<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Energy efficiency is the core climate solution, part 2]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:53:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/1 What did you do with the savings

Wow, spectacular numbers!

What did the DOE do with the money it saved?

]]> What did you do with the savings

Wow, spectacular numbers!

What did the DOE do with the money it saved?

]]> Comment #2 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:37:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/2 Why did it stop at Dow?...

..and not spread?  It sounds like the well-known Zuboff results that Gar Lipow talks about in his Z article, where spectacular savings don't seem to impress management.  Is this something employee-ownership-and-control would ameliorate, because the employees are more worried about the company as a whole as opposed to the managerial narrow focus on a division?

]]> Why did it stop at Dow?...

..and not spread?  It sounds like the well-known Zuboff results that Gar Lipow talks about in his Z article, where spectacular savings don't seem to impress management.  Is this something employee-ownership-and-control would ameliorate, because the employees are more worried about the company as a whole as opposed to the managerial narrow focus on a division?

]]> Comment #3 by ngoddard http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:47:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/3 Rebound

What is your solution to the rebound problem produced by energy efficiency?  The money Dow/DOE saved will have gone to some other economic activity which will have consumed energy.  Energy efficiency on its own has the paradoxical effect of increasing energy use because it is effectively reducing the cost of energy.

Would you combine it with raising energy prices through some other means?  A fundamental part of the puzzle is politically effective ways to make energy - particularly carbon-based energy - more expensive than it is now, relative to other inputs.

]]> Rebound

What is your solution to the rebound problem produced by energy efficiency?  The money Dow/DOE saved will have gone to some other economic activity which will have consumed energy.  Energy efficiency on its own has the paradoxical effect of increasing energy use because it is effectively reducing the cost of energy.

Would you combine it with raising energy prices through some other means?  A fundamental part of the puzzle is politically effective ways to make energy - particularly carbon-based energy - more expensive than it is now, relative to other inputs.

]]> Comment #4 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:01:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/4 Thx ngoddard

I've asked the same question about rebound effects several times, but the author doesn't seem to be willing to address it.

And indeed, energy efficiency works both ways, for dirty processes and technologies too. Imagine a much more efficient process for the production of coal-to-liquids... :-) There goes your "core climate solution".

In any case, despite Romm's somewhat fuzzy notes about efficieny and his wegdes, it's quite obvious that there are many ways in which efficiency can play a key role in mitigating climate change, given that few rebound effects really backfire seriously. The Bellona Foundation sees efficiency & lifestyle choices as the biggest wedge in a scenario to reduce emissions by 85% by 2050, giving it a share of 25%; this surpasses carbon-negative bioenergy, which it gives a share of 22%. All other renewables combined represent around 10%.

So Romm's notes can be compared with those of scientists on several points.  

]]> Thx ngoddard

I've asked the same question about rebound effects several times, but the author doesn't seem to be willing to address it.

And indeed, energy efficiency works both ways, for dirty processes and technologies too. Imagine a much more efficient process for the production of coal-to-liquids... :-) There goes your "core climate solution".

In any case, despite Romm's somewhat fuzzy notes about efficieny and his wegdes, it's quite obvious that there are many ways in which efficiency can play a key role in mitigating climate change, given that few rebound effects really backfire seriously. The Bellona Foundation sees efficiency & lifestyle choices as the biggest wedge in a scenario to reduce emissions by 85% by 2050, giving it a share of 25%; this surpasses carbon-negative bioenergy, which it gives a share of 22%. All other renewables combined represent around 10%.

So Romm's notes can be compared with those of scientists on several points.  

]]> Comment #5 by cscoxk http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:33:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/5 Rebound effect

There is a way to direct the money saved to more emissions reductions. It is called Energy Rewards and creates a positive feedback system where the more you reduce the more you get to spend on emissions reductions. The approach applies to any community resource where there are limits such as water. The idea is very simple. Everyone pays a little more for energy (or water). Everyone gets some money back but the money is distributed in inverse proportion to the amount of money spent on the resource BUT the money you receive must be spent on infrastructure to conserve the resource or in the case of emissions to reduce emissions. We are half way through writing a book explaining in detail the approach that is a general solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons"

Here is a condensed version of chapter 4. My comments under Fickle Pickle in the discusssion is a better explanation.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7662

You can also view the first chapter at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/a-solution-to-the- ...

]]> Rebound effect

There is a way to direct the money saved to more emissions reductions. It is called Energy Rewards and creates a positive feedback system where the more you reduce the more you get to spend on emissions reductions. The approach applies to any community resource where there are limits such as water. The idea is very simple. Everyone pays a little more for energy (or water). Everyone gets some money back but the money is distributed in inverse proportion to the amount of money spent on the resource BUT the money you receive must be spent on infrastructure to conserve the resource or in the case of emissions to reduce emissions. We are half way through writing a book explaining in detail the approach that is a general solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons"

Here is a condensed version of chapter 4. My comments under Fickle Pickle in the discusssion is a better explanation.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7662

You can also view the first chapter at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/a-solution-to-the- ...

]]> Comment #6 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:08:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/6 Another way to avoid rebound...

...is to make a certain base amount of electricity/heating and cooling services free, with anything above that costing much more.  So, for instance, say the government installed a free geothermal heat pump under every building, and some PV/storage on the roof to run it.  Now, most of your heating/cooling is free, but if you wanted even more, you could go out to the grid and buy more, but at a steep price.  Or, the government puts lots of PV/storage on your roof or wind farms in your city, and you get a certain amount of kwh per month free, but the rest is expensive.  Then you're being very efficient and socially just, but you're not encouraging overconsumption.

]]> Another way to avoid rebound...

...is to make a certain base amount of electricity/heating and cooling services free, with anything above that costing much more.  So, for instance, say the government installed a free geothermal heat pump under every building, and some PV/storage on the roof to run it.  Now, most of your heating/cooling is free, but if you wanted even more, you could go out to the grid and buy more, but at a steep price.  Or, the government puts lots of PV/storage on your roof or wind farms in your city, and you get a certain amount of kwh per month free, but the rest is expensive.  Then you're being very efficient and socially just, but you're not encouraging overconsumption.

]]> Comment #7 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:02:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/7 Tech neutrality and personal carbon allowances

Jon, the government should be technology neutral. Installing geothermal pumps or solar panels is way too expensive, given that alternative renewables like biomass or wind are far more competitive.

If you allow the government to push uncompetitive renewables, you take away exactly the incentive needed for these renewables to become more efficient and thus more competitive, and thus more carbon effective.

So better let the market decide, and add a system of personal carbon allowances, to ensure that the energy citizens buy is clean and low carbon.

]]> Tech neutrality and personal carbon allowances

Jon, the government should be technology neutral. Installing geothermal pumps or solar panels is way too expensive, given that alternative renewables like biomass or wind are far more competitive.

If you allow the government to push uncompetitive renewables, you take away exactly the incentive needed for these renewables to become more efficient and thus more competitive, and thus more carbon effective.

So better let the market decide, and add a system of personal carbon allowances, to ensure that the energy citizens buy is clean and low carbon.

]]> Comment #8 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:08:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/8 Good point Joe

If electric fuel for a plugin hybrid is 1/4 the price of gas for the same mileage, will people drive 4 times as much?  I doubt it.  maybe their driving will go back up to where it was when gas was 2 dollars per gallon, maybe rising 20%?  

GHG savings are still what they were without the 20% increase, since the electric fuel can come from renewables.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Good point Joe

If electric fuel for a plugin hybrid is 1/4 the price of gas for the same mileage, will people drive 4 times as much?  I doubt it.  maybe their driving will go back up to where it was when gas was 2 dollars per gallon, maybe rising 20%?  

GHG savings are still what they were without the 20% increase, since the electric fuel can come from renewables.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #9 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:36:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/9 Jonas,

I was just trying to show another alternative, even if it was rather extreme.  However, I really don't care how the looming climate/energy crisis is solved, by the government or by the market.  Geothermal heat pumps and PV have advantages beyone cost, that is, the resilience and decentralization of power that they cause.  I don't see how they would affect other forms of renewable energy: they wouldn't be enough to cover all energy needs.

]]> Jonas,

I was just trying to show another alternative, even if it was rather extreme.  However, I really don't care how the looming climate/energy crisis is solved, by the government or by the market.  Geothermal heat pumps and PV have advantages beyone cost, that is, the resilience and decentralization of power that they cause.  I don't see how they would affect other forms of renewable energy: they wouldn't be enough to cover all energy needs.

]]> Comment #10 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/ Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:59:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-limitless-resource/10 Lifestyle change

Lifestyle change from a shift in values could lead to efficiency gains.

What is it really that humans get from energy consuming technology?  Quality of life and quantity of possesions and consumption.

If happiness and fulfillment are attained through quality of life rather than quantity, it will use less energy as less consumption occurs.

Ride a mountain bike instead of a gas guzzling ATV or four wheel drive vehicle in the woods.  It's a good illustration of quality versus quantity.

It follows through all human activites.  And could make a huge difference.  Eventually renewable energy would be more than enough to meet reduced demand.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Lifestyle change

Lifestyle change from a shift in values could lead to efficiency gains.

What is it really that humans get from energy consuming technology?  Quality of life and quantity of possesions and consumption.

If happiness and fulfillment are attained through quality of life rather than quantity, it will use less energy as less consumption occurs.

Ride a mountain bike instead of a gas guzzling ATV or four wheel drive vehicle in the woods.  It's a good illustration of quality versus quantity.

It follows through all human activites.  And could make a huge difference.  Eventually renewable energy would be more than enough to meet reduced demand.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]>