In Praise of Efficiency
As a mom of young children, I spend a lot of time explaining the evils of waste. "Don't leave the water running" and "Turn off that light!" are common phrases in my vocabulary. I have to say when I first read the Newsweek headline 7 Ways to Save the World, I rolled my eyes a little bit - I just dislike headlines like that. But the article? The article is great. All about efficiency. Love it. I read an article on efficiency in a special edition of Scientific American back in September which started off by explaining that conversion from energy source to final energy (what you consume), two thirds of the energy is lost. If we can increase efficiency, we can save energy (and money) without significant adjustments in our lifestyles.
So what sorts of changes can we make to increase efficiency? Add insulation to our homes, including potentially replacing old, leaky windows. Change over to compact fluorescent bulbs - much of the energy used to light incandescents is wasted as heat, an unwanted byproduct in the summer months, replace heating and cooling technologies with heat pumps, increase efficiencies in factories - and some of the examples in the article are truly impressive, German chemical giant BASF using heat produced in one factory to power the next in an interlocking complex of more than 200 chemical factories, drive green - can't afford a hybrid? Consider a diesel. Buy more energy efficient appliances and last of all, juggle payment - although this seems like an option for corporations than for individuals, except in California, where utilities are paying customers for cutting power use by 10 percent or more.
Okay, so what's the bottom line? Why wouldn't we choose to be more efficient and save money in the long run? Quite simply, it's the upfront costs. New windows? OUCH. Even adding $1000 in insulation can be pretty daunting. Many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and simply can't afford to pay extra for a hybrid or a diesel car or truck. Energy Star appliances can be much more in initial cost than basic appliances, and it's hard for many of us to justify that front-end cost. We have a washer and dryer that are 12 years old and tremendously inefficient. We want to replace them, but it always seems that something else demands the dollars.
Simple things you can do include this do-it-yourself energy audit tool, which can help me to make your home more energy efficient. You'll need your energy bills and some knowledge of the insulation in your home to make use of this tool.
Comments (3)
See! Being a conservative isn't all bad. Before we call on our government to bail us and the planet out of our global warming problem, real or imagined, we should do what we as individuals can do-without governmental mandates. These mandates will only do what they have always done-serve special interests with all costs being borne by average Americans. If being efficient in the way we utilize energy related activities i.e. electric, gasoline,airtravel,etc., will have a positive effect on the planet, then why not do it. Sort of like dieting and weight management. If we consume just what we need and no more...it's easier to stay healthy. The problem is that a lot of people want the other guy do all of the dieting ...before they look at themselves in the mirror.
Posted by mulligan | January 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Energy efficiency is easily the simplest way to combat the effects of global warming � but as you point out, many of the mechanism to enhance efficiency are not decisions based on what your environmental opinions are. They are simply prudent economic decisions that are often times not made based on incorrect assumptions. People invest in debt looking for a rate of return in the 6-8% range, which is considered a safe investment with a fixed income stream. I�m sure those same people would really like to invest in opportunities that can return 15%+ in after tax savings. Energy efficiency enhancements have rates of return well in excess of that but are rates of return on the bottom line, not the top line, so are not as easily quantifiable. This, along with the up front capital costs, act as sufficient enough deterrent to most individuals.
If people would allow me access to the economics of changes to their energy consumption, I would gladly jump at it. I would put the money up front for capital investments in return for a portion of the avoided costs. It is a prudent economic decision and has a positive externality on the environment.
I don�t agree with your statement regarding losses during energy conversion. You state that 2/3�s of the energy is lost from source to sink. I haven�t taken a hard look at it but I would be very surprised if it was only 3/4ers of the energy lost. It is true that typically 2/3rd of the energy is lost during conversion from fuel to electricity (less if we look at combined cycle or combined heat and power plants but these plants make up a fraction of the annual MWh generated) but that 2/3rd only accounts for the conversion. If you look at the whole stream there are many more sources of losses. There is significant energy that goes into the extraction of the fuel and the transportation of the fuel. Coal might sit on a site for up to 30 days prior to being burned in a boiler where some of the coal combusts in the pile. Natural gas is consumed along the pipes to run the compressors that pump the natural gas. Once the electricity is produced, it has to be transmitted (incurring losses in the 3-5% range) and then distributed (incurring losses in the 8-12% range) and then consumed (where any device with the exception of maybe a space heater has significant losses)
If one were to look at the losses across the entire stream when considering the implications of increasing the renewable portion of the generation portfolio vs focusing on energy efficiency, the conversation would likely be very different as it is not a 1 to 1 comparison. Due to the losses along the stream, 1 MW reduction of load is greater than 1 MW of increased generation.
Posted by snooj | January 30, 2007 3:24 PM
one of the most inefficient things people do is eat meat. it takes 5-10 times more grain fed to animals to get 100 calories out of meat than if we just ate the grain in the first place. not to mention all the extra energy used in processing and transporting all that extra grain.
not only that, but the meat industry produces huge amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, greenhouse gases far more powerful than CO2. a recent UN report found that the livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of human-induced greenhouse gases (more than cars!), and a university of chicago study concluded that switching from a typical american diet to a vegetarian diet reduces your contribution to global warming more than if you switched from a regular car to a hybrid. not to mention all the other environmental damage done by the meat industry, or the horrific suffering of the animals.
whenever i see these lists of how to fight global warming, i'm always stunned that eating less meat or going vegetarian is ignored, even tho it's probably the biggest single thing you can do as an individual to fight global warming.
Posted by jake | February 3, 2007 4:36 PM