Love this idea and excited to read more! Some initial responses that came to my mind are below.
1. "Energy demand will rise in the World and the US through 2050"
I'm skeptical that US energy demand will rise all the way through 2050, or at least wouldn't place it in the High Confidence category. On a total energy basis, the replacement of technologies with more energy efficient technologies (ICE to BEV) may be even more impactful than the energy efficiency improvements of given technologies.
2. "Data center demand in the US will increase at current consensus levels (18-27% / year) through 2028, and then, demand growth will come below current consensus levels for the few years after."
I agree with this one in particular and think you could even bump it up on a bit in certainty!
3. "Residential rate structures based on time-varying rates (e.g., time-of-use, critical peak pricing, real-time rates) will NOT be adopted by the majority of consumers; instead, subscription-based rates will (i.e., paying for services, not for energy)."
I think I probably agree with you on this one. To me, the more interesting questions are a) will a majority of consumers even have access to time-varying rates? b) will time-varying rates actually prove to reduce costs and carbon emissions and do so in an equitable way (i.e., not just energy nerds with Nests and people who can afford Smart Home and energy management applications reducing their costs while the utility's costs are still recouped from other consumers? and c) how do we encourage both PUCs/utilities to launch time-varying rates and consumers to adopt them?
Definitely open to discussing more in-person: initial responses below!
1. Well-said regarding the difference between energy consumed vs energy used; the latter may increase as the former decreases. This is a major factor, given waste heat from fossil fuel burning is ~70% in transportation, ~60% in electricity production, and lower for industrial activities. So, electricity demand can increase 50% by 2050, but total energy consumed can remain close to stagnant (According to EIA projections: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433)
2. This is likely one of the hottest topics of the past couple of years for customers + energy, overtaking EV and general electirification trends. The implications of this growth rate on other trends in the energy transition are massive (e.g., value of DERs, buildout of future supply)
3.
a) Great-point on access; 2020 data says ~25% of US households have access to TVRs, with 9.4% of US households on such rates (I have edited the original post to include this info)
b) I am quite confident TVRs will reduce carbon emissions; inspiration for a future blog post!
Hey Connor, the questions you pose here represent great opportunities for future businesses. I believe that the customers (end users) are less likely to voluntarily adopt energy saving measures unless they are provided the resources such as education, funding and tools necessary to reduce their energy/water/heat use. A better solution would be for a water heater manufacturer to begin developing their products in such a way that they are more energy efficient. Options such as shipping batteries with water heaters and having a mechanism for the water heater to determine if and when it should be heating the water using battery power or otherwise would be a valuable feature.
KD - Spot on. In a future post, I'll dive deeper into the customer side of the equation - the motivations behind adoption of energy behaviors and its impact back on companies (such as a water heater manufacturer).
I'll reach out to you to include you in a future interview!
"Net Zero will not be reached by mid-century by any G20 country"
1. I don’t believe that it’s the responsibility of any specific nation or block of nations to achieve (this isn’t what you’re saying but I’m getting the implication that you think this should be a priority for the G20, correct me if I’m wrong). It's too big of a problem to leave to governments.
2. I was going to ask why are you making a correlation between the global emissions and the energy sector, if the purpose is to forecast the future energy industry but I understand that energy is the largest contributor of emissions.
3. If I were na Energy Sector leader and responsible for generating, transmitting and securing the energy infrastructure for my customers (large or small) I would be primarily concerned with the quality of my service however I understand that for a time these leaders may not have been aware of the consequences of the decisions that were made in the pursuit of energy growth and the adoption of ESG as a concern has led to energy and environmental impact as a important area of discussion
"G20 countries currently account for 81% of the world's emissions (2021)."
4. This makes it seem as if 20% of the world is creating 80% of the emissions which is accurate at the national level but when you consider that G20 nations represent more than two-thirds of the world's population then really you’re just saying “most of the world creates most of the pollution”. The original statistic hides this information and causes people to focus on the wrong problem.
**I could be totally wrong in my thoughts so take everything with a grain of salt** otherwise I love the topic and appreciate the discourse you've created.
Driving discourse is definitely one of my top goals here, KD. Thanks for contributing! Initial responses belows:
1. By whom the Net Zero achievement is driven by is not said; currently, the Paris Agreement from 2015 is the current, legally binding framework used by governments to reach by Net Zero across the globe, though.
2. Correct; energy and emissions are very much highly correlated. Our demand for eneryg as a society drives the increase in emissions.
3. (explored in the next post) - electricity has to be delivered to all customers, due to the regulatory compact. Electric utilities can not exclude customers from service, and, they must provide service in a just and reasonable manner.
4. G20 is a block of the ~20 countries with the greatest impact on the world (b/c of economic output, population, geopolitics, etc). With my statement, I am stating with high confidence that none of the leading countries of the world will achieve Net Zero (I hypothesize this as Net Zero is way harder to achieve than currently discussed in discourse. This is less a statement of population size and more a statement of a realistic future by the most advanced nations.
Love this idea and excited to read more! Some initial responses that came to my mind are below.
1. "Energy demand will rise in the World and the US through 2050"
I'm skeptical that US energy demand will rise all the way through 2050, or at least wouldn't place it in the High Confidence category. On a total energy basis, the replacement of technologies with more energy efficient technologies (ICE to BEV) may be even more impactful than the energy efficiency improvements of given technologies.
2. "Data center demand in the US will increase at current consensus levels (18-27% / year) through 2028, and then, demand growth will come below current consensus levels for the few years after."
I agree with this one in particular and think you could even bump it up on a bit in certainty!
3. "Residential rate structures based on time-varying rates (e.g., time-of-use, critical peak pricing, real-time rates) will NOT be adopted by the majority of consumers; instead, subscription-based rates will (i.e., paying for services, not for energy)."
I think I probably agree with you on this one. To me, the more interesting questions are a) will a majority of consumers even have access to time-varying rates? b) will time-varying rates actually prove to reduce costs and carbon emissions and do so in an equitable way (i.e., not just energy nerds with Nests and people who can afford Smart Home and energy management applications reducing their costs while the utility's costs are still recouped from other consumers? and c) how do we encourage both PUCs/utilities to launch time-varying rates and consumers to adopt them?
Definitely open to discussing more in-person: initial responses below!
1. Well-said regarding the difference between energy consumed vs energy used; the latter may increase as the former decreases. This is a major factor, given waste heat from fossil fuel burning is ~70% in transportation, ~60% in electricity production, and lower for industrial activities. So, electricity demand can increase 50% by 2050, but total energy consumed can remain close to stagnant (According to EIA projections: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433)
2. This is likely one of the hottest topics of the past couple of years for customers + energy, overtaking EV and general electirification trends. The implications of this growth rate on other trends in the energy transition are massive (e.g., value of DERs, buildout of future supply)
3.
a) Great-point on access; 2020 data says ~25% of US households have access to TVRs, with 9.4% of US households on such rates (I have edited the original post to include this info)
b) I am quite confident TVRs will reduce carbon emissions; inspiration for a future blog post!
c) See Missouri for a case- quite public of a fight b/w Senate Majority Leader and the PSC: https://missouriindependent.com/2023/12/19/missouri-legislative-leader-files-bill-targeting-time-of-use-utility-pricing-plans/
Hey Connor, the questions you pose here represent great opportunities for future businesses. I believe that the customers (end users) are less likely to voluntarily adopt energy saving measures unless they are provided the resources such as education, funding and tools necessary to reduce their energy/water/heat use. A better solution would be for a water heater manufacturer to begin developing their products in such a way that they are more energy efficient. Options such as shipping batteries with water heaters and having a mechanism for the water heater to determine if and when it should be heating the water using battery power or otherwise would be a valuable feature.
KD - Spot on. In a future post, I'll dive deeper into the customer side of the equation - the motivations behind adoption of energy behaviors and its impact back on companies (such as a water heater manufacturer).
I'll reach out to you to include you in a future interview!
"Net Zero will not be reached by mid-century by any G20 country"
1. I don’t believe that it’s the responsibility of any specific nation or block of nations to achieve (this isn’t what you’re saying but I’m getting the implication that you think this should be a priority for the G20, correct me if I’m wrong). It's too big of a problem to leave to governments.
2. I was going to ask why are you making a correlation between the global emissions and the energy sector, if the purpose is to forecast the future energy industry but I understand that energy is the largest contributor of emissions.
3. If I were na Energy Sector leader and responsible for generating, transmitting and securing the energy infrastructure for my customers (large or small) I would be primarily concerned with the quality of my service however I understand that for a time these leaders may not have been aware of the consequences of the decisions that were made in the pursuit of energy growth and the adoption of ESG as a concern has led to energy and environmental impact as a important area of discussion
"G20 countries currently account for 81% of the world's emissions (2021)."
4. This makes it seem as if 20% of the world is creating 80% of the emissions which is accurate at the national level but when you consider that G20 nations represent more than two-thirds of the world's population then really you’re just saying “most of the world creates most of the pollution”. The original statistic hides this information and causes people to focus on the wrong problem.
**I could be totally wrong in my thoughts so take everything with a grain of salt** otherwise I love the topic and appreciate the discourse you've created.
Driving discourse is definitely one of my top goals here, KD. Thanks for contributing! Initial responses belows:
1. By whom the Net Zero achievement is driven by is not said; currently, the Paris Agreement from 2015 is the current, legally binding framework used by governments to reach by Net Zero across the globe, though.
2. Correct; energy and emissions are very much highly correlated. Our demand for eneryg as a society drives the increase in emissions.
3. (explored in the next post) - electricity has to be delivered to all customers, due to the regulatory compact. Electric utilities can not exclude customers from service, and, they must provide service in a just and reasonable manner.
4. G20 is a block of the ~20 countries with the greatest impact on the world (b/c of economic output, population, geopolitics, etc). With my statement, I am stating with high confidence that none of the leading countries of the world will achieve Net Zero (I hypothesize this as Net Zero is way harder to achieve than currently discussed in discourse. This is less a statement of population size and more a statement of a realistic future by the most advanced nations.