Resources — and time – for energy innovation are growing scarce. And while alternatives like solar and “cleaner” coal are gradually making more of a dent in our reliance on oil and coal, the need for a centralized push towards a solution is dire. So what should the policy be going forward? Should we be devoting more time, money, and energy to making current buildings more energy efficient? Or throwing all our resources towards coming up with more and better alternative sources of energy?
In Australia at least, it looks like the answer, at least in the short-term, is “the former.” A new report from the Energy Efficiency Council of Australia indicates that in the next 10 years, energy efficiency will deliver twice the results of renewable energy, a switch to nuclear power, and “clean coal” efforts combined. Treehugger reports:
“The International Energy Agency estimates that energy efficiency will deliver 65 per cent of worldwide carbon cuts in the energy sector by 2020, and 54 per cent by 2030. This means that in 2020 energy efficiency could have almost twice the impact of renewable energy, nuclear power and clean coal combined.”
Such were findings of the Energy Efficiency Council (EEC) of Australia, who late last month released report entitled Energy Efficiency: Australia’s Low Carbon Opportunity, with the subhead of Boost Profits, Cut Emissions, Create Jobs. The EEC believe that increasing the uptake of energy efficiency could save more greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 than taking every Australian car off the road.
As in many industrialized nations, energy use in Australia is highly concentrated — according to the report, “just 220 companies, mainly in manufacturing, mining, and construction, use more than 40 per cent of the energy consumed” in the country. In the U.S., the numbers are slightly more even, with industries eating up around a third of the nation’s energy, while transportation (which includes a major part of industry — the transportation of goods) accounts for 28% of our total use. The commercial sector — office buildings, malls, warehouses — comes in fourth (behind residential use) at 19%.
In other words, a concerted efficiency effort in any one of these categories could have a radical impact on the nation’s energy usage as a whole. And while money has been flowing — including from Google — into green investment in the global market, given the state of the world’s economy, we may not be able to rely on long-term funding big enough to bring wind, solar, biofuels, etc. to the level of oil/coal replacements. As such, should we shift the bulk of our efforts toward a large-scale push for efficiency?
July 12th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
[...] Should We Scrap Alt-Energy in Favor of Energy Efficiency?The InfrastructuristShould we be devoting more time, money, and energy to making current buildings more energy efficient? Or throwing all our resources towards coming up with …Federal cabinet considers ways to curb energy useSydney Morning HeraldRewards call for turning greenHerald SunLetter: State can benefit from climate, energy lawThe Saratogian [...]
July 12th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I’m confused. Why would we have to scrap one to focus on the other? Could we not do both at the same time?
July 12th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I also don’t get why it is an either/or situation. We may initially get more bang for the buck with efficiency, but in the long run we also need to be able to generate electricity in non-polluting ways.
July 12th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
On the energy efficiency front, a good model to consider is the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Sacramento Tree Foundation shade tree collaboration http://www.smud.org/en/residential/trees/Pages/tree-benefits-estimator.aspx.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
It becomes an either/or situation insofar as we don’t have unlimited amounts of money. While you should develop both, what is the relative share each gets of the $$$ available?
July 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
[...] Should We Scrap Alt-Energy in Favor of Energy Efficiency [...]
July 12th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I’m personally all for efficiency/conservation over developing so-called alternative energy. First off, we’re already one of the largest per capita consumers of electricity in the world. Comparing us to Germany shows that we could cut consumption significantly without necessarily compromising our economy. Secondly, call me a cynic, but I think there are a lot of costs that we just don’t know about when you look at increasing the scale of these energy sources. Hydro was great until we saw the rivers destroyed and species going extinct. Nuclear was great until TMI and nuclear waste.
July 13th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Regarding the several posts questioning why conservation should take precedence over more efficient energy production, I would suggest that obesity is not cured by more efficient food production. While we should of course seek the least harmful sources for the energy we need, unless we begin to curb our insatiable energy appetite, production will never keep pace. This urgency of reforming our own bloated energy budget becomes even more inescapable when we factor in the energy needs of the developing world, and the impact our example will have on future demand.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
We can’t do 2 things at once? I thought that multi-tasking was supposed to be a worthwhile skill.
July 13th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
In the questions should we invest in renewable energy technology or energy efficiency the answer isn’t former or later- its both and has to be both if we are planning to get anywhere. Lets cut our energy demand while we figure out the cleanest ways of reaching the remaining demand. At the end of the day we wont cut our demand down to nothing, no one is saying that, so solar and wind and geothermal still have a place on the table- by affecting efficiency we get to call the shots on what scale they are needed at.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
I agree with everyone saying this is a false choice. These are the kinds of useless constructions that lead to internal squabbles and no progress being made. you are a niche website - show us some nuance please!
July 14th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Energy is the life blood of any western economy. “Efficiency” usually winds up meaning weaker things that take longer to do, killing productivity with negative economic consequences. Do you spend 2 units of energy to do something in 1 hour, or 2 units of energy doing something in 2 hours, but only using 1 unit of energy “per hour”? The BRICs don’t care about efficiency, they care about making energy. Western countries that limit energy usage will just push it to 2nd tier ones. 400 years ago, national power was how many slaves and serfs you controlled. Today national power is how much energy you control. If you want to create real energy efficiency, remove subsidies from energy or tax it. The market will figure out how to do more with less, without slanted ideology. Ending the USA’s energy dependence is easy as pie. If the USA put a 300% tax on oil tomorrow, instantly coal liquefaction of US will come into commercial use, just like South Africa did. For the processes that can easily goto alternative energy sources (LNG/CNG/batteries/coal/nuclear), they will overnight. Things that cant immediately go to alternative sources will use coal liquefaction. End of oil dependency.
July 14th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
You’re getting efficiency direly wrong, Pete. It’s measured in emissions or pollution per unit of GDP, not per unit of work input. If you spend 2 units of energy to make something, your efficiency stays the same no matter how long it takes. And if you spend 3 units of energy to make twice the something, your efficiency actually goes up. Developed countries generally have much higher efficiency than developing ones (but not always - Cambodia is actually one of the most efficiency countries in the world, as well as one of the fastest-growing). Far from being oblivious to this, China uses this metric to justify its decision to pledge to double its GDP-to-CO2 ratio instead of commit to an absolute limit on CO2.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:16 am
This is not an either-or. We have to do both.
Every improvement in energy efficiency leads to someone else using the “saved” energy. In order to get any net benefits it would have to be coupled with demolition of the existing coal-burning plants. But the “saved” energy arrives slowly in small increments, not in one big lump, most of the time, so you can’t do that. Except in special cases where one huge industrial user is able to reduce energy use massively, we need to put money into renewables as *replacements* for existing fossil fuel energy plants.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am
[...] than 97 percent of the state’s inventory of commercial space.” According to the International Energy Agency, energy efficiency will deliver 1.21 Gigawatts “65 percent of worldwide carbon cuts in the [...]
August 17th, 2010 at 11:22 am
[...] This is what’s up with the grid. (Infrastructurist)Alternative or efficient: that is the energy question. (Infrastructurist)“What time is it?” ”Oh, about L201.” [...]