Many posts ago, I wrote “The More You Spend, The More You Save” explaining how poor system control wastes energy but results in even greater energy savings for efficient equipment. For example, consider an air handling system that wastes heating energy provided by an efficient boiler. The boiler saves x% versus a conventional model, so x% multiplied by greater use (wasted energy) results in “more” savings.
Recently I picked up on buzz that argues greater efficiency results in greater energy consumption. At one point I recall reading in the Wall Street Journal an editorial that argued more efficient vehicles just result in people driving more. They live further from work. They go on joy rides. They visit the in-laws more. I scoffed at this argument, at least at current gasoline costs and anything near them. If I buy a hybrid that gets 50 mpg versus a “sports car” like an Infiniti G35 coupe that goes half as far on a gallon of gasoline, I will drive more. No. Way.
I will drive more (barely) if (1) I have a car that is fun to drive and (2) I am in an area where it is fun to drive. While I haven’t driven a hybrid, I don’t think it would meet my criteria for #1. As for #2, western Wisconsin is a driver’s and biker’s paradise because (1) it is scenic (2) there are lots of smooth, paved, and curvy roads on which to drive and (3) there is minimal traffic. Quite frankly, I’m much more concerned about striking a deer, coon or coyote than another vehicle. I used to live in the DC metro area. Forget it. You might as well drive a tin can because you are going nowhere fast. I grew up in Southwest Minnesota. Forget it. You can drive for miles without moving the steering wheel. But even so, living here in driver’s paradise, I have limited time so I never, ever think, “ooh boy, a 45 minute drive is only going to cost me $2.79 in gasoline – let’s drive!”
That’s one argument that doesn’t hold water in my opinion. On the other hand, some people do run efficient stuff like lighting for longer hours because it’s efficient.
The other argument made in these articles is that the money freed up by spending less on energy results in redirection of that extra money toward other goods and services – and those goods and services result in more energy consumption to extract, process, manufacture, transport and operate. I do buy into the merits of this argument whether the end-user is a homeowner, service provider, or manufacturer. I never really bought into the notion that energy efficiency programs result in lower revenues for utilities. Maybe they understand this and hence the rah-rah from utilities for energy efficiency programs. I don’t blame them. By far the main driver of EE is saving money and increasing profits. See “This is Not Tee-Ball“.
Just think how this turns the energy efficiency business and policies on their heads. In “Paying to Lose,” I discussed how utilities have to make their savings goals or they may get hammered by regulators. This, in turn, improves the bottom lines of their customers allowing them to expand. What a racket. Rather than utilities spending money for their customers to use less of their product, they are actually using their CUSTOMERS’ money to sell MORE of their product. And how about “Decoupling Stupid,” that allows utilities to recover revenue “lost” to energy efficiency? They spend their customers’ money to increase sales and meanwhile essentially get reimbursed for the “savings”. Cool!
We have also discussed the underperformance of LEED facilities. In “LEED and the NOT Happenin’ Savings,” I described how LEED buildings weren’t meeting energy performance targets because of lousy commissioning. Well hail to the lousy commissioning agents! They are actually reducing global energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. Now that end user won’t be able to afford a new vehicle manufactured in Ontario with steel from soot belching plants in China shipped across the Pacific, through the Panama Canal to the Gulf of Mexico and transported by rail to Toronto or someplace – and tires from tariff protected Ohio that are shipped to Canada and back to the California border once installed on the automobile. They also won’t be driving their phantom car. (California won’t allow the car cross state lines because of the embedded energy, so Los Angeleans have to drive to Reno to pick up their car – I just made that up but it is probably true or at least accurate or emblematic, but certainly driving a new car across state lines into the golden state causes cancer and birth defects like everything else in CA does)
And I consider Michaels Energy. Our facility uses practically no energy but in recent years our air travel has gone from virtually zero to hundreds of thousands of passenger miles per year. And from the destination airport, we drive all over the place. Soon for example, we will have about five people zigzagging all over California verifying energy efficiency measures that probably save less than the gasoline burned to prove it. Somebody has to do it!
So go ahead and turn that thermostat up, open the window for some fresh air and click on that 70 inch plasma TV, have a beer and save the planet, Homer.
Join the discussion 2 Comments