[Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Debunking Energy Efficency

Fri Feb 23 12:24:59 CST 2007

Here's another weirdo for energy efficiency:  In the last 5 years I've
upgraded from driving 15 MPG vehicles to 40 MPG vehicles (My vehicles
tend to stay about 20 years behind current technology because I keep
driving them until they are almost antiques)  I haven't driven more, or
less, just spent the money somewhere else.  I've raised my house from R5
walls (egad) to R15 (all I could stuff into them) but have not raised
the thermostat.  

I think that this theory may apply to certain specific processes or
industries, but not to the general case.  During this period, the
economy and wealth in the US and Great Britain were generally expanding,
which is why you'd find coal consumption tracking economic growth and
population expansion.  

The US economy and population is still expanding, and thus energy use
will continue to expand, despite efficiency gains.  

Amory Lovins counts up the amount of energy we would have used if we had
not implemented the efficiency improvements already done in the last 30
years, as "Negawatts".  It is a huge, significant number.  

Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP

-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Marcoplos
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:25 PM
To: chalicenew at earthlink.net; Reuben Deumling; Rob Tom
Cc: Greenbuilding
Subject: [BULK] Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency
Importance: Low

I can't speak for others, but the more energy-efficient I become, the
less 
energy I use. It doesn't make me want to binge on energy use. This may
be 
more complicated than I am recognizing, but if it works for me I've got
to 
believe it can work for others. In fact, now that I think about it, I
know 
that loads of people that I know have incorporated energy efficiency and

they are - hold the presses - saving energy! Do I only know weirdos? Do
I 
not know enough science?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance" <chalicenew at earthlink.net>
To: "Reuben Deumling" <9watts at gmail.com>; "Rob Tom"
<ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca>
Cc: "Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

> Yeah, Reuben!
>
> BTW, Monbiot also refers to Jevons when explaining the
Khazzoom-Brookes
> Postulate. Monbiot further implies that this phenomenon arises from
> capitalist consumer society.
>
> Here's a quote from the book:
>
> "The postulate works like this. As efficiency improves, people or 
> companies
> can use the same amount of energy to produce more services. This means

> that
> the cost of energy for any one service has fallen. This has two
effects. 
> The
> first is that the money you would otherwise have spent on energy is 
> released
> to spend on something else. The second is that as processes which use
a 
> lot
> of energy become more efficient, they look more financially attractive

> than
> they were before. So when you are deciding what to spend your extra
money
> on, you will invest in more energy-intensive processes than you would
> otherwise have done. The extraordinary result is that, in a free
market,
> energy efficiency could increase energy use. ...The Khazzoom-Brookes
> Postulate appears to explain why the corporations, by pursuing their
own
> cost-cutting interests, have not saved the planet."
>
> He goes on to say that it's only a postulate and is fiercely debated.
>
> ****Three cheers for carbon rationing--.9 ton per person across the
planet
> will do it!!!!*****
>
>
> Mary Bull, Co-director
> Greenwood Earth Alliance, Save the Redwoods - Boycott the Gap Campaign
> 252 Frederick, San Francisco, CA 94117 http://www.gapsucks.org
> Chalice Farm and Sustainable Living Center, 748 Montgomery Rd,
Sebastopol 
> CA
> 95472
> 415-731-7924 - 415-509-1188 chalicenew at earthlink.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Reuben Deumling
> To: Rob Tom
> Cc: Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance ; Greenbuilding
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency
>
>
> I have to disagree with you Rob. Short--yes, but not entirely true to
my
> ears.
>
> Jevon's Paradox refers to William Stanley Jevons' 1865 observation
that as
> James Watt's steam engines were able to go further on a given amount
of 
> coal
> than earlier machines, more coal was mined to feed the increase in
demand
> for the services these more energy-efficient engines provided. He
noted a
> four-fold increase in England's population since the beginning of the
19th
> Century and a 16-fold increase in the consumption of coal over the
same
> period.
>
> We could add plenty of examples from our own experience. New US cars 
> doubled
> in fleet average fuel economy between 1975 and 1988, but we now burn
more
> gasoline per capita than we did when cars were "inefficient." On
average,
> new US refrigerators use roughly 1/4 as much energy as the average new

> model
> did in the early 1970s, but we use only marginally less energy per
capita 
> to
> power them today than we did then.
>
> We can (and perhaps will) debate whether the pursuit of energy
efficiency 
> is
> itself to blame for this poor showing, or if continuing increases in 
> energy
> consumption are due to factors unrelated to this, our preferred,
strategy.
> But regardless, I think it is fair to say that the long standing and
> well-funded pursuit of energy efficiency in US policy circles has not
so 
> far
> managed to reduce per capita, much less total, energy consumption. It
may 
> be
> a useful strategy toward that end, but it is certainly not sufficient
if 
> our
> goal is to actually reduce the number of kWhs or BTUs we burn in the 
> course
> of our individual and collective lives.
>
> Energy efficiency is something that experts figure out and sell to us.
> Energy conservation is something we often already know how to do 
> ourselves.
> It has a lot to do with habit, and usually requires little additional
> hardware. I've found this list very useful in inspiring new energy
> conservation tricks.
>
> As an aside, 'energy intensity,' as I understand it, is generally used
to
> describe the ratio of energy to economic output--usually GDP. As such
it 
> is
> an even less useful measure than energy efficiency because we know
that 
> GDP
> can (almost always) be counted on to grow over time. If the amount of 
> energy
> consumed per $ of GDP falls (as it is asserted), this says preciously 
> little
> about how much energy is actually being consumed. The differential
rate at
> which the two in fact are growing may be of interest to economists and

> some
> policy makers, but it doesn't help us figure out how to, say, reduce
the
> chances of/slow down/avoid global warming.
>
> Reuben Deumling
>
>
>
> On 2/22/07, Rob Tom < ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:40 -0500, Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth
Alliance
> <chalicenew at earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>> I question the whole Energy Efficiency as God thing. Not wasting
energy
>> is an appealing notion, but does it really come close to solving the
>> problem?
>
>
> Short answer: Yes
>
> Energy intensity is directly related to and directly reflects resource
> depletion (and hence habitat destruction), air and water pollution
(and
> hence species destruction), greenhouse gas production and hence global
> warming (and hence all non-cockroach life on this planet destruction).
>
> Reducing energy intensity (ie energy efficiency) includes reducing
> embodied energy and  long-term operating energy.
>
> So which aspect of the "problem" is not addressed by implementing
energy
> efficiency measures ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
> List info: 
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
g
> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
>
> _______________________________________
> No viruses found in incoming message
> Scanned by iolo AntiVirus(r) 1.1.6.0
> http://www.iolo.com
> 

_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
List info:
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
g
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org