Data and Analysis

Power Efficiency Guide

Ultimate Guide to Power Efficiency

Get Instant Access

Our analyses incorporate several types of data from different sources including: (1) historic energy supplies in the USA (1850-2001) and historic energy consumption data in the USA (1900-2001); (2) recent (1960-2000) energy supply and consumption data in developing and other countries; (3) per capita income (Geary-Khamis international dollars) for all countries analysed; (4) historic per cent GDP created by the industrial sector for the USA (1900-1997); (5) recent (1960-2000) per cent GDP created by the industrial sector for developing and other countries; (6) historic urbanization levels for all economies (from 1850 to 2001 for the USA and 1950 to 2000 for all other economies); and (7) historical data on CO2 emissions due to technical energy consumption and concrete production for the periods mentioned above. A detailed description of these data, the sources and limitations can be found in a previous study conducted by the authors (Marcotullio and Schulz 2007).

The analysis requires connecting energy supply and consumption estimates from time series (i.e. indexed by calendar year) to economic growth (i.e. indexed by constant-dollar per capita GDP) and urbanization levels (as per cent of total). Maddison (2001) provides gross domestic product (GDP) over time, at purchasing power parity (PPP). The UN (1999; 2006b) provides the urbanization levels for most countries.6 The International Energy Agency provides data on energy supply and consumption (International Energy Agency (IE A) 2002a, 2002b). US historical census data provide urbanization levels for the USA, which were also matched to UN data, after 1950 (US Bureau of the Census 1975). Table 3.1 presents the ranges for the different variables for each country in the analysis.

Using the Geary-Khamis dataset, the USA per capita income was ~$1800 in 1850, ~$4100 in 1900, ~$10 000 in 1950 and ~$28 000 in 2000. The analyses for hypothesis 2, faster, was restricted to countries with a minimum current income of more than $1800 for energy supply and $4100 for energy consumption, because of the necessity of making valid comparisons with the USA's experiences. Table 3.2a presents the comparative income ranges for each country with the USA and related total primary energy supply (TPES) and total final consumption (TFC) range figures.

Similarly, we match urbanization levels between countries. In 1850, the USA was ~15% urban. In 1900, the country was ~40% urban. In 1950, the nation was ~64% urban and in

5 In terms of health issues, during the 1990s there was discussion of the double burden of disease, as developing country residents were often exposed to both traditional and modern risks. That is, the concern was that given new combined risks, health in developing countries would decline. Despite the emergence of these new risks, however, longevity and other health indicators have continued to improve.

6 The UN provides historical urbanization level data for most countries starting from 1950 for five-year intervals. Annual levels were calculated by estimating five-year annual average increases.

Table 3.1. Comparative descriptive statistics: GDP per capita, urbanization, TPES per capita and TFC per capita.

Period of study

Range of GDP

Range in

Range of TPES

Range of TFC

per capita

urbanization

(toe/capita)

(toe/capita)

(G-K$)

level (%)

South Korea

1971-2000

2522-12343

40.7-81.8

0.52-4.04

0.41-2.67

Singapore

1971-2000

4904-22207

100-100

1.40-7.36

0.60-2.48

China

1971-2000

799-3425

17.4-32.1

0.47-0.92

0.22-0.68

Thailand

1971-2000

1725-6877

13.3-21.6

0.37-1.18

0.26-0.85

Malaysia

1971-2000

2180-7872

33.5-57.3

0.52-2.27

0.39-1.41

Hong Kong

1971-2000

5968-21503

87.7-100

0.86-2.53

0.62-1.68

Indonesia

1971-2000

1235-3655

17.1-40.9

0.31-0.69

0.29-0.54

Vietnam

1971-2000

710-1790

18.3-19.7

0.35-0.47

0.05-0.43

Philippines

1971-2000

1808-2425

33.0-58.6

0.36-0.54

0.27-0.34

Japan

1960-2000

3986-21069

62.5-78.7

0.86-4.12

0.60-2.81

USA (TPES)

1850-2001

1806-28 129

15.4-77.2

1.97-8.45

USA (TFC)

1900-2001

4091-28 129

39.6-77.2

2.54-6.24

Table 3.2a. Date and GDP per capita ranges for supply and consumption comparisons over time.

TPES

USA

GDP/

TFC

USA

GDP/

Period of

Period of

capita range

Period of

Period of

capita range

comparison

comparison

(G-K$)

comparison

comparison

(G-K$)

South Korea

1971-2000

1872-1967

2522-14 343

1979-2000

1900-1967

4091-14 343

Singapore

1971-2000

1906-1987

4904-22 207

1971-2000

1906-1987

4904-22 207

China

1988-2000

1850-1891

1806-3425

-

-

-

Thailand

1973-2000

1850-1938

1806-6877

1989-2000

1900-1938

4091-6877

Malaysia

1971-2000

1861-1940

2180-7872

1983-2000

1900-1940

4091-7872

Hong Kong

1971-2000

1923-1986

5968-21 503

1971-2000

1923-1986

5968-21503

Indonesia

1980-2000

1850-1892

1806-3655

-

-

-

Philippines

1971-2000

1850-1867

1806-2358

-

-

-

Japan

1960-2000

1898-1985

3986-21 069

1961-2000

1900-1985

4091-21 069

Table 3.2b. Date and urbanization level ranges for supply and consumption comparisons over urbanization ranges.

TPES

USA

Urbanization

TFC

USA

Urbanization

Period of

Period of

range (%)

Period of

Period of

range (%)

comparison

comparison

comparison

comparison

South Korea

1971-1994

1902-2000

40.7-77.2

1971-1994

1902-2000

40.7-77.2

China

1971-2000

1855-1886

17.4-32.1

-

-

-

Thailand

1976-2000

1850-1864

15.4-21.6

-

-

-

Malaysia

1971-2000

1888-1942

33.5-57.3

1978-2000

1900-1942

39.6-57.3

Indonesia

1971-2000

1855-1903

17.1-40.9

-

-

-

Vietnam

1971-2000

1857-1860

18.3-19.7

-

-

-

Philippines

1971-2000

1888-1943

33.0-58.6

1982-2000

1900-1943

39.6-58.6

Japan

1960-1989

1949-2000

62.5-77.2

1960-1989

1949-2000

62.5-77.2

2000 it was ~72% urban. Using urbanization ranges allows for comparisons between different countries and the USA experiences than at similar income ranges. For example, while the Philippines' GDP per capita data didn' t allow for a comparison with the USA, similar urbanization levels between economies did. Moreover, given that two economies were 'city-states' (Singapore and Hong Kong) for much of their history, we excluded them from comparisons over similar urbanization levels. Table 3.2b shows the comparative income ranges for each country with the USA, over similar urbanization levels, and the associated TPES and TFC range figures.

We use a variety of different, but straightforward analyses to examine the differences in trends between economies, both in terms of GDP per capita and urbanization levels. We examine the sooner hypothesis by identifying whether the nations in our database experience supplies in the more advanced carriers or the consumption of more advanced energy technologies at lower economic growth and urbanization levels than those of the USA. More advanced carriers include all those in the database except biomass and coal. We use a binary test, recording whether or not there were significant levels of supply or consumption of these flows at income levels under those of the USA. The significant level was arbitrarily identified as 0.01 tonnes oil equivalent per capita (10 kg oil equivalent per capita) per year.

To examine whether changes occurred faster for those economies developing under intensive globalization forces, we compare rates of change (over time) in energy supply and consumption using the beta values of the ordinary least squares analysis. These slopes provide an indicator of rate of change. We make all comparisons at similar income ranges between individual countries and the USA in order to adequately compare levels of economic income. We also examine rates of change under similar urbanization ranges and over changes in per cent urbanization level.

To examine whether the transition sequence is experienced in a similar manner across economies, we first identify the transitions that the USA underwent during its development. We equate energy transitions with those periods when one carrier's numerical share of total energy supply surpasses another. We then identify the income and urbanization levels, at which these transitions occurred and the amount of time and percentage urban share change between transitions.

USA transitions in the supply of energy (Fig. 3.1) over time demonstrate the sequential nature of the experience. Before 1850, wood (biomass) held the largest share of energy use among carriers, accounting for approximately 82% of all energy consumption. In the early 1880s, coal took the lead in total share. Use of coal reached its relative peak around 1910 when it absorbed approximately 80% of total share of energy supply. Oil and gas reached a 1% share of the market around the 1860s and overcame coal around 1946. According to these data, oil and gas reached a peak market share around 1978, when together they accounted for 78% of the total world energy use. Subsequently oil and gas energy use dropped, but only slightly (to around a 64% share in 2000). This slight drop is due to the relative increase in natural gas use while oil supplies fell. In 1973, nuclear power came on the scene with over a 1% share. Nuclear surpassed biomass in 1974. By 2001, nuclear power made up less than 9% and modern renewable sources made up less than 0.5% of the nation^ total energy supplies. This view of energy transitions provides the common understanding of how energy transitions evolved over time.

To examine and compare the total amount of energy consumed during similar levels of economic growth and urbanization, we simply summed energy consumed by product. We also matched the energy consumed within the industrial sectors of each economy and calculated an intensity figure (energy consumed per $) and compared these figures over similar

1825 1845 1865 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005

Year

Fig. 3.1. USA energy transitions.

1825 1845 1865 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005

Year

Fig. 3.1. USA energy transitions.

GDP per capita levels. We deem the more efficient industries as those with the lower ratio at a given GDP level (i.e. lower numerical value for industrial energy intensity).

Finally, we compare the production of CO2 emissions, as tonnes of carbon, over similar economic growth periods and over similar urbanization levels. As in the previous analysis, those economies that had overall lower levels of CO2 emissions are considered to have lower global systemic environmental impact.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment