Bring on the behavioral economists! It turns out that the ways we think we’re saving energy are totally different from the ways we can actually save energy. Or so say the results of a new study out of Columbia University, Ohio State University, and Carnegie Mellon.
According to the researchers, basically every trope that we follow about how to save energy is in fact wrong: “Participants estimated that line-drying clothes saves more energy than changing the washer’s settings (the reverse is true) and estimated that a central air-conditioner uses only 1.3 times the energy of a room air-conditioner (in fact, it uses 3.5 times as much).”
In addition, the study pierced one of the biggest energy efficiency myths of all: that simply not using an appliance or device as often will save more energy than replacing the appliance for a more efficient model. Oh, and that turning off the lights has any real impact whatsoever.
The study, which was published in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, goes to the heart of an issue that many of us have been hinting at for a long time: Changing perceptions about energy efficiency (basically eliminating incorrect assumptions and providing people with accurate information) is one of the most powerful tools we have in the efficiency racket. Giving consumers the full picture, so they can make educated decisions about how to use appliances, which appliances to replace, and what behaviors to stress to achieve efficiency, will have a drastic impact on overall usage, not to mention our energy bills. According to the study:
Relative to experts’ recommendations, participants were overly focused on curtailment rather than efficiency, possibly because efficiency improvements almost always involved research, effort and out-of-pocket costs (e.g. buying a new energy-efficient appliance), whereas curtailment may be easier to imagine and incorporate into one’s daily behaviors without any upfront costs.
In other words, the key to achieving greater energy efficiency, and efficiency in general, is the same for consumers as it is for contractors, governments, and everyone else: You need to put in a bit more money at the outset in order to save money in the long run. It’s a principle that we may all need to acclimate ourselves to, fast.
[SButtonZ button="digg"]
Tags: Efficiency, Human Frailty, Perceptions
The problem with this story, the study and also the story on treehugger about this is that they all imply doing the things people are doing makes no difference at all. And that, some study aside (we know how great studies are in infrastructure right…) is not going to help.
Unplugging or switching off power at the outlet to your modem and router each night WILL save electricity. Turning the lights out will save electricity. Driving more slowly WILL save gas. Using a clothes line WILL save energy and also your clothes will last longer.
So to say these actions that people are doing won’t save a thing is not good.
What people need to do to really save energy are bigger than what this study really says. This study is about “go out and spend money” more than it is about saving energy. You want to stop driving. You want to have only one car instead of two and eventually get to none. You want to curb your habits of lifestyle more than just buying more efficient appliances.
Sure if you can, get more efficient appliances. But this is the real problem with cars vs trains played out again. No car with more MPG is going to out do not using a car. A more efficient car is an excuse to feel better and doing your share while not changing anything of meaning. Same goes for a more efficient clothes dryer. The appliance you stop using is ALWAYS more efficient than any appliance being used.
So this study basically says, our way of not changing is better than your way of not changing, so go spend this money for new appliances.
I had much the same reaction as Chris G.
Here’s an interesting infrastructure tidbit from the study:
“[participants] incorrectly reported that trucks consume approximately as much energy as trains and ships, even though trucks actually consume 10 times more energy per ton-mile.”
By the way, agree completely with Chris above. The perception results from this survey are interesting, but the discussion is not impressive at all. I just don’t get how efficiency saves more energy than curtailment (or why these are pitted against each other in the first place). I can’t find where they get these formulas from – not in their methodology.
Is driving a Prius for 100 miles more energy efficient than not driving a car for 100 miles ? Are wealthy westerners with EnergyStar everything really using less energy than those in the developing world who happen to curtail a lot? With today’s energy-efficient technologies, is the average American using less energy than someone living one hundred years ago? No, no, and no. Obviously. The outlook presented here seems to flip the old mantra “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” on its head, and it presumes that we as a society can substitute enough gizmos for any need to simplify our lifestyles. I Just don’t believe it.
It also leaves you with the impression that the best way to start conserving energy is to be rich. And buy lots of stuff.
There also seems to be some trick questions in here intended to overstate our the public perception problem. Comparing getting two tune-ups a YEAR to driving a more efficient car for an HOUR – c’mon now, that’s some sleight of hand. Who drives a car for an hour? Probably most people who got this “wrong” were just (correctly) intuiting that making the decision to own a more efficient car is more important that getting regular tune-ups. And comparing line-drying to adjusting washer settings … adjusting to what and from what? One choice is discrete, the other ambiguous and variable. Maybe your washer settings are fine the way they are.
[...] SaysNew York Times (blog)People have NO BLOODY IDEA about saving energyRegisterTechCrunch -The Infrastructurist -National Postall 54 news [...]
The researcher simply wanted their names on a provocative article. On top of that, the analysis is not even that good. The participants generally correctly ordered the energy saving correctly, they just missed the magnitude. This is more a reflection of a poor understanding of what a kWh is. Tell me, how many kW does it take to run your refrigerator for an hour? Could you even guess? Most people wouldn’t be able to. (Mine is about 100 watts, and it’s pretty high on the efficiency scale.)
This is nothing more than Tenure-bait.
More skepticism about this article here:
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/american-ignorance-of-efficiency-numbers-might-be-the-biggest-hu/#comments
[...] York Times (blog)People have NO BLOODY IDEA about saving energyRegisterEarth2Tech (blog) -The Infrastructurist -National Postall 54 news [...]
What the take away from this should be is that the average consumer might be willing to be more energy efficient if the expected payoff is discrete, tangible, and readily apparent. Curtailment, for most people, means doing less with less. Ideally we wouldn’t use any motorized transport, would wash and dry clothes by hand, and forsake artificial light.
Of course, that would be ridiculous. We can beat our chests and scream all we want, but telling Americans not to drive or not use their household appliances won’t change a thing. Until there are alternatives that are both reasonable and affordable, energy efficiency will always win over curtailment.
[...] Infrastructurist: How Confused Are You About Energy Conservation? [...]
A better article about the same study is at
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Many_Are_Still_Clueless_On_How_To_Save_Energy_999.html
I’d like a reference on the line-drying statement to the effect that changing the washers setting would save more energy (I don’t believe it). For a supposed scientific journal the lack of such a reference is suspect.
[...] The Infrastructurist [...]
All the Energy Star appliances in the world don’t mean squat when tiny families (four members tops) insist on living in 5,000 sq. ft. homes. It’s nothing but a panacea. We all need to learn to downsize by using only what we need and nothing more.
They’re pointing how to save energy while continuing to live and do the things you need to do. Most of the people here seem to want people to *stop* living and hibernate. Not a practical option.
This article reads like an August April Fools joke. We should certainly be willing to hear evidence that our assumptions about the world are sometimes wrong, but when an article presents statements that clearly violate the laws of physics (to paraphrase, “turning off lights has no real impact,” “using an ‘energy-efficient’ device saves more energy than not using a device at all”), an explanation should be included in the article itself. Otherwise, the statements are useless, and even inflammatory.
I’d go so far as to question the writer’s motives. Is the purpose of the article to get people to halt individual efforts at conservation and rely on governments and corporations?
The whole study rests on a construed “either..or” premise. What saves more, line drying _or_ setting your washing machine differently? But that’s not the choice – one should pit line drying against dryer use, and setting your washing machine to A or to B. To save most energy one should change the washing machine settings _and_ dry clothes on the line.
Chris – why am I saving energy by only having one car? It seems I’m better served by maintaining a small efficient vehicle for when I only need to transport myself as well as a larger vehicle for when I need to transport either cargo or multiple people or both. Beyond a very slight drain on the battery used to maintain volatile memory, I don’t think non active cars consume much energy.
I have a word for those who don’t like people using clothes dryers – unless you can figure out some way that I can hang my clothes inside the house and get them dry without using up extra space and without increasing the humidity in my home, you can go —- yourselves. The reason I say that is because if I go through the trouble and expense of washing my clothes, I want them to STAY CLEAN. I do not want them picking up road dust (we live near a gravel road), pollutants, bird crap, and other undesirable substances before I even wear them, and I don’t want them getting rained or snowed on either. I personally don’t care if I have to buy new underwear every year – I’d buy a new package every MONTH if it meant I didn’t have to hang them outside. Oh, and don’t tell me that the sun doesn’t damage clothes at all (ever had drapes fall apart due to sun rot?).
I know there are some people who wish that we all lived like people in third-world countries. Well, those folks have a much shorter life expectancy than we do for one reason: Improper sanitation. Sure, they get by without major appliances, but they eat meat that any American would have thrown out a day or two ago because it wasn’t refrigerated. If anything, we should be trying to raise their standard of living so they can afford some of the modern conveniences (and, I would argue, necessities) that we have. I don’t want to have to wash my clothes in a polluted creek or river and then hang them on a tree branch to dry, and if it were up to me, those folks wouldn’t have to do that either.
I’m all for saving energy (I was one of the first in my family to start using fluorescent lights in place of incandescent bulbs, even before CFL’s became available, and I’ve always driven small cars with high MPG. But if you want me to give up my clothes dryer, then you had doggone well better invent something that doesn’t use energy resources but still doesn’t require me to hang clothes on an outdoor clothesline, which I absolutely, positively will not do. And if you want the majority of people to stop using clothes dryers, then you had better develop some fast and convenient alternative. Most busy people who have kids and a job (especially a daytime job) are never going to use a clothesline, and nobody’s going to use one in the dead of winter in the northern climates. I’ll bet someone could, if they put their mind to it, invent some kind of solar-powered drying mechanism that could be placed on the south side of a home (think a small greenhouse-type device that uses solar and/or wind energy to tumble the clothes). As long as it didn’t expose my clothes to direct outside air or bird droppings, I’d actually use that. But a clothesline? No way!
Jeez, this is way too hard. Where’s the comic book version?
Chris G: But you’re showing a skewed view of what’s effective. Unplugging a modem overnight? You’re looking at what, 20-40Wh of savings per day? Replacing a single 60W lightbulb that is used for 8 hours a day with a CFL would save 360Wh per day, and even that’s minescule compared to savings to be had in heavier appliances (by line drying, or driving a more efficient car, or differences in AC, or the like).
The problem is that these aren’t the important things to do. They’re not making a big enough difference to matter, and efforts should be focused on the things that actually make a difference.
I think the point of the study is useful. People seem to think that using their appliances a bit less will save them more than if they bought more efficient ones. So consumers get stuck on usage and ignore buying efficient replacements. The study is certainly not saying that consuming less doesn’t save energy or that doing so is ‘wrong’. The study is certainly not concluding you should do one versus the other and it isn’t saying you can’t or shouldn’t do both. The point of the study was to measure consumers knowledge about what changes get them the most benefit. If I turn down my thermostat in my home by 1 degree then that will save me maybe 1-2% on my heat bills in the winter. If I buy a new heat pump that cut cut my heat bills IN HALF. The results of the study imply that consumers don’t realize that a new heat pump will save significantly more than using their old inefficient furnace and being a little colder. The study is not saying that its ‘wrong’ to turn down your heat 1 degree or that this won’t save you money. But the study is showing people are too focused on the ‘little things’ at the expense of the ‘big things’.
Adam: While what you say is true it shows the typical short sightedness (?) of people. Why should I bother doing it as it as “They’re not making a big enough difference to matter”
Lets just look at that CFL example you used. Take it over say 5 years and the amount begins to add up now here is a stretch for you, lets say 5 million households all do this in the US or any other country. So what is (360Wh x 5) 5000000 ? We are beging to get into some rather big numbers here aren’t we. Now lets say you replace 5 60watt bulbs. Ok you can do the maths I am sure. Add in a few other minescule changes per houseold and yes there is a difference.
I think people miss the point – to really make a dent, we should do both things – curtail use and spend the money up front to buy more efficient equipment – it will really take the two pronged approach. In addition, the economy will only get going again when we start buying more and what
While buying a more efficient appliance might reduce your energy consumption, it fails to take into account all the energy that was consumed to mine and process the raw materials, assemble the components, ship it, keep the lights on in the store where you bought it from, etc. Then there is the other side – the energy to dispose of the appliance, to recycle it, or landfill it etc.
I would expect that replacing a large appliance for a modest efficiency gain is a net loss proposition when you look at the big picture. Not to mention the irony of trying to promote conservation with a message of consumerism. By all means – if your washing machine breaks and can’t be fixed, buy the most efficient one you can to replace it. But don’t throw out a perfectly good appliance and think you are doing the planet a favor.
the light bulb thing might not make a lot of difference if you look at a per household situation.
however 75% of a small town… or even a city like new york or LA? it think that would be a different story.
And owning 1 car versus 2 it’s more on the fabrication energy then anything.
And Jack… please double check how meat is grown here…. and how long it had to travel to get where you buy it.. color dye does give it a fresh look i guess..
And yes riding a bike or walking a bit more does save fuel and cars. not saying all the time. just a bit more.
“The whole study rests on a construed “either..or” premise. What saves more, line drying _or_ setting your washing machine differently? But that’s not the choice – one should pit line drying against dryer use, and setting your washing machine to A or to B. To save most energy one should change the washing machine settings _and_ dry clothes on the line.”
Exactly…this article reads to me that people who are trying to conserve and live with less impact are not doing it right unless they make big changes in efficiency as well…when in reality, everything we do has an impact…good or bad. You will ALWAYS use less energy if you don’t use a dryer at all…and to encourage people to use a more efficient dryer instead is contrary to simple logic. I agree with the other post saying that it’s great to inform people and tell them what the biggest impacts can be but to present it in such a negative light just discourages people from wanting to do anything, because when they do make changes they’re told it’s not good enough. This is the worst article I’ve ever read when it comes to encouraging people to be more “eco-conscious”.
Is breathing more slowly more co2 efficient than not breathing at all?
Come on folks, just stop breathing and we’ll have a LOT less co2 on the planet!
100% same reaction as Chris G. A few people have misunderstood his point by failing to read his post thoroughly. The article itself is poorly presented, and fails to push its intent: mythbusting. Instead it implies our energy-saving efforts are COUNTER to the intent of saving energy etc.
Jack: it’s not that hard.
Adam: I save ~200Wh / day by switching everything off that runs in standby mode. That is significant when applied per-household across a state, town, or country. Your drop in a bucket argument doesn’t fit the larger picture of intent. The efforts should be focused across the board so that lifestyles aren’t so careless with any given finite resource, not merely on the offending activity of the era.
I am super confused about the line-drying comment. Line drying uses no electricity – how could it possibly be a poor way to reduce energy consumption?
The people writing this article are assuming that none of the readers have taken any steps to cut energy needs. What about all the people who already have changed the settings on their washing machines and invested in energy efficient appliances?
If you don’t do the American thing and spend money on new products, then the terrorists win. I’m curious to know about where the money came from that funded this study.
@Chris G et al.
Chris G said “A more efficient car is an excuse to feel better and doing your share while not changing anything of meaning.”
Your argument presumes that what *you* define as “meaningful” is the only correct definition of “meaningful” allowed.
Obviously this is not only arrogant but false. What is meaningful to you may or may not be meaningful to me. Both of us are right. So, in the end, if something more efficient helps me save money and decreases my consumption footprint while doing what *I* deem meaningful, that’s good. If you think walking everywhere and not owning a car is the only meaningful way to save transportation energy, that’s great, kudos to you! But chastising someone who does need and/or want to own a car for choosing a more efficient car over not walking everywhere like you is nonsensical. We should be encouraging them! Sure, we’d save crazy amounts of gas and oil if everyone just walked everywhere, but let’s be real. We don’t always have to skip right to the “nuclear option” to solve problems.
What gets me about these stupid articles is that not only did I have to click one link to get here, I have to click ANOTHER LINK wasting more energy and time to find the answer. Then it’s still hidden in academic-speak.
JUST TELL ME!!
We pretty much only dry towels, sheets, socks & undies. Everything else gets hung up around the (fixed up) basement to dry. It takes a little planning, but it works fine and then having a dehumidifier, which is on anyway, they dry much faster. What setting should I have my washer on that’s more efficient?
My husband likes over to over-water items and it annoys the heck out of me. He also likes every light in the house on. I go around pretty much in the dark as much as possible.
Sometimes, though, the smaller things do add up to larger savings overall and more effiicient appliances do make a difference, but not at the expense of throwing away something that works well already. However, our microwave is 16 years old and could probably be more efficient.
Kristi, I wouldn’t worry about your microwave oven. Unless the oven itself gets abnormally hot when you use it, the electrical energy going into it is being absorbed by your food (transformed into heat). Use it until it dies, to save the energy of needlessly manufacturing a new one.
the big problem with this study is the egregious underlying bias. it sounds as if it was funded by industry. the huge flaw in its reasoning is opposing curtailment and efficiency when in fact they’re seldom mutually exclusive; in most cases you can do both. like the ‘turning of the lights’ example. yeah, using more efficient lighting may save you more energy than turning off the lights, given we all have to use artificial lights, but there’s no reason to even ask that question. you can always do both. a truly energy-conscious person would do both, wouldn’t think twice about which is more efficient.
The study, or at least the way it’s being reported, is replete with absurd claims. The notion that driving a fuel-efficient car saves more energy than riding a bike instead boggles the mind. Only someone deeply invested in the status quo of wild consumerism could make that argument. This is exactly what those supposedly green businesses want us to do: don’t worry and keep on buying. No amount of handwaving can obscure the reality that on the extreme end curtailment necessarily beats efficiency for lowering energy usage. Until they make refrigerators that generate energy and suck carbon out the atmosphere, anyway.
The subject study provides mildly interesting analysis of human perception, but the REALLY interesting data about energy conservation is found at Footnote 6:
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/gardner-stern-full.html
Table 3 provides a short list of actions that provide significant energy savings. MANY OF THESE EFFECTIVE ACTIONS ARE IN FACT CURTAILMENT.
This blog’s careless summary may lead readers to conclusions that are wrong-headed and unfortunate.
We dont need to save energy, 178,000 TW hit the earth every second from the sun. Which means humanity’s current annual energy needs are met in the equivalent of 42 minutes of solar irradiation on earth, without fossil fuels or various types of nuclear. We need to be smart about how we collect it…investment in solar is the only way. Add in uranium and thorium in the nuclear mix (even without the promise of nuclear fusion), and you have energy to supply 200,000 of current human usage even without solar! So, no, there is no shortage whatsoever, the shortage is in brainpower, not energy.
Great point Jack…
My ecologist daughters, ages 11 and 7 just returned from a trip to Germany with their grandmother. They were very much impressed with the number of solar panels they found on the roofs. If Germany produces more solar Kws per capita than anyone else in the world, then what does that say for say, the southeastern US. As I fly over Atlanta on final approach, on a hot-muggy summer day, and look down at the acres and acres of flat roofs stretching all over the landscape with nothing on them but AC equipment, I am bewildered at the missed opportunities. It is no question that the single largest obstacle to energy independence in the US is the unchecked political power of the electricity generation utilities and the oil and gas industry.
P.S. @ Kristi,
I was sold until you mentioned the dehumidifier.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this study was funded by the National Appliance Alliance or the National Appliance Makers Association or whatever they have as a group. The whole thing is just promoting consumerism and the contradictory “spend in order to save” mantra.
[...] . . . this strikes me as a bunch of BS. Strikes some of the commenters that way, too. For example, this: In addition, the study pierced one of the biggest energy efficiency myths of all: that simply not using an appliance or device as often will save more energy than replacing the appliance for a more efficient model. Oh, and that turning off the lights has any real impact whatsoever. [...]