Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Small steps, big energy savings
Editorial, Los Angeles Times
Making appliances and buildings more efficient is an inexpensive way to fight global warming.
—
Not all of the potential solutions to climate change are futuristic, expensive or exotic. In fact, most Americans can find one of the most significant carbon-reducing innovations of the last 30 years standing in their kitchens, keeping the butter hard.
Refrigerators sold in the United States have grown 5% more energy efficient every year since 1975. Today they save 200 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year compared to what they’d use if they were still built to 30-year-old standards, or about a third of the annual output of all the nation’s nuclear plants. Upgraded fridges have lowered electricity bills for consumers and avoided millions of tons of carbon that would otherwise have been emitted by power plants. Heating and air-conditioning systems also have grown more efficient, and fluorescent lightbulbs are a big step ahead of power-hungry incandescents.
Critics of government efforts to fend off global warming often complain that the economic costs aren’t worth the gains — better to adapt later to a warmer planet than suffer now by turning down the thermostat. This argument relies on a lot of dubious assumptions, starting with the notion that quality of life won’t be significantly reduced in a world plagued by drought, wildfires, increased disease and famine, more powerful storms, mass species extinction and higher sea levels. It also assumes that the cost of cleaning up after all that will be less than the cost of preventing it from happening, which is quite a leap.
(26 November 2007)
Dim prospects that ‘energy efficient’ will pay off: CIBC
Shawn McCarthy, Globe and Mail
Improvements in efficiency have done little to reduce actual energy consumption, as consumers take advantage of those gains to drive bigger cars farther, or heat larger homes, CIBC World Markets Inc. economist Jeff Rubin says in a new report.
In a study released today, Mr. Rubin described an “efficiency paradox” in which technology improvements allow for better energy efficiency, but those savings are lost to greater consumption.
Mr. Rubin noted that governments in the United States have passed tougher energy efficiency regulations in an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, or cut emissions of greenhouse gases that are linked to climate change.
“The problem is that energy efficiency is not the final objective – reducing energy consumption must be the final objective to both the challenges of conventional oil depletion and to greenhouse has emissions,” he said.
“Despite huge gains in energy efficiency, that is simply not happening. Instead, energy consumption is growing by ever increasing amounts.”
(27 November 2007)
As pointed out in today’s TOD Drumbeat, Mr. Rubin seems to be channeling ideas from The Oil Drum.
CBI warns of over-estimating impact of energy efficiency
PR Newswire via CNN Money
Energy efficiency regulations have little impact on saving energy, helping the environment or reducing dependency on foreign oil, finds a new CIBC World Markets report
Efficiency paradox: Americans pour cost-savings into more and bigger energy-guzzlers
—
Energy-efficiency initiatives and regulations do little to cut energy use and often end up increasing consumption, finds a new report from CIBC World Markets.
“While seemingly perverse, improvements in energy efficiency result in more of the good being consumed – not less,” says Jeff Rubin, the Chief Economist and Chief Strategist at CIBC World Markets. He finds an efficiency paradox where consumers have taken the cost-savings gained through greater efficiency and turned around and spent those savings on more and bigger energy-guzzling products.
Mr. Rubin notes that with the depletion of conventional oil supply becoming more and more evident and concerns growing over greenhouse gas emissions, energy-efficiency regulations have been widely viewed as the answer. Efficiency gains play a prominent role in most government plans to manage energy consumption, including the latest U.S. Energy Act. But his work finds that these programs are compounding rather than solving the problem.
“The problem is that energy efficiency is not the final objective -reducing energy consumption must be the final objective to both the challenges of conventional oil depletion and to greenhouse gas emissions,” he adds. “Despite the huge gains in energy efficiency, that is simply not happening. Instead, energy consumption is growing by ever increasing amounts.”
(27 November 2007)
Mr. Rubin is drawing upon the idea of Jevons Paradox, first formulated in 1865 and more recently known as the Rebound Effect.
While his points about efficiency are valid and important, it’s important to note that efficiency does not make the problem worse. Efficiency just does not always have as great an effect as one would anticipate. For example, the UK just found that it had over-estimated energy savings because of the Rebound effect (UK energy savings ‘miscalculated’ at BBC).
The extent of the rebound seems to be in the range of a few percent to perhaps 70%, depending on many factors. Not many studies seem to have been done on the subject.
Note that this is a press release from CBI republished by CNN Money. It’s not original reporting.
-BA
‘Beer fridges’ present a gassy problem
Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
Getting rid of vintage “beer fridges” – secondary fridges which many North American and Australian homes boast – could have a significant impact on household greenhouse gas emissions, suggests a new study.
Beer fridges are additional fridges that are generally used to keep beer and other drinks cold on top of a household’s primary fridge for food. One in three Canadian households has a second fridge, many of which are ageing, energy-guzzling models, according to Denise Young, a researcher at the University of Alberta, Canada.
Young suggests that getting rid of older models, in Canada at least, would have an impact on energy usage.
(23 November 2007)
Smart appliances learning to save power grid
Bryn Nelson, MSNBC
Washers, dryers, refrigerators grow savvier, adjust to demand
—
It’s one small delay for dry socks and underwear, one giant leap for the national power grid.
Researchers at an appliance lab that looks more like a utility room are fine-tuning washers, dryers, water heaters, refrigerators – even coffeemakers – to help ward off the type of colossal power failures that plunged much of the Northeast into darkness in 2003 and blacked out big chunks of the West in 1996.
If you’re a bit skeptical as to whether subtle tweaks to your dryer or dishwasher might help keep the lights on, you’re not alone. But in two related experiments, scientists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., found that providing homeowners with smart appliances and information on how to save money cut their energy costs but also reduced overall power consumption during peak use periods, when the nation’s aging power grid is most susceptible to breakdowns.
(26 November 2007)
Bringing back the clothesline
Michele Henry, The Star
They’re hoping the province won’t hang them out to dry.
A week after Premier Dalton McGuinty said he’d consider the issue, local environmentalists are eagerly awaiting a decision about whether Ontarians, no matter where they live, will be permitted to fly clotheslines in their backyards and hang their pants, shirts, towels and unmentionables outside.
Peter Love, Ontario’s chief conservation officer, recommended last week that the province designate these solar linear drying devices as energy-efficient, which would allow everyone to use them – if they so desire.
Declaring them such would override any codes or regulations that may exist in housing developments or communities that prohibit residents from freeing their sheets.
In recent years, clotheslines have shed the stigma of being associated with poverty, becoming instead a sign of eco-awareness.
“I’m not sure what they’re waiting for,” says Phyllis Morris, clothesline activist and mayor of Aurora. “If we can’t solve a simple thing like hanging two hooks in the backyard, what chance do we have of solving our bigger energy crisis?”
(14 November 2007)
Review: EnergyJoule Power Use Monitor Tracks Peaks and Lows
Coco Krumme, WorldChanging
Ambient Devices, an MIT Media Lab spin-off, has released a new product that aims to have consumers shift electricity usage from peak to off-peak times. Like other Ambient tools (which include an umbrella that lights up if the forecast calls for rain, and a real-time stock market tracker), the EnergyJoule exemplifies parsimonious design: it plugs discretely into any outlet; its’ shape is unassuming and its information content manageable.
(26 November 2007)
Global Warming: The Rich Opt Out
Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation (web only)
Noted with interest: the very rich people are indifferent to climate change, global warming and the exhaustion of natural resources. Kyoto? What’s that? The new report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Never heard of it. The upcoming meeting of the world’s energy ministers in Bali? Makes no difference to me. Where’s my private jet?
The rich have decided to opt out of global warming and its effects. That’s for the little people, as the following from the Wall Street Journal illustrates:
The American Southeast has been suffering from one of its worst droughts in years. But you wouldn’t know it from looking at the emerald-green estates of Palm Beach.
There, despite water restrictions and low reservoirs, lush lawns and verdant hedges line the Florida island’s biggest mansions, awaiting the start of the annual winter “season” after Thanksgiving.
Consider Nelson Peltz. The investor and food magnate’s oceanfront estate, called Montsorrel, is among the island’s biggest water consumers. His 13.8-acre spread, which combines two properties, used not quite 21 million gallons of water over the past 12 months–or about 57,000 gallons a day on average–at a cost of more than $50,000, according to records obtained from the local water utility.
The paper has calculated that the average little person’s use is 54,000 gallons per year. Hence Peltz uses 352 times as many gallons of water as the wee people do. But isn’t that fair, considering that he makes at least 352 times as much money as the rest of us?
(28 November 2007)
If I were rich, I think I’d want to start keeping a low profile about my consumption. I might even consider using my wealth to improve the situation – so that future generations would remember my name with respect, not contempt. -BA
