TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
Post Reply
vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by vexed87 »

I was going to post this in the energy usage thread, but I figured it deserved it's own post.

TEQs or Tradable Energy Quotas, a form of energy rationing proposed by David Flemming to manage the fossil fuel energy descent and mitigate AGW caught my eye recently, here's the summary from the author:

Available on: http://www.teqs.net/ - I strongly recommend people look into this in more detail, while the summary is excellent, it won't answer you questions on how it might work practically, but I think the author(s?) have thought about most of the usual objections quite well!
1. TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas) is an electronic system for fairly reducing consumption of carbon-intensive energy, at the national scale.

2. There are two main reasons why this may be desirable:

a) maintaining a fair distribution of fuel and electricity during challenging times.
b) providing a method to guarantee achieving national carbon reduction targets.

3. TEQs (pronounced “tex”) are measured in units.

4. Every adult is given an equal free Entitlement of TEQs units each week. Other energy users (Government, industry etc.) bid for their units at a weekly Tender, or auction.

5. When you buy fuel or energy, such as petrol for your car, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. This is the only time you need TEQs units, and transactions are generally automatic, using credit-card or direct-debit technology.

6. All fuels and electricity supplies carry a “carbon rating” in units; one unit represents one kilogram of carbon dioxide – or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases – released in the fuel’s production and use. This determines how many units are needed to make a purchase (thus giving a competitive advantage to low-carbon energy).

7. If you use less than your Entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which rises and falls in line with demand. Buying and selling is as easy as topping up an Oyster card or mobile phone.

8. The total number of units available in the country is set out in advance in the TEQs Budget. The size of the Budget goes down year-by-year – step-by-step, like a staircase.

9. The Budget is set by the Committee on Climate Change, which is independent of the Government. The Government is itself bound by the TEQs scheme; its role is to support the country in thriving on the available carbon/energy.

10. Since the national TEQs price is determined by national demand, it is transparently in everyone’s interest to help each other to reduce their energy demand, and to work together, encouraging a national sense of common purpose.

Image
Naturally, it was deemed "inappropriate at this time" by the UK government because it is assumed that restricting energy usage overtime would throw a spanner in the works of economic growth and the government might actually have to admit there is a serious problem with continued use of fossil fuels for energy production and then do something about it... :roll:

Sadly, I think It's unlikely that the UK will see such a rationing system put in place in time to meaningfully manage shortages of petroleum and energy in general, in any case, I also have doubt's that they will be needed because energy prices can only go so high before people lose their appetite and demand is curtailed permanently, however, reading about the TEQs and it's practical ratcheting down of fossil fuel consumption is wholly sensible, at least from a AGW stance.

Reading into this, it obvious that implementing an electronic rationing system on a home scale is impossible and pointless, however sticking to a ever decreasing energy budget would be interesting lifestyle experiment for those of us who haven't yet dedicated much thought, or practically grappled with the issue. Greer's 'collapse now and avoid the rush' comes to mind.

Obviously it will be more challenging for us ERE folk who have already curtailed energy use dramatically through lifestyle choices like good thermostat habits, low car usage etc, however for the most part, I hazard a bet that there's room for improvement for most forum members. In any case, setting an energy budget and sticking to it could be fun to see what living in the near future might look like. I'm not suggesting people start fitting DIY solar water heaters, calculate the minutiae of carbon footprint of your industrially produced potatoes or burning sustainably sourced wood for cooking/heating fuel, but you'll get brownie points if you do :lol:.

One of the advantages of the TEQs system, is one can sell their surplus energy on the market, sadly we won't have that benefit in a non-rationed environment, but you'll have a feel good factor of reducing emissions substantially, and saving some money while you are at it. I'll have my own challenge getting DW on board with this experiment, not sure how well it is going to go down. But I guess it's time. If there's appetite from the forum members to join me in this challenge, I'll think about setting some ground rules. If not, well, I hope you find the TEQs proposal interesting at the very least.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by cmonkey »

I'd be up for it, considering I've spent the last few months analyzing/reducing our energy footprint. We did start air drying our clothes now, which works great in a warm room. I assessed our HVAC usage while were gone for two weeks and during average winter temps, we are using about 650-700 kWh/month from that.

So from that I can assess, non-HVAC which is down to ~500/month. A majority of that is water heating. So the plan is to get some solar water heating set up once the greenhouse is built. It'd be inside the greenhouse, so would work in winter as well. Over heating is a real possibility!

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by George the original one »

I like the concept in theory, but in practice it assumes that all forms of energy are equally available, which they are not. Geographic location makes a difference in what is available and how big the transport fee is for the energy to arrive in a useable form.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

The author of "Four Futures" suggested that UBI could be tied to GDP. Maybe TEQs could also be tied to declining GDP rather than a declining budget created by a committee? Home and community barter/share production, which are not included in GDP, would logically go up with decline of energy resources available for transportation and increased use of more diffuse sources of energy such as solar, so SOl could, theoretically, have a less steep decline than GDP, so the TEQ allowance might seem less arbitrary.

Also, when attempting to measure individual usage, it quickly becomes apparent that, just as with reducing cash expenditure, there are many ways to "work" the system that amount to mooching on the energy ration coupon book of other(s.) For instance, if in the energy-deprived world of the future, you would like to still have access to a public library and a cricket field, you will have to chip in. IOW, as the high matched production/consumption levels of the middle-class taxpayers in affluent realms decline, their proportionate contribution to the public infrastructure through taxation will also decline. Currently, both the deplorable poor and the super-cool-frugal people who purposefully maintain low-incomes derive disproportionate benefit from this reality.

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by vexed87 »

@George, what gave you the impression that the scheme assumes all forms of energy are equally available? I cannot see where you picked that up?

Since it's a rationing scheme, access will be as fair and equal as possible, yes, but that's not to say the cost of distribution at the point of consumption will be equal to all. The UK is dependent on all its energy needs to some extent, and the further away from ports and pipelines the end users are, the more they pay in their bills or at the pump. This is in the basics of market principles and is in effect what already is happening today. I expect if it doesn't already, the scheme could easily include the carbon cost of distribution of that energy, thereby charging consumers more rations per carbon emission at the point of use to account for the cost of delivery/availability of supply.

How the cost of distribution of energy is paid for is neither here nor there, whatever the approach, it will be paid for in the end. It could be included in rations as by my example above, or by infrastructure based on billing the end user for delivery (free market principles) or by central taxes to pay for the infrastructure on behalf of the commons (most likely if the UK chooses to pursue a new socialist agenda as it has in the past.) Non of this need impact the overarching principles of energy rationing whilst increasing and favouring efficient use of energy in all forms.

However as the whole point in the scheme is to gradually ween people off fossil energy sources that are not sustainable and mitiagate AGW, by design it encourages individuals to put an end to energy uses that are inherently inefficient, i.e. driving petroleum by the truck load to the countryside gas stations (which requires huge ongoing infrastructure investment == massive carbon emissions), and instead favour more appropriate technology and energy sources for the locality, it would actually manage differences in regional availability quite well in accordance with its end goals, reducing consumption.

Back to the challenge

@cmonkey, glad to hear it, I currently have no means of measuring my own households consumption as I'm currently living with family, it would skew my results. But the good news is DW and I will be moving to our new place in a few months, so I can get tracking usage then.

The proposals don't go into detail for how far or fast fossil fuel consumption needs to be reduced, it's a tool for which governments set the targets, but I think the intention is that government use the ratcheting down fossil energy consumption in accordance with Paris 2016 style agreements to end fossil fuel use by *insert date*. Obviously one could cheat this challenge and switch to renewable overnight, but that wouldn't take into account all the oil/coal/gas subsidies that went into manufacturing, distributing and marketing and installation of those technologies... measuring the impact would be neigh on impossible for the hobbyist!

7wb raises a great point that the individual can mooch off the energy use of others, but there always would be waste and surplus of others in any energy system, we practically can't eliminate fossil fuel use from our conscience until we exclude these products/resources from our lifestyles, however in the spirit of the challenge we can minimise even those if we wish. Practically, thinking about taking a 20 year plan to eliminate non-renewable energy usage would mean reducing by 5% of your baseline useage each year than subtracting it again each year until you reach zero, 20 years from now. I can see quite a few objecting to this challenge already when they realise the ramifications, I don't think DW will be happy either :lol: , but I can try sow the seeds in her mind*. Personally I would try quite aggressively in the first few years and would hope most of the work would be done by the end of first decade, and the rest of the time could be spent tweaking around the edges, but who know's if that's practical...

But I have all sorts of plans to reduce my personal consumption of fossil energy when I move into our own place, including installing a wood furnace for cooking/heating, build an outdoor cob oven, solar water heater on the roof, weatherproofing, growing own veggies on much larger scale than before. I also hope one day to make 100% of long distance (that's relative... to walking, not intercontinental) journeys by bicycle. Some day in the future I hope to have enough money in the slush fund to install solar panels also, for our basic gadgetry needs. I.e. simply lighting, a laptop, fridge and washing machine, although some of those might have to give eventually...

*/scurries off to find books on subliminal messaging and other psychological trickery.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9369
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: TEQs and reducing your energy usage challenge

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Vexed87 said: Practically, thinking about taking a 20 year plan to eliminate non-renewable energy usage would mean reducing by 5% of your baseline useage each year than subtracting it again each year until you reach zero, 20 years from now. I can see quite a few objecting to this challenge already when they realise the ramifications, I don't think DW will be happy either :lol: , but I can try sow the seeds in her mind*. Personally I would try quite aggressively in the first few years and would hope most of the work would be done by the end of first decade, and the rest of the time could be spent tweaking around the edges, but who know's if that's practical...
Since embodied energy from fossil fuels accounts for at least 80% of the cost of almost everything, simply reducing spending on both consumption and production would likely be the easiest measure. A core problem is that you can not avoid addressing population issues or the subjective value of human life, no matter where you draw your system's boundary circle because any time you pay another human being for a service, you are voting in favor of their continued existence or share of draw of remaining resources, so the amount of human labor you "pay" for in your system needs to be consistent with your stance on human population if you want your system to work. IOW, if you convert $$$ into PVC powered robots and 5 fertile acres which render you fossil fuel independent at Civilization Level 8.5B within your closed system, and you think human population should level out at 10 billion, then you have to figure out how to get the energy to provide 10 billion people with 5 fertile acres and PVC powered robots OR you have to figure out how to support some proportion of the other people as your less-efficient-than-robot-potato-powered-serfs or dependents living at Civilization Level 2.1A.

Post Reply