Why energy conservation doesn’t work:
Efficiency advocates sometimes dismiss rebound by only looking at “direct” energy consumption — that is, consumption by households and for private transportation. Examples of rebound in this part of the energy economy would be driving your Prius more because gasoline costs you very little, or turning up the thermostat in your efficient home. But these “direct-use” rebounds are small in comparison to “indirect-use” rebounds in energy consumption. Globally, some two-thirds of all energy is consumed indirectly– in the energy used to produce goods and services. A residential washing machine may be energy efficient in terms of function, but in terms of production, the metal body alone requires energy to mine, smelt, stamp, coat, assemble and transport it to a dealer showroom and eventually a residential home. The energy embedded in your washing machine, or just about any product or service you consume, is very large. And remember that any money you save on your energy bills through efficient appliances or the like is re-spent on other goods and services, which each take energy to produce, all while more productive use of our money (e.g. in spending, savings and production) spurs a more robust economy, demanding even more energy.
So with all that in mind … I will quote the Beatles. “La la la la life goes on”
“Globally, some two-thirds of all energy is consumed indirectly– in the energy used to produce goods and services.”
That’s why capitalism and corps are the primary target of enviro-nutjobs. Kneecap industry and you take out the cornerstone of energy consumption.
You know, this actually is true. We just replaced all three of our toilets with water-conserving low-flush models. Despite being low-flow bogs, the things have a rather powerful flush. Kholer claims that they can send 1000 grams of solid waste merrily on its way with a single flush.
So, true to the rebound effect, I’ve been pooping bigger to see if the 1kg claim is true.
Seems to be, as far as I can tell.
Consider the energy cost of a Prius battery:
http://www.newsoxy.com/articles/toyota-prius-battery-harms-environment.html
What’s the energy cost of the bullets used to keep the workers in the Chinese CF bulb factory in line?
I have made this point so many times on here before.
No matter what you do to save energy it still takes alot of energy to save energy period think of equal and opposite reaction kinda sorta.
The overall energy cost to produce a car is maybe 5-10% of what the car actually burns over its lifetime. The Sudbury mine has been around for many decades, and actually the environmental damage it causes has been greatly reduced well before the Prius was even a blueprint.
The primary use of nickel is in stainless steel.
Saunders’ article points out correctly one kind of rebound effect. But there are others. Perhaps the best example is incandescent lighting. Even though much of its consumption produces heat, not light, none of that heat is wasted if it’s an indoor light and offsetting load on the furnace.
What’s interesting is that the home energy auditors agree with this. It’s simply more evidence that none of the enviros have any understanding or expertise in HVAC.
A bit off-topic, but anyone listen to Rutherford this morning? That was the best I’ve heard from him in a long time! (it was to do with cameron visiting the oilsands)
Mark Peters @ 11:15 nails the crux of what it is all about. The Luddites want a return to the pre-industrial age. A clean environment is only their excuse to kneecap industry. We all want a clean environment in a responsible manner.
I don’t know about other provinces but in Ontario most generated electrical energy is ‘lost’ to grid leaching. That is a condition where a majority of energy generated at ‘head end’ production is lost in leaky lines, surface current, ‘soft grounds’, inefficient archaic transmission and distribution equipment etc.
By the time energy from Niagara Falls makes it to a consumer in south central Ont. almost 3/4 of it is leached off into ground or as grid heat or EMI.
When will the pols look at the ancient distribution grids and up their efficiency? Oh yeah you don’t tax gumment’s pals.
The overall energy cost to produce a car is maybe 5-10% of what the car actually burns over its lifetime.
Interesting. My 8-year Toyota Echo has about 275,000 KM on it. At an average of 6.0 litres/100km, that works out to 16,500 litres in its lifetime so far.
Looking up the energy content of gasoline here —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content_.28High_and_low_heating_value.29
— we do this: 16,500 litres × 34.8 MJ/litre
That gives us 570,200 MJ.
So… how much energy is that? I mean, is that a lot? Seems to work out to 2.088 MJ per kilometer travelled.
Just wondering.
“Fortunately” for the eco-flagellant cause, in Ontario Premier Dad McQuimby is going to force energy conservation on the populace the good old-fashioned way – by making electricity more expensive. “Smart” meters and ridiculous subsidies for lousy erratic energy sources like wind and solar are the order of the future under that jackass.
So increased energy efficiency leads to increased productivity and a higher standard of living. This is a problem?
Though I’m going to miss the warm, cozy light from, the soon to be illegal, incandescent light bulbs in 2012.
————————————————-
“These conclusions suggest a subtle but important shift in how one views the baseline consequence of the increased energy efficiency associated with SSL. The consequence is not a simple ‘engineering’ decrease in energy consumption with consumption of light fixed, but rather an increase in human productivity and quality of life due to an increase in consumption of light.” This phenomenon has come to be known as the energy “rebound” effect.
its built into the price. the market is the collective wisdom of 6 billion people and its interlinking.
everytime it is tinkered with, held, stabilized or added to by governments it just takes long to correct.
Larry has it exactly right: increased efficiency is a good thing. The problem is that efficiency (you name it: in electrical generation, appliances, heating, gas mileage, etc.) has been steadily increasing where there is a free market to drive investments in greater productivity and increasing ROI.
Take the compact flourescent light bulb (Please!). Nothing inherently wrong with the concept, and it does have its niche applications (it’s good indoors, where there is a need for long periods of steady illumination). But to legislate its use and to phase out existing, much cheaper technology is asinine.
Now the costs – in manufacturing, replacement, household modifications – are much higher than the slight reduction in home electrical useage. To wit: they’re more expensive (both to manufacture and to purchase), they have yet to prove that they last longer, if you have dimmer switches you’ll need to remove them; they contain mercury and should be disposed of separately … though of course you know that people will just dump them into the regular garbage, opening the door for some future eco-nut to scream about rising mercury pollution in the cities. Not so efficient after all.
“Efficiency” as defined by eco-nuts and as implemented by hordes on unthinking bureaucrats and their (usually) innumerate czars is something quite different. Efficiency as defined by modern eco-chondriacs has no bearing whatsoever on the physics of the proposed application; it has everything to do the regulations produced, the political power transferred, and the amount of “green” dispensed to the inner circle.
This type of “efficiency” has to be avoided at all costs.
the efficacy of efficiency – K I S S
1. Energy conservation does work.
2. You don’t stop being conservative when you admit the obvious.
If it does not work, why do you live in the house and wear warm jacket in winter?
FredR nails it!
You might use up a lot of energy making a quality product (not a cheaply made Chinese knock-off product) but the consumer will have a great deal of use out of it for a long time providing he maintains the product properly, thereby eliminating the need to make, re-make and re-re-make a product (the way you do with cheap Chinese stuff).
Everything is a trade-off is my point.
I wrote about this topic during the Cash for Clunkers program.
The energy and carbo emissions from producing an existing vehicle are a sunk cost. So when you trade in your used Hummer for a new Prius, you are using more energy in the production process.
The best environmental alternative would be to drive your gas guzzler until it dies a naural death, and then buy an efficient non-hybrid car.
You can’t erase a bad decision by making a good one.
I drove a 1987 S-15 Jimmy 4×4 from 1988-2006. (I think it was even before the term ‘SUV’ became common), I put over 280,000 kms on it, and it was on its second engine and tranny – and maybe 5th set of tires – when I finally replaced it – with an HHR. I’ve always believed that keeping a vehicle for a long time was generally better for the environment than replacing it with a new, efficient model every time one comes out.
Overall, by keeping it running, in good shape both mechanically and cosmetically, I think I saved energy as oppossed to if I had replaced it after four years, the way many people replace their vehicles. Just imagine the power consummed to create a vehicle – from refining the steel; forming glass; molding plastic; rubber; tires; carpeting; and also consider the pollution caused in producing all those.
Saw one of those bus RVs pulling a hummer yesterday and wondered which of Kate’s readers it was.
I’ll buy energy efficient anything if it makes sense to me but I won’t replace anything that is functioning fine no matter the energy savings promised because that’s wasteful (of both my money/time and the energy it takes to buy something new – not to mention the landfill issues when perfectly good stuff gets taken to landfill.)
I get suspicious of all the incentives to buy new things because of the tax revenue it raises. And how many of those new energy efficient fridges actually replace an inefficient fridge? Most people I know move their old fridges to the basement for ‘backup’. So their amount of energy consumption increases in the name of being efficient.
My reliable Honda van was given to my adult kid because he needed it to get something better than a minimum wage job. My barely functioning (as in over $200/month in repairs and still didn’t run right) 9 year old energy hog car was sold and we downsized to a used Prius.
Are we driving more? Maybe, because the car is fun to drive and we don’t worry about breaking down at the side of the road. But since it has saved me at least $2000 in car repairs so far (and less in insurance now that we are a single car family) I’m ok with that. After all, as a friend said, we didn’t buy it to park it in the driveway.
I’m sure the guy pulling the Hummer with is RV had the same attitude.
Energy conservation and increased efficiency won’t work where people are stupid mindless consumers. So called ‘rebound’ is just one of many effects; some positive, some negative. The problem is the stupid consumers not the technology. Blaming the object instead of personal responsibility is a typical lieberal trait based on faulty logic.
Some of the lighting in my house is 30 year old CFLs. The cost has been paid off with energy saved many times over. I’ve replaced two during that time. Other lighting is low wattage halogen and some dimmer controlled incandescent. It all works just fine and I choose whatever type of lighting effect I want. Some people take light bulbs way too seriously.
efficiency…..
Anybody who owns a motorcycle will attest that although a motorcycle gets better mileage…it is eaten up by the cost of low mileage tires. Soft composition tires which cost 2X a car tire and sometimes only go 10,000km….
Insurance is no cheaper–often pricier….
As far as rebound….ever notice that driving increases with a new car…..perhaps a pent up urge after forgoing distant treks with the older less reliable beater……
John Galt
[….Some people take light bulbs way too seriously…..]
Don’t sweat the petty things and don’t pet the sweaty things???
The devil IS in the details……
For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
For the want of a rider the message was lost.
For the want of a message the battle was lost.
For the want of a battle the war was lost.
For the want of a war the nation was lost……
ALL FOR THE WANT OF A HORSESHOE NAIL!!!!!