Why Conservation Is the World's Best Energy Source
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04.25.07
Check out the graph. The USA uses a lot of energy, but squeezes a billion dollars of gross national product out of a quarter as much as China. That's good. However it uses almost twice as much energy per billion bucks of GNP as Britain and Japan. How do they do it? People in Europe or Japan live rather well and get to shop at Muji and Conrans, have decent health care and even public transit, so it can't be quality of life. Perhaps it is that they tax gas to death so that cars are smaller and used less often. Perhaps energy for heating is priced so that people tend to keep the thermostat down and avoid air conditioning. Perhaps they live in denser cities. Perhaps land is expensive because they preserve more of it for agriculture instead of development. Perhaps they conserve.
Yet even in thrifty Europe only one third of all the energy produced is put to work. The rest disappears into the air or sea through leaky pipes and poor insulation. In cars, 70 to 80 percent of the energy burned does not end up being used for the purpose of moving the car, it goes out the tailpipe or heats the radiator fluid.
All the VC money is chasing wind and solar, hydrogen and ethanol; perhaps green investors should read about how "One reliable source of energy is not even close to being depleted: Simply saving it may be the safest and cleanest option mankind has. It also happens to make a tidy profit." Read a remarkable series of articles on Conservation as the World's Best Energy Source in ::der Speigel
Conservation by definition is not an energy source but a reduction in energy use. Since it is impossible to consume zero energy, conservation can not be the final solution. It will simply delay the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuel sources.
Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent way to reduce consumption of "dirty" fuels before renewable sources like solar and wind become common. And even after they are common, conservation will remain a great method of reducing energy costs. But the reason that solar and wind get all of the attention is that they are true sources of energy.
Agreed, but the "new source of energy" talk is more of attempting to reframe the way people think of it. For example: you could either build X number of nuclear power plants, or have X% efficiency in this many homes.
The point is that either action will net you a large amount of energy that can be used for further growth or other uses.
And in many cases... improving efficiency is less expensive. This is something people have a tendency of overlooking. Unfortunately, many local governments (city, state, even the fed) don't promote efficiency enough.
For example, every municipality should change it's building codes to REQUIRE seperate grey and black water drainage systems when building a new home. The incremental cost is neglible - but now, that home has the ability to cut its per capita water consumption in half! With slab foundations, you can't retrofit a greywater catchment system. It would also be easy to tie that into rainwater catchment.
Building codes could also add air leakage maximums - encouraging spray foam insulation or home wrap. These changes in building code would make a tremendous long-term change in resource consumption.
I think I originally read this in No Logo (Naomi Klein), but since I've not been able to find the chapter I'll just find something similar on the web.
Except GDP does not measure wealth, it measures money. Robert Kennedy was overstating the case when he said GDP measured everything except that which made life worth living. However, even the inventor of this concept, Simon Kuznets, stated GDP was not meant to measure well-being or wealth. Alaska's GDP, and employment, rose after the Exxon Valdez oil leak. Well-being and wealth did not of course rise, although much money was spent. So despite what is written in the media, work and GDP do not always equate with new wealth.
(Via socialcredit.com)
re. Peter's comment: it's perfectly valid and conceptually very useful to think of negative quantities as positive ones, in circumstances were those negative quantities are desirable.
For example, architects, when considering cooling strategies for buildings often use the term "coolth". A heat sink, such as a concrete floor slab, can be said to generate a certain amount of coolth when heat is transfered to it from warmer ambient air. The amount of coolth thus generated will be included in your calculations to determine your HVAC needs.
Air conditioning is certainly not something UK homes have. A lot of offices do have - but I have never seen a house/apartment that has even when browsing the property well in excess of what I can afford. I am sure there may be some exceptions, but it is certainly not common.
On the other hand it is not so hot over here and so air conditioning is probably not so relevant. Perhaps Spain and Italy are the better comparison for some USA areas.
I do not disagree with the premise of the article, but when you consider factors such as total population and land mass as a whole then you are comparing apples to oranges picking two countries that are significantly smaller in both areas.
To the American commenter - Energy needs of the modern world are outpacing current energy production and delivery infrastructures' ability to deliver - that is the real problem. Capacity, not conservation. The 19th century electric grid system is failing USA. Here in North East USA rolling power outages are routine summer events causing actual deaths (traffic accidents, poor elderly or infants in apts without AC, ) and also millions in small business losses. Conservation measures will only buy some more time, staving off the inevitable capacity crisis by a couple of decades is not a solution.
How many more foks have to die, in the meanwhile?!? How many more small businesses have to go bankrupt EVERY SUMMER?!?
As in the 19th century, individual ingenuity and 'the invisible hand' of the market will find a way to create energy cheaper, cleaner, safer, faster.
The world didn't run out of whale blubber, petroleum was simply a better fuel deal.
I suspect that the problem isn't one of technology. There may already be scientific and technological innovations in energy productions to offer to the public. The control over who produces energy and how it is sold is what has to change. We need a kick-ass trust buster president like Teddy Roosevelt was. It's time to bust up the energy production cartels in USA, so that small new energy producers get a chance to compete and bring innovation to the marketplace.
GT, NYC,USA