What if there were a source of carbon-free energy that in a single year in the U.S. drew $300 billion in private investment, supported 1.6 million jobs, and generated 1.7 quads of energy, roughly equivalent to the total energy required to run 40 mid-sized coal plants?
We would drill anywhere, dig up anything, go to war with anyone for that kind of energy, right?
But the source is efficiency, so we don't much talk about it, we don't make it a central focus of energy policy, and we don't take advantage of the enormous energy savings that could be generated with a more rational and concerted national strategy. We blunder ahead with skyrocketing demand, which drives us into coal mines, oil shale fields, and foreign entaglements, when smart use of existing energy efficiency technologies and techniques could cost-effectively cut U.S. energy demand by 25-30% in the next 20-25 years.
Or to be more brief: read this report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 7:08 am
19 May 2008
Thus the "strategic reserve" question. To wit: how much more can we pull, and how quickly? Those are the only two questions anyone ever asks about fossil sources, and yet they are never asked about efficiency. And since the Danes are a little over twice as efficient as we are in the US, one would have to conclude that - at the very least - we haven't yet reached "peak energy efficiency". It's where our entire energy and environmental policy ought to start.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 8:06 am
19 May 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:13 am
19 May 2008
There is no long term demand increase for energy.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets ...
In fact, during the last 30 years we've slashed our energy needs mostly through 'efficiencies' like higher R valued insulation.
The high cost of energy now is mostly a product of a commodity trading system that is using fear and a kind of participatory monopoly...one on which a lot of players have access to all the sources and are quite happy to work with producers to drive the costs up.
Playing into the hands of these commodity brokers are Al Gore, Grist and all of the Greens, who add gasoline to the fire, literally, but imposing CO2 restraints and fear mongering about shortages.
The good news for Joe America is the whole bubble is about to come crashing down...
Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:57 pm
19 May 2008
I think you'd be referin' to per capita energy use (and even then, I think per capita has increased thanks to SUVs, big screens, and McMansions).
But overall energy use has most definitely increased, 'specially when commercial and industry are included.
If they hadn't, then we wouldn't have needed to build any new power plants in the past 30 years.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:38 am
20 May 2008
Or is it replacing that furnace with geo heat exchange heating/cooling and solar cogeneration?
That's the problem with efficiency alone. It will make an excuse to keep the furnace going.
Or even worse coal power plants! Install cogeneration and boost the efficiency of the coal plant 20% and industry will want it to stay running 20 more years.
Wouldn't it be better to invest in geo heat exchange and solar cogeneration, wind, and biogas to simply replace that coal plant?
These are difficult decisions. Given the climate crisis and the need for economic stimulus, replacement is the better option.
If you can do both, that's fine. But will it keep the coal plant going longer? Limited capital is left to do this.
But if capital is put into new efficiency/conservation solutions like geo heat exchange instead, it will stimulate the economy, reviving the job and tax base, generating more investment capital.
Cogeneration is better with solar than coal. And geo heat exchange is way better than fuel oil or natural gas heating or standard air conditioning, that uses far too many fossil and nuclear fueled kwhs.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
20 May 2008
Or just end the oil wars and put all the wasted capital into oil alternatives.
The economic choice is obvious. Further capital wasted tryinmg to keep oil prices down is a futile waste of resources. Resources better applied to new energy modes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:50 am
20 May 2008
One can get to the same place by building solar, wind, or other zero-carbon sources in sufficient volume to offset 133 MW of coal, but the path is irrelevant - it's the goal that matters. Efficiency, at core, is fuel agnostic. Whether one uses biomass, solar, coal, gas or orange rinds, it is in our economic and environmental interests to use it efficiently.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:06 am
20 May 2008
In a static state that maybe true Sean.
But eliminating that energy use with geo heat exchange starts a shift that will save more and more as it is applied.
The limit for cost effective efficiency boost of the coal plant is reached and that's it. One improvement, a static state.
But energy policy shift occurs in a changing world. Improvements in efficiency of old energy economy devices, coal, nuclear, gas guzzling ICEs, delays investment in much better technologies. That can eliminate the entire GHG footprint, before the efficiency improvements pay their capital investment back.
They tie up scarce capital in incremental gains. Capital that could instead impell exponential gains in GHG free lower cost energy.
Change necessary to head off exponential GHG climate disaster need to have exponential growth on their side. Efficiency of the incremental kind, doesn't have this crisis beating feature.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:21 am
20 May 2008
A secondary refrigerant gas turbine generator could be recycled after use in a coal plant then installed in a solar furnace powered factory.
Otherwise investment in incremental efficiency could go down the drain with the coal plant closed in (hopefully) a few years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink