A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient lighting

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Abstract:This paper quantifies the direct rebound effects associated with the switch from incandescent lamps (ILs) or halogen bulbs to more energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) or light emitting diodes (LEDs) using a large nationally representative survey of German households. The direct rebound effect is measured as the elasticity of useful lighting demand with respect to changes in energy efficient lamps. In particular, the rebound effect is decomposed into changes in lamp luminosity and burn time. On average, more efficient replacement bulbs are 23% brighter and burn about 6.5 minutes per day longer than replaced bulbs. For the most frequent (modal) bulb switch, i.e. the replacement of the main bulb in the living or dining room, luminosity increases by 10% and burn time increases by 9 minutes per day. For the average bulb, the associated total direct rebound effect is estimated at 6.3%. The larger part (around 60%) of this rebound effect results from increases in bulb luminosity. For the modal bulb the total direct rebound effect is smaller at 2.6%, with around 60% attributable to an increase in burn time. Average and modal bulb differences suggest that the magnitude to the rebound effect may decrease with intensity of initial bulb use. The magnitude of the direct rebound and the relative contributions of changes in luminosity and burn time also tend to differ by initial bulb type and by replacement bulb type. Finally, about a third of the bulb switches entail a negative rebound effect, i.e. energy savings are larger than expected if luminosity and burn time remained unchanged, highlighting significant heterogeneity in household responses to the adoption of energy efficient bulbs.

Direct energy rebound effect for road passenger transport in China: A dynamic panel quantile regression approach

“…One is the quasi-experimental approach. For example, Schleich et al (2014) quantify the direct rebound effect associated with the switch from incandescent lamps or halogen bulbs to more energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps or light emitting diodes using a large national survey of Germany household. Another one is the econometric approach.…”

Promoting Energy Performance Contracting for Achieving Urban Sustainability: What is the Research Trend?

“…Studies have proven that EPC is a useful housing energy efficiency retrofit mode based on the residential building cases from Germany, Ethiopia, and Norway [23,72,74]. In addition to the problems caused by the 'rebound effect' (e.g., [76][77][78]) in residential buildings', an EPC energy-efficiency retrofit would also be paid more attentions by researchers in future. Thus, the adoption of EPC in the residential sector can be potentially effective in reducing energy consumption and worth more studies in the future.…”

Economic modelling of energy services: Rectifying misspecified energy demand functions

“…In previous work, some authors (such as Beenstock and Willcocks, 1981;Dimitropoulos et al, 2005) have used a deterministic or a stochastic trend to proxy energy efficiency. Other authors (such as Haas and Schipper, 1998;Walker and Wirl, 1993) have attempted to construct summary measures of energy efficiency, and in some specific applications, energy efficiency can be observed (see, for example, Schleich et al, 2014). These approaches, implicitly assume that the impact of energy efficiency is exogenous, and neglect the ideas of some authors (such as Kouris, 1983) that energy efficiency (technical progress) should be considered endogenous, determined by energy price movements.…”