|Title||Bottom-Up Energy Analysis System (BUENAS) – An International Appliance Efficiency Policy Tool|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2013|
|Authors||Michael A McNeil, Virginie E Letschert, Stephane de la Rue du Can, Jing Ke|
|Keywords||Appliance diffusion, appliances, developing countries, Energy demand forecast, Policy best practices, Standards and labeling|
The Bottom–Up Energy Analysis System (BUENAS) calculates potential energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of efficiency policies for lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, appliances, and industrial equipment through 2030. The model includes 16 end use categories and covers 11 individual countries plus the European Union. BUENAS is a bottom–up stock accounting model that predicts energy consumption for each type of equipment in each country according to engineering-based estimates of annual unit energy consumption, scaled by projections of equipment stock. Energy demand in each scenario is determined by equipment stock, usage, intensity, and efficiency. When available, BUENAS uses sales forecasts taken from country studies to project equipment stock. Otherwise, BUENAS uses an econometric model of household appliance uptake developed by the authors. Once the business as usual scenario is established, a high-efficiency policy scenario is constructed that includes an improvement in the efficiency of equipment installed in 2015 or later. Policy case efficiency targets represent current “best practice” and include standards already established in a major economy or well-defined levels known to enjoy a significant market share in a major economy. BUENAS calculates energy savings according to the difference in energy demand in the two scenarios. Greenhouse gas emission mitigation is then calculated using a forecast of electricity carbon factor. We find that mitigation of 1075 mt annual CO2 emissions is possible by 2030 from adopting current best practices of appliance efficiency policies. This represents a 17 % reduction in emissions in the business as usual case in that year.
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9213-y