Enhanced End-Use Efficiency

  • David Hafemeister


This chapter is about energy success stories and potential success stories. Since the oil embargo, the United States has reduced its energy-use growth rate from 4.4% per year (1960–70) to about 1% per year. The nation’s appetite for energy rose from 74 quads in 1973 to 100 quads in 2004, a much smaller rise than the 1972 Atomic Energy Commission projection of 160 quads for 2000. Electric power consumption actually grew by 2% per year in the 1990s, reaching an average power of 450GWe in 2004. This growth was also well below the 1972 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) projection of 2000 GWe for the year 2000. The reason energy use by 2000 had not matched expectations is found in enhanced end-use efficiency. The United States has saved 50% of energy use on new autos (other than SUVs), houses and refrigerators since the oil embargo of 1973–74. Appliance standards saved the building of 50 large power plants, which would have consumed 3 quads/year. Energy demand could be cut by another 50% on new cars and houses, but it must be shown that these yeoman technologies are cost effective. Over a 10–20 year period, thicker insulation is cost effective, but it is far cheaper as installed on new construction, compared to when it is retrofitted to existing houses.


Heat Pump Spot Price District Heating System Incandescent Bulb Carnot Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, R. and J. Koomey (2003). Electricity use in California: Past trends and present usage patterns, Energy Policy 31, 849–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, M., M.D. Levine, J.P. Romm, A. Rosenfeld and J. Koomey (1998). Engineering-economic studies of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Five DOE Laboratory Study), Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 287–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, E. (1986). Cogeneration: Efficient energy source, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 11, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Beer, J., E. Worrell and K. Blok (1998). Future technologies for energy-efficient iron and steel making, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ford, K., G.I. Rochlin, R.H. Socolow, et al. (1975). The Efficient Use of Energy, American Institute of Physics Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Goldenberg, J., T. Johansson, A. Reddy and R. Williams (1985). End-use global energy strategy, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 10, 613–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hafemeister, D., H. Kelly and B. Levi (Eds.) (1985). Energy Sources: Conservation and Renewables, American Institute of Physics Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Hirst, E. (1997). Electric utilities in transition, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 22, 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kreith, F. and R. West (1997). CRC Handbook of Energy Efficiency, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  10. McLarnon, F. and E. Cairns (1989). Energy storage. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 14, 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nadal, S. (2002). Energy end-use and conservation: Appliance and equipment standards, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 27, 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Research Council (2001). Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It, 1978–2000? National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing, OTA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Office of Technology Assessment (1993). Industrial Energy Efficiency, OTA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Ross, J. and M. Ross (1978). Some energy problem, problems and solutions, Phys. Teacher 16, 272–279.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenfeld, A. (1999). The art of energy efficiency: Protecting the environment with better technology, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 24, 33–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenfeld, A., et al. (2000) Phys. Today 53, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenfeld, A., T. Kaarsberg and J. Romm (2002). Technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Phys. Today 53(11), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sherman, M. and I. Walker (1998). Can duct tape take the heat? Home Energy 15(4), 14–19.Google Scholar
  20. Sherman, M., I.S. Walker and D.J. Dickerhoff (2000). Stopping Duct Quacks: Longevity of Residential Duct Sealants, Proc. 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Washington DC. [LBNL-45423]Google Scholar
  21. Schipper, L., R. Hawarth and H. Geller (1990). US energy use from 1973 to 1987: The impact of improved efficiency, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 15, 455–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoenung, S., J.M. Eyer, J.J. Iannucci and S. Horgan (1996). Energy storage for a competitive market, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 21, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hafemeister
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations