racy of this estimate (e.g., the work of Griffin and Gregory (1976) and the empirical estimation of the demand curves in the Nordhaus model). But the price-elasticity estimate is still in dispute. It is possible that the elasticity is low enough so the cutbacks in energy use could lead to significant cutbacks in real income. The energy growth rates projected by the Modeling Resource Group indicate a long-run decline in the ratio of energy use to GNP. Furthermore, the feedback through real income to energy demand from all but the most drastic energy policies is expected to be less than 2 percent of energy demand.

84 perimeter to draw around the issue of job impacts from energy conserva- tion. The United States economy is extremely interrelated, with indi- vidual sectors buying from and selling to each other, thereby generating one another's income and employment. This interrelationship and the fact that energy-conservation measures usually require labor and mate- rials lead to the conclusion that energy-conservation measures, while decreasing the demand for future energy production facilities, lead di- rectly to expansion in other sectors. For example, in the case of passive solar housing construction, expansion would occur in the glass and insulation industries and in the industries that produce materials for increasing shading and thermal mass. Additional employment would also be required at the construction site to install the materials that provide shading and thermal mass. At the same time, construction of power plants and attendant facilities would be dampened, resulting in employment cutbacks in these sectors. Thus income and employment changes in both directions are anticipated. The net impacts depend on the particular conservation measure in question and the type of power plant construction that is obviated. MECHANISMS FOR IMPLEMENTING ENERGY CONSERVATION The preceding material developed an energy scenario that embodies a sig- nificant amount of energy conservation. The results were given in detail in Table 22 and then summarized in Table 23. Footnotes to Table 22 de- scribed a number of energy-conserving measures and their associated energy savings. The question now arises about what might induce producers and consumers to adopt these measures. This section responds to this ques- tion by indicating some of the implementing mechanisms that could bring about substantial energy conservation. An attempt is made to anticipate some of the impacts and obstacles that might be associated with these mechanisms. This information is presented in a matrix of the implementing mechanisms (columns) and their potential impacts and obstacles (rows). The latter are used as a checklist. For a given implementing mechanism designed to reduce energy consumption, as assessment of the likely impact is made. The results of this assessment are shown in Table 24. The number of impacts and obstacles presented is a subset of a larger list of po- tential impacts, some of which do not appear to apply to the particular conservation measures considered. Some other conservation measures, for example, may imply enforcement difficulties and changes in work rules; international economic impacts such as changes in the balance of payments; and locational impacts such as regional shifts in income and employment and tendencies toward demographic and economic centralization. (Impacts from policies in the transportation sector are included in the trans- portation chapter of the Demand and Conservation Panel (1976) draft.) The matrix developed is intended to indicate problems and benefits associated with conservation measures. It is not a complete exposition of the impacts; nor is it an exhaustive list of the measures by which energy conservation may be induced. For example, retrofit installation

85 of storm windows and insulation could also be accomplished by encour- aging utilities to adopt conservation loan programs. Energy-saving features in multifamily houses could be obtained by building-code re- visions. Increased installation of rooftop solar collectors for space and water heat might be facilitated as much by educational programs and building-code changes as by additional research and development. Although the matrix is incomplete, several insights can be drawn from developing it. First, there is a variety of policies and other mechanisms by which energy-conservation measures could be implemented. Second, both positive and negative impacts are likely to be associated with their adoption; therefore it is advisable to anticipate as many impacts as possible to mitigate the unintended consequences. Third, a more general inferential conclusion is that there are likely to be both positive and negative impacts from any energy policy, be it conservation- oriented or production-oriented. Therefore, potential impacts and ob- stacles associated with the implementation of any energy policy should be identified as clearly and completely as possible so that the alter- natives can be meaningfully compared.

87 I 1 ' .1 •i!'5-! Increase in gov- ernment or pri- vate industry 1? s^ $ S= 8 « E £B S3 5.i 1 1 in n S 8 1 ** c n • Ifc -!_ 1 1 J 8 a ~ 3 X Illll g | S S o S g S B. S E in * i i I u j i 1 Unclear; may af- fect balance of payments favor- ably if energy imports decrease Potential increase for energy sup- pliers i Potentially strong Uncertain 5. £ z. S h E ~ Q 6 ja &i » e 1 s. s g S..E i • • it O 4> •- 0 .o ? i il 1 1 i « o| S S & « 1 ! 1 § S S I II 'E I S E g = S O * Present appliance efficiency standards — .o a £ .o o ^ p I I 1 I 1 • i 11 Less than S yean 1 a S. S J iii j . j £ E I* 3 S M S 2 o 3 -e a « ° 2 III " Hi HI C S! | 1 •0^5 2 i i replacemc I " c S 5 6 « — S IIIIll 2 si 1 a g £ il li §L U 1 ^ i -S s i 11- PS i i i 5 8 ~ p p .,. S c S ^ ? H Is x .5 CL « -O x s z e z c £as £ § 2 J ! s 1 til 1 1 § ^- X 0. f c , I! s s P £ « 5 g c c ills 1 1 il 11 •a _ .£ .2 1 II J U W is II !l = 1 ill! 5 ** 5 s = Si •ij il 1 1^ H ^ .s I s s V> li 11 c i II 3 ' ' 1 U 11 11 1 1 *S si ill 1 1 1 ^ fi ~3. sS ^ . i »l 1 ° • • i ' ~ § i „ i i 3 X B •! - * i S « 8 'i £ 8 W) i 09 S S ft u 2 111! o «• 3 £ .s I — E c _ il , | |8 0 a 1 i!S § IN TJ u C .^ 11 .Is §1 3« il — u O i E S g ft g S g II |i i S •H s « .S § <J J £ o U J! U 0 I3 « c I 5 11 X. — ~ — c. *

88 APPENDIX: NOTES TO TABLE 22 1. Sources: For residential, commercial, and transportation sectors, Seller (1975); for industrial sector, Richard W. Barnes, Dow Chemical U.S.A., from material developed for the Supply and Delivery Panel. 2. This factor may be interpreted as the percentage change in the per- capita consumption of the amenity for which energy is used. It is attributable to rising income for the following end uses: residen- tial space heating and cooling, and automobile and air transportation. For water heating, appliances, and other residential uses, the acti- vity estimates are based on a saturation factor unique to those appliances. The activity figures assigned to industry, commerce, and transportation are estimates of the per-capita growth rates of the sectors. We assume an overall increase of 0.8 percent per capita per year in industry, or a 32-percent increase over present produc- tion by 2010. Historically, some industries have exceeded the aver- age growth rate for the industrial sector as a whole and others have lagged behind it. The growth rates have therefore been adjusted to account for the potential continuation of this trend. Adjustment factors for each industry were computed by expressing historical growth rates of that industry as a percentage of the historical total industrial growth rate. These computations are shown in the table of annual growth rates (Table 25). The resulting assumed annual per-capita growth rates of these industries are as follows: aluminum, 0.48 percent; agriculture, 0.32 percent; cement, 0.64 percent; chemicals (fuel and power), 1.4 percent; chemicals (feed- stock), 1.4 percent; construction (asphalt), 0.8 percent; food, 0.6 percent; glass, 0.64 percent; iron and steel, 0.48 percent; paper, 0.8 percent; residual manufacturing and mining, 0.8 percent. Over a 35-year period these growth rates yield the assumed increased activity per-capita figures shown in the third column of Table 22. 3. Lowering the thermostat from 72°F during the day and to 55°F at night results in a 37-percent saving. Applying ceiling and wall insulation, weatherstripping, and storm windows to half the houses yields a 25-percent saving. A 30-percent saving is obtained from heating only 70 percent of the house. Combining these measures results in a saving potential of 67 percent: (1 - .37)(1 - .25) (1 - .30) = 0.33, or 0.67 saving potential. Because the 67-percent saving factor is derived from retrofit measures, it applies to the old stock of houses still in use in 2010 (51.13 million units). The assumptions for all housing units are shown in Table 26. The poten- tial saving for new plus replacement units is estimated to be 72 percent. The saving potential is applied to 53.87 million units (see Table 26). The 72-percent saving potential is derived by assum- ing a 65-percent saving from using 2" x 6" stud construction to per- mit more ceiling and wall insulation, a 10-percent saving from reduction of floor space by 10 percent, and a 10-percent saving from south-facing windows to increase heat gain and retention during the

89 Table 25 Annual growth rates by industry Industry Historical Growth rate growth rate adjustment 1950-1973 factor (percent per year) Total industry 4.38 1.0 Primary metals 2.45 0.6 Clay, glass, and stone products 3.42 0.8 Miscellaneous manufacturing 4.56 1.0 Paper 4.58 1.0 Chemicals 7.75 1.75 Food 3.18 0.75 Agriculture 1.74 0.4 Source: Bureau of the Census (1975b) Table 26 Composition of residential units, in millions Type 1976 2010 Old Replacement3 New Total Single family 48.3 33.9 14.4 15.0 63.3 Multi-family 21.5 15.1 6.3 15.0 36.4 Mobile home 3.0 2.1 0.9 2.3 5.3 Total 72.8 21.6 32.3 105.0 aAssumes that existing st Source: Adapted from : at 1 percent per year ervation Panel (1976)

90 winter. The calculations of total savings potential parallels the one given immediately above. 4. This factor implies that, as income rises, the expenditures for housing are made to obtain better location and quality and not to increase floor space greatly per capita (which would increase space-heating requirements). It is assumed that the number of people per housing unit decreases from the 1976 estimate of 2.94 to 2.37 for the additions plus replacements in 2010. 5. The 67-percent saving potential results in 0.01 quad of energy con- sumed per million people; the 72-percent saving potential for new plus replacement units results in energy consumption of 0.0096 quad per million people. The estimate of 3.06 quads of energy consump- tion in 2010 is a composite of both savings estimates applied to the appropriate housing stocks. The derivation is as follows: 51.13 (old housing stock in millions) x 2.94 (people per housing unit) = 150.32 million people residing in old houses to which retrofit measures apply. 150.32 x 0.0096 (quad per million people) x 112% (increased activity per capita) = 1.68 quads. 278 (population in millions, year 2010) - 150.32 (million people residing in old houses) = 128 (million people residing in new and replacement units to which new housing energy conservation measures apply). 128 x 0.0096 (quad per million people) x 112% = 1.38 quads + 1.68 =3.06 quads. 6. The 80-percent saving potential is derived from the following con- servation measures: increase thermostat setting by 2°F (16-percent saving), open windows to cool when possible (20-percent saving), cool half the area of the house that is now cooled (50 percent), and install a high-efficiency window air conditioner (40 percent). The composite saving potential parallels the calculation in note 3 above. 7. A 50-percent per-capita increase in the units air conditioned is assumed. 8. The 30-percent saving potential is assumed to result from 4-5 inches of insulation installed, water use maintained at 50 gallons per day, and the temperature setting reduced to 120 F. The 30-percent saving is applied to the existing housing stock plus 40 percent of the new and replacement units (72.67 million units). A 65-percent saving potential is applied to the remaining new residential units (32.32 million). This assumes solar water heaters for 60 percent of the houses built after 1976, thermostat setting at 120 F, and water use maintained at 50 gallons per day.

91 9. Water heaters are assumed to saturate at the present per-capita consumption. 10. Energy consumption for conventional water heaters is calculated with a 30-percent saving potential as follows: 1.87 quads/72.8 residential units in 1976 = 0.0256 quad per million units x 70 percent consumption = 0.0179 quad per million units x 72.67 (millions of existing plus 40 percent of new and replacement units) =1.30 quads. For solar water heaters, an analogous calculation is made using 32.32 million residential units, to which is applied a 65-percent saving potential. Estimated energy consumption is 0.28 quad, to which is added 1.30 quads for conventional water heaters, yielding total estimated energy consumption of 1.58 quads. 11. A saving potential of 40 percent for all appliances and other resi- dential end uses is assumed. 12. Appliances and other residential end uses are assumed to saturate at 1.2 times the present stock per capita. 13. This estimate is derived by multiplying total energy consumption for the residential sector by the assumed share for electricity and by the adjustment factor of 2.2349 (see Tables 27 and 28). 12.806 (energy dissipated in generating electricity 2 2349 = by utilities, in quads) 5.730 (total electricity consumed, in quads) Table 27 Electricity use as percentage of total energy per sector Sector Year 1972a 2010 Residential 17.6 25.0 Commercial 21.5 21.5 Industrial 11.9 14.8 Transportation 0.001 0.010 aBeller (1975)

92 Table 28 Electricity losses in quads per sector Sector Year 1972 2010 Residential 4.19 3.4 Commercial 2.83 3.7 Industrial 5. 74 7.0 Transportation 0.04 0.3 Total 12.80 14.4 Source: Seller (1975) 14. The 75-percent saving estimate includes all measures described in Table 23 plus use of the 35-mpg car. 15. Automobiles are assumed to saturate at 1.2 times the present owner- ship per person. 16. The conservation measures that result in a 50-percent estimated saving are increasing the load factor from 0.5 to 0.7 (28 percent), increasing the average trip length and use of more-efficient ground transportation for shorter trips (14 percent), and increasing engine efficiency (10 percent). 17. Air travel per capita is assumed to increase by a factor of 3, which is a 4-percent annual per-capita increase in air passenger miles (see transportation chapter of Demand and Conservation Panel (1976)). 18. A 15-percent increase in efficiency is assumed (Source: transpor- tation chapter of Demand and Conservation Panel (1976)). 19. The per-capita increase in trucking is assumed to scale at 0.5 percent per capita per year, which is less than the per-capita increase in industrial output. The slack is assumed to be taken up by an in- crease in rail transport and a reduction in empty backhauling. 20. A 15-percent efficiency increase is assumed.

93 21. It is assumed that rail scales more than the per-capita increase in industrial output because truck transportation is scaled down. The calculation is based on Table 3, "Freight Cargo Ton Miles per Year per Person by Function and Vehicle," from a preliminary draft of "Transportation Energy, Conservation and Demand Options to 2010," Demand and Conservation Panel (1976). All figures are expressed in freight cargo ton miles per year per person. The calculation is indicated below: 1972 total transportation (except oil pipeline) was 6626.95. Scaling up at 1 percent per year for 38 years gives 9672.21. 1972 total truck transportation was 2891.66. Scaling up at 0.5 per- cent per year gives 3495.08. 1972 certified domestic air transport was 16.29. Scaling up at 1 percent per year gives 23.77. Subtracting 3495.08 and 23.77 from 9672.21 yields the residual left to rail: 6153.35 freight cargo ton miles per year per person. Calculating the growth rate from the 1972 value of 3719 to 6153.35 for 38 years yields 1.013 per capita per year, or 1.63 overall. 22. Source: Buildings chapter of Demand and Conservation Panel (1976). 23. Per-capita commercial floor space is assumed to double. 24. For the industrial sector, the estimated savings and the material in the corresponding footnotes were provided by Richard W. Barnes from material developed for the CONAES Demand and Conservation Panel. 25. Aluminum (a) Recycle scrap generated during production. Approximately 19 percent of finished aluminum production represents scrap input that is recycled. Assuming high energy prices, approxi- mately 50 percent of finished aluminum will be produced from recycled scrap, with 16 percent estimated saving. (b) Install new Alcoa process for aluminum smelting. Average energy consumption for smelting in 1972 was 7.7 kWh/lb. of aluminum. The new process requires 4.5 kWh/lb., for a saving factor of 42 percent. The breakdown of the major phases of aluminum production is given below:

94 Process Btu/lb Aluminum Refining 12,000 Smelting 26,000 Scrap reduction 6,000 Fabrication and holding 17,500 furnaces Total 62,000 Since smelting accounts for 42 percent of the energy consumed in aluminum production, overall saving attributable to this measure is approximately 18 percent. (c) Basic housekeeping: Plug leaks, reduce scrap, turn off unused lights, pumps, and motors, maintain optimum air to fuel ratio, use care in oper- ating procedures (e.g., eliminate unnecessary reheating), have regular equipment maintenance. (d) Waste-heat recovery: (1) Redesign holding furnaces. (2) Install Alcoa flash calcination process, which uses 30 percent less energy than present kilns. (3) Preheat combustion air and cold aluminum with heat from melting furnaces, resulting in 61-percent improvement in thermal efficiency of furnace. In general, the aluminum industry is expected to be responsive to energy-price increases because of the high energy content of alu- minum. This response would work in favor of energy conservation, but two factors mitigate this tendency. First, the lower quality of raw materials expected to be available in the future will in- crease energy requirements. Second, the switch from gas to coal and oil with lower combustion efficiency will increase require- ments. These factors are included in the estimates of energy savings. 26. Agriculture In the agricultural sector there are trends working for and against energy conservation. Elements of both trends are listed below. The overall estimated saving of 15 percent is net. Energy-conserving trends are: (a) Conversion of farm machinery from gasoline to diesel is esti- mated to save 50 percent of the energy used for farm machinery The saving is approximately 0.1 quad, or 8 percent.

95 (b) Minimum tillage, 8 percent net. This results from a direct decrease in energy used for tilling, but more weed killers, which have a high energy content, are then required. (c) Better machinery operation, 8 percent. (d) Improved greenhouse operation. (e) Improved crop drying. (f) More efficient pumping for irrigation, probably offset by added irrigation requirements. Energy-consuming trends are: (g) Environmental controls reduce energy efficiency. They are not now a big factor, but they could become important if more stringent waste-disposal standards are adopted. (h) More intensive land use for increased yield requires more fertilizer, herbicide, insecticides, and irrigation. (i) If consumer preferences shift away from grain and toward meat, there may be as much as a 22-percent increase in energy re- quirements (0.26 quad). (j) Increased agricultural exports. 27. Cement (a) Switch from wet to dry process eliminates need to evaporate water from product. (b) Waste heat is recovered by increasing the thermal mass of the kiln. This is accomplished by welding the ends of chains to the inside of the kiln; heat is quenched in the chains, which also help to grind the cement. (c) Countering these saving measures is the shift from gas to coal, which requires energy to crush and grind it. 28. Chemicals (Fuel and Power) (a) Housekeeping (1) Maintain steam traps. (2) Eliminate loss of steam and process heat. (3) Reduce internal waste to reduce recycling.

96 (b) Process change (1) Use filtration instead of evaporation. (2) Change catalysts, which changes yield but reduces energy consumption. (c) Waste-heat recovery Several factors in the industry tend to increase energy con- sumption. Products that are most energy intensive are those that are growing the fastest (e.g., plastics, fertilizers, synthetic fibers, chemicals). If the historical trend con- tinues, energy consumption in this sector will be high. The trend in the use of plastics in automobiles is illustrative: before 1975, 20 to 30 Ib. of plastic was used in each auto- mobile. In 1975, more than 100 Ib. was used. By 1985-1990, 200-300 Ib. is projected. The plastic is used as a substi- tute for steel to reduce weight and thus conserve fuel. If a net energy saving is Achieved, this substitution has an obvious benefit. In the case of throwaway plastic containers and molded-plastic furniture, both of which are energy inten- sive and labor saving, many impacts are detrimental. From the point of view of energy and employment policy, the effects of differential growth rates in this industry should be explored. 29. Chemicals (Feedstocks) No savings are predicted. Products in this sector, such as naphtha, ethylene, and natural gas, are produced in petroleum refining. Their consumption is tied directly to the output of industries that use hydrocarbon feedstocks (e.g., plastics, synthetic fibers, fer- tilizers, and organic chemicals not elsewhere classified). Savings in the production of feedstocks are counted under refinery use (below). 30. Construction (Asphalt) (a) Recycle old asphalt. (b) Substitute sulfur for asphalt. 31. Food (a) Waste-heat recovery. (b) Housekeeping. (1) Conserve hot water. (2) Generate steam more efficiently.

97 The expenditure for energy represents a small percentage of the total dollar cost of food. No dramatic breakthroughs for energy savings have been foreseen. Since there has not been much incen- tive for energy conservation thus far, housekeeping practices are poor and substantial improvements can be made. (Potential savings were based on audits by Johns Manville.) 32. Glass (a) Housekeeping. (b) Waste-heat recovery. (c) Recycling is limited because of consumer rejection of recy- cled glass. Not included in savings calculation. (d) Deposits on bottles reduce growth projection. Flat-glass production has undergone substantial modernization during the past several years, so the potential for additional improvement here is less than for the remaining segments of the industry. 33. Iron and Steel Energy-conserving measures: (a) Housekeeping. (b) Process changes: (1) Use form coking. (2) Increase level of scrap available for recycling for an estimated 5 percent in energy saving. (3) Use hot-metal charges in electric steel operation to reduce electric energy input by 15-20 percent. (4) Use continuous casting to reduce reheating by consoli- dating operations within a plant and minimizing time spans between operations. Energy-consuming trends: (c) Environmental controls lead to an estimated 5-10-percent in- crease in energy input to produce equivalent product. (d) Shift in customer preference to stainless and alloy (high- strength) steel may require twice as much energy as for pro- duction of carbon steel.

98 (e) Use of low-grade coal in form coking (see b, above) is more energy intensive, although form coking still results in a net energy saving. Energy-conserving measures: (a) Housekeeping has 5-15-percent energy-saving potential because of present overall sloppiness in energy consumption. (b) Recycle scrap generated internally. (c) Waste-heat recovery. Energy-consuming trends: (d) Shift in consumer preferences toward more bleached paper. (e) Use of scrap as fuel rather than as paper. A major debate within the industry centers on whether to design a mill to use internally generated paper scrap for paper or for fuel. If scrap is used for paper, mechanical pulping is required and purchased electricity increases, although overall energy use is minimized. The alternative is to use scrap for energy, which reduces purchased electricity requirements but increases total energy requirements. In the maximum electricity-usage case, it is assumed that one-third of the mills use mechanical pulping and two-thirds use thermochemical pulping. 35. Residual Manufacturing and Mining (Fabrication) (a) Housekeeping. (b) Waste-heat recovery. (c) Conversion to diesel engines. There are large potential savings in these sectors because they have not been very energy conscious to date. 36. It is assumed that electricity use scales with industrial output, which is adjusted downward by 10 percent per unit of output for assumed energy conservation induced by higher energy prices. The calculation is shown below:

99 Elec- Industry Percentage tricity x growth increase in use in rate per population industry capita (1972) over 35 years Savings factor 2.6 quads x 1.32% x 135 0.10 Estimated electricity consumption in industry (2010) 4.1 quads To estimate electricity-generation losses, it is assumed that one- third of electricity in 2010 is cogenerated. The losses are computed below: Cogenerational Conventional Total Electricity (quads) 1.37 2.77 Loss factor (percent) 0.33 2.2349 Loss (quads) 0.45 6.19 6.64 For the derivation of the loss factor, see number 13, above. 37. For the energy-producing sectors, we assume that natural-gas pro- duction decreases by 25 percent (0.55 per capita), coal production increases by 50 percent (1.12 per capita), and oil production remains constant (0.75 per capita). 38. An efficiency increase of 40 percent in refinery use is assumed. This is consistent with the Btu/production unit calculations for scenario A of the Industry Resource Group's report to the Demand and Conservation Panel, in which real energy prices are assumed to quadruple. (The report is available in the CONAES public file.) 39. Losses are assumed to be approximately 10 percent of energy use.

100 REFERENCES Austin, T. C., and K. H. Hellman. 1975. Passenger Car Fuel Economy as Influenced by Trip Length. Paper prepared for national meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers, Feb. 1975, Detroit. Beller, M. , ed. 1975. Source Book for Energy Assessment. Upton, N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory. December. Benenson, P., R. Cordina, B. Cornwall, D. Dornfeld, B. Greene, J. Elliott, W. Kempton, C. Langlois, H. Nelson, J. Nides, F. Rouse, and C. Sullam. 1978. Energy Conservation: Policy Issues and End- Use Scenarios of Savings Potential. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL 7896). Bureau of the Census. 1975a. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Chapter G. Consumer Expenditure Patterns. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1975b. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Social and Economic Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1976. Survey of Current Business 56(1), Parts 1 and 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Demand and Conservation Panel. 1976. Draft report to the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Griffin, J. M., and P. R. Gregory. 1976. An Intercountry Translog Model of Energy Substitution Responses. American Economic Review, December. Hise, E. C., and A. S. Holman. 1975. Heat Balance and Efficiency Measurements of Central, Forced Air, Residential Gas Furnaces. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL-NSF-EP-88). October. Kravis, I. B., Z. Kenessey, A. Heston, and R. Summers. 1975. A System of International Comparisons of Gross Product and Purchasing Power. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Moyers, J. C. 1971. The Value of Thermal Insulation in Residential Construction: Economics and the Conservation of Energy. Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL-NSF-EP-9). December.

101 National Research Council. 1978. Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future. Modeling Resource Group, Synthesis Panel, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. 1979. Alternative Energy Demand Futures to 2010. Demand and Conservation Panel, Committee on Nuclear and Alter- native Energy Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Nordhaus, W. D. 1976a. Compiled in CONAES memo, June 7, 1976. Nordhaus, W. D. 1976b. What Is the Tradeoff Between Energy Consumption and Real Income? Paper prepared for CONAES, October 27, 1976. Pilati, D. A. 1976. Residential Energy Savings Through Modified Control of Space-Conditioning Equipment. Energy 1:233-239. Quinn, R. S., Jr. 1972. The Effect of Increased Capital Expenditures as a Method of Reducing Electricity Demand for Hot Water Generation in New Homes. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. August. U.S. Federal Highway Administration. 1969. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Next: NEW ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY AND RESOURCES: A HIGH-TECHNOLOGY, LOW-ENERGY SOCIETY »
Energy Choices in a Democratic Society: The Report of the Consumption, Location, and Occupational Patterns Resource Group, Synthesis Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Research Council. Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!