Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ;
Add to My Group
April 22, 2007 at 05:33:51

View Ratings | Rate It

So you want to save the planet? What should you consider first?

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg
Tell A Friend

By Mary Ratcliff (about the author)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Mary Ratcliff - Writer

April 22nd is Earth Day and you might be wondering what should we do? After all, the problem of global warming is huge and we have an administration that is worse than an ostrich in facing the problem. Yet, there are so many things we can do, that the question becomes where do we start?

Back in the 1970s during the oil shock that created long lines at gas stations, a man named Arthur Rosenfeld did some calculations and came to a surprising answer.

When the OPEC oil embargo hit in October 1973, Rosenfeld did a little math. He discovered that if Americans used energy as efficiently as the Europeans or Japanese, the United States could have been exporting oil in 1973, rather than sitting in rationing lines at gas stations. The solution, he realized, was not to bend the Arab oil regimes to America's will but to end America's thralldom to them by wasting less energy.

This discovery, that energy usage had a strong demand side component, put him on the road to a life long journey in looking at how we use energy. And it led to the invention of some simple, yet powerful technologies which we are still employing today.

The following summer, Rosenfeld and a few like-minded physicists organized a month long workshop, held at Princeton, that attracted top scientists and engineers from fields such as building design, transportation, the manufacturing sector, and gas and electric utilities. "We began looking at some things that were all sort of common sense," he recalls. "Change incandescent lights to fluorescents, make better use of skylights, put more insulation in buildings, that kind of thing. By the end of the first week, we realized that we had blundered into one of the world's largest oil and gas fields. The energy was buried, in effect, in the buildings of our cities, the vehicles on our roads, and the machines in our factories. A few of us began to suspect that the knowledge we gained during that month would change our lives."

Realizing that the answer to many of our energy problems was using what energy we already had more wisely, Rosenfeld help create the energy efficiency standards such as California's Title 24 which we all live by now. He did this by working on the problem like how do you build houses that need less airconditioning where its hot and less heating where its cold. And the result?

California's building efficiency standards (along with those for energy efficient appliances) have saved more than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978. It is estimated the standards will save an additional $23 billion by 2013.

These standards are used in 15% - 20% of all new buildings in the United States. They have also been adopted by countries throughout the world as they look at how to reduce their energy use.

Rosenfeld went on to help define energy efficiency standards for many of the appliances we use in our homes. As a result, our refrigerators use approximately 50 kwh per year rather than the 250 kwh per year (or more) that they ate in 1974. This focus on looking at using energy more wisely had been tremendously effective and provides us enormous savings.

California embraced energy efficiency with alacrity. And while much of the rest of the country increased their energy use per capita, California's energy use per person has been largely flat. (See chart)

But then came the energy deregulation craze, and California utilities no longer were regulated to keep working on efficiency. After all, the mantra went, the market would do a better job than a regulatory body in figuring out what to do. Yet, energy, like a number of other things in life, doesn't fit the free market model very well. Because the goal of the energy market is to maximize profit and profit comes from selling more watts. As the NRDC article says,

The utilities needed prodding to do these things, because even though saving energy was beneficial to ratepayers and society in general, it was against their own financial interests. They made money by selling kilowatt-hours. The more they sold, the more they made. They had a far greater economic incentive to hand out free hair dryers (which some actually did) than to subsidize setback thermostats and CFLs for their customers.

What the market, based solely on maximizing the profits of the energy producers, created was a perfect racket leading to the energy crisis of 2000-2001. It was then that ole supply-side himself, Dick Cheney *, opined that California had not been building sufficient capacity and that the state relied too much on conservation.

California responded by putting together a crash course in more conservation. The state poured $1 billion dollars into deploying energy efficient technology by creating the Flex Your Power program to address the most important demand in the homes, in the cities and towns, and in the factories.

  • Households replaced nearly 8 million incandescent lights with compact fluorescent lights
  • Cities and towns replaced millions of wasteful traffic lights with frugal LED traffic lights
  • Factories swapped out thousands of old motors for new more efficient ones.
The result was a crash in demand and a savings of 5000 MW of power -- saving approximately the output of 10 large power plants. The savings were enough to stop the fraudulent energy market driving the crisis. And during that time, California was the most energy efficient society in the industrial world. Many of those savings still benefit California and what California is doing is to feed more resources into helping raise the bar.

California's recommitment to energy efficiency is partly a return to the past, but with a significant new wrinkle. Now, when utilities plan for long-term growth in electricity demand, efficiency is the resource of first resort, with renewable energy sources next in line. Utilities and regulators call this the "loading order." What it means, in Kennedy's words, is that "before our electric utilities spend a dollar to buy power in the market or build a new generation plant, they will first invest in ways to help us use energy more efficiently." If efficiency measures don't free up enough generating capacity to meet the growth in demand, the next resource in the loading order is renewable sources. Only then can utility companies turn to fossil-generated power (whether bought or built), and even then any new plants that are constructed must be no dirtier than a state-of-the-art natural-gas generating plant.

So what should we do first? Let's follow California's sensible lead.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

htttp://www.theleftcoaster.com

Mary Ratcliff is a senior writer and editor at The Left Coaster and Pacific Views.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "California Energy Conservation Environment"
Supplying Energy Through Greater Efficiency: The Potential for Conservation in California's Residential Sector
by Alan Meier

$35.00
Lowest New Price $5.10

Number of pages: 196
Publisher: University of California Press

Introduction to Energy in California (California Natural History Guides)
by Peter Asmus

$18.95
Lowest New Price $11.99

Number of pages: 444
Publisher: University of California Press

BUTTE COLLEGE NOW LARGEST SOLAR CAMPUS IN CALIFORNIA.: An article from: Industrial Environment
by Gale Reference Team

$9.95

Number of pages: 4
Publisher: Worldwide Videotex

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

timely! by Joan Brunwasser on Sunday, Apr 22, 2007 at 8:49:39 AM
Yes, BUT - by amazin on Sunday, Apr 22, 2007 at 10:07:43 AM
Quality of Life = Things worth doing/ busy-ness by HL Bumpkin on Sunday, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:54:24 AM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum