国际能源署（IEA）是一个由29个国家能源部组成的组织，最近发表了一份报告“家电能效标准和标签计划的成就”，该报告回顾了全球家电能效标准和标签计划的成就。
能效标准是规定设备能效水平的法律要求。
标签计划可能是向消费者提供信息的强制性计划，例如美国冰箱上的黄色能源使用标签，或者是美国的能源之星®等自愿性计划。超过80个国家/地区有国家能效标准和标签（EESL）
涵盖50多种不同类型的电器和设备的计划。
国际能源机构的报告汇总了大量的研究成果，发现各个国家的主要电器的能源效率已经提高了三倍以上，是技术进步的基本速度。
在以前几乎没有节能计划的国家，新的EESL计划实现了超过30％的改进。
对于更成熟的国家EESL计划，该报告发现节省了10％至25％的国家能源消耗。
作为EESL的优势的一个例子，该报告指出，中国在2005年至2009年期间每年实现了超过5％的空调效率提升。总的来说，中国的EESL计划“将在2020年之前消除对28千兆瓦发电量的需求”
通过每年避免680万吨二氧化硫排放，480万吨氮氧化物和2900万吨颗粒物来改善空气质量。“
由于成本效益始终很重要，IEA报告显示“在所有审查的EESL计划中，国家收益超过了额外成本的比例至少为3比1.”家电制造商不断创新并找出改进方法
效率和实现与成交相关的成本降低，这也开辟了新的市场机会和新的就业机会。
根据IEA的数据，欧盟的EESL计划和美国的340,000个就业岗位创造了80万个直接就业岗位。
对EESL计划的批评是，他们降低能源成本将导致人们使用更多能源。
例如，如果空调效率更高，一个人可能会使用这笔费用来运行空调更长时间，从而否定了EESL计划的一些积极的环境效益。
报告中也提到了这种批评，称为文学中的“反弹效应”。
在注意到反弹效应可能是EESL计划的意外后果之后，该报告指出，在发达国家，反弹效应相关的家庭数量将受到限制，因为一个人在能源上的收入比例相对较低。
该报告确实承认，发展中国家的情况可能因人口统计和气候而异。
即使发现反弹效应，EESL计划仍然显示出净节能和整体成本效益。
美国能源效率经济委员会对“反弹效应”的研究进行了非常全面的审查，并发现了约20％的温和反弹效应。
有关反弹效应的其他信息，请访问：http：//aceee.org/blog/2012/08/rebound-effect-real-not-very-large
国际能源机构的报告得出的结论是，即使在考虑到任何反弹效应之后，仍然有大量证据表明EESL计划以比其他清洁能源供应方案低得多的成本显着减少能源使用和二氧化碳排放。
作为IEA成员的***可能会遵循IEA的建议，“在考虑他们的投资选择和满足能源需求的优先事项时考虑到这些发现，并指出所有EESL计划都有可能扩大范围和实现目标
节省更多能源和二氧化碳。“
通过与协会，行业标准组织和支持这些标准的***实体（如能源之星®，中国国家标准化研究院和欧洲EuP指令）的密切合作，安森美半导体继续展示其致力于为各种品种提供创新的节能解决方案
终端市场。
以上来自于谷歌翻译
以下为原文
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization of 29 nations’ Energy Ministries, recently published a report “Achievements of appliance energy efficiency standards and labelling programs”that reviewed the achievements of appliance energy efficiency standards and labelling programs around the world.
Energy efficiency standards are legal requirements that mandate energy efficiency levels for appliances. Labeling programs may be mandatory programs that provide information to consumers, such as the yellow energy usage labels on refrigerators in the U.S., or are voluntary programs such as ENERGY STAR® in the U.S. Over 80 countries have national energy efficiency standards and labelling (EESL) programs that cover more than 50 different types of appliances and equipment.
![]()
The IEA report pulled together numerous research studies and found that the energy efficiency of major appliances across a wide cross section of countries has increased at more than three times the underlying rate of technology advancement. Improvements of more than 30% were achieved with new EESL programs in countries where few energy efficient programs had previously existed. For more mature national EESL programs, the report found savings of between 10% and 25% of national energy consumption.
As an example of the benefits of EESL, the report noted that China achieved an efficiency improvement for air conditioners of over 5% annually between 2005 and 2009. Taken together, China’s EESL program “will remove the need for 28 gigawatts of generating capacity by 2020, improving air quality by annually avoiding 6.8 million tons of sulphur dioxide emissions, 4.8 million tons of NOX and 29 million tons of particulates.”
As cost effectiveness is always important, the IEA report revealed that “In all of the EESL programs reviewed, the national benefits outweighed the additional costs by a ratio of at least 3 to 1.” Appliance manufacturers have continued to innovate and identify ways to improve efficiency and achieve volume-related cost reductions, which have also opened up new market opportunities and new employment opportunities. According to the IEA, 800,000 direct jobs were created by EESL programs in the EU and 340,000 jobs in the US.
A criticism of EESL programs has been that their reduced energy costs will lead people to use more energy. As an example, if an air conditioner is more efficient, a person might use the savings to run the air conditioner for more hours, thus negating some of the positive environmental benefits of the EESL program.
This criticism, called the “rebound effect” in the literature, was also addressed in the report. After noting that the rebound effect could be an unintended consequence of the EESL program, the report observed that in developed countries the numbers of households where the rebound effect is relevant will be limited since the proportion of a person’s income spent on energy is relatively low. The report did acknowledge that the situation in developing countries is likely to be different depending on demographics and climate. Even when a rebound effect has been found to occur, EESL programs have still demonstrated a net energy saving, and overall cost-effectiveness. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has a very comprehensive review of studies on the “rebound effect” and has found a modest rebound effect of about 20%. For additional information on the Rebound Effect, please visit: http://aceee.org/blog/2012/08/rebound-effect-real-not-very-large
The IEA report concludes that there is overwhelming evidence that EESL programs significantly reduce energy use and CO2 emissions at a much lower cost than other clean energy supply options, even after any rebound effect has been taken into account. Governments that are members of the IEA are likely to follow the IEA’s recommendation to “take account of these findings when they consider their investment options and priorities for meeting energy demand, noting that all EESL programs have the potential to expand in scope and ambition to deliver more energy and CO2 savings.”
Through close work with associations, industry standards organizations and government entities supporting these standards such as ENERGY STAR®, the China National Institute of Standardization, and the European EuP Directive, ON Semiconductor continues to demonstrate its commitment to delivering innovative energy efficient solutions to a variety of end markets.
|
电子发烧友论坛
0
/6 
工商网监
湘ICP备2023018690号
1590
淘帖
0
