Thursday, October 11, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Bank of America’s energy efficiency finance program rewards innovators
New Energy Efficiency Markets Blog:
Bank of America’s energy efficiency finance program rewards innovators
Bank of America’s energy efficiency finance program rewards innovators
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Where do the presidential candidates stand on energy efficiency?
By Elisa Wood
August 15, 2012
We know that what a
political candidate says during a campaign often differs from what the eventual
office-holder does. We also know that candidates choose their words carefully
to give themselves wiggle room for modifications in course.
So we listen for
innuendo and subtleties when candidates talk about our special interests. What
kind of qualifying language do they use? Are they truly against X, Y and Z, or
only under special circumstances?
Below are some quotes
on energy efficiency from President Barack Obama and Republican front-runner
Mitt Romney. I’ll start with Romney since his stand is less clear, at least to
me. Romney pushed a green agenda while Governor of Massachusetts, but
recently attacked renewable energy as “imaginary.” He doesn’t, however, appear to direct
the same criticism at energy efficiency.
Romney on energy efficiency
“I also want to see us become more energy
efficient. I’m told that we use almost twice
as much energy per person as does a European,
and more like three times as much as does a Japanese citizen. We could do a lot
better. I’d like to see our vehicles, and our homes, and our systems of
insulation and so forth become far more efficient. I believe that we have a role in trying to encourage that to happen.” – Think Progress, June 6, 2011 (See
video here)
When he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney proposed a four step energy plan, which began with increasing energy
efficiency for homes, businesses, state buildings, and vehicles.
In contrast, Romney pushes an agenda of energy production,
not savings, on his campaign website. He criticizes Obama’s green energy
programs, and calls for alternative energy funding to be used on basic
research. The energy issues page does not
mention energy efficiency or conservation.
Obama on energy
efficiency
“The easiest way to save money is to waste less energy,” –
Obama, January 24, 2012, State of the Union Address
Obama has been unabashedly pro-energy efficiency. As I
reported in February, Obama’s 2013 budget won
accolades from energy efficiency advocates because it called for about $1.2
billion in spending for energy efficiency.
In
addition, Obama’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future
pushes energy efficiency across all sectors: buildings, homes, factories,
vehicles, and calls for export of US energy efficiency technologies.
Still, in
the “Energy and Environment” section of his campaign website, energy production
takes up most of the ink – wind, solar, oil and clean coal – as part of his
“all of the above strategy.” The site does include a section on the fuel economy
standards Obama negotiated with car manufacturers.
In Congress, Republicans and Democrats have both
pushed energy efficiency legislation. It remains to be seen if the resource can
remain free of the political fray in this election, where candidates seem
determined to disagree on everything. If you have found other quotes by the
candidates on energy efficiency, please post them in the comments here. Let’s
keep watching what’s said.
Elisa Wood is a
long-time energy writer. Subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets
newsletter at RealEnergyWriters.com
Friday, August 10, 2012
Energy efficiency & the rebound effect: Neither big nor bad
August 8, 2012
Now that
you’ve installed efficient light bulbs in your house, do you think: “Guess I’ll
leave my lights on all night. What the heck – it won’t cost me any extra.”
Probably
not. But some extreme critics of
energy efficiency would have us believe this is the end result of appliance
standards and energy savings technology – that we simply consume more energy
when it becomes cheaper, negating the benefits.
This is
called the ‘rebound effect’ and while it is a real phenomenon, it is quite
small, according to a new white paper by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy.
Claims that
we use as much as we save – known as backfire – do not hold up to scrutiny; but
there does appear to be about a 20 percent rebound, according to the paper.
How bad
is this? Should you still bother with those more expensive LED light bulbs?
“Overall,
even if total rebound is about 20 percent then 80 percent of the savings from
energy efficiency programs and policies register in terms of reduced energy
use. And the 20 percent rebound contributes to increased consumer amenities and
a larger economy. These savings are not ‘lost’ but are put to other generally beneficial
uses,” says the paper “The Rebound Effect: Large or Small?” by Steve Nadel, ACEEE executive
director.
Nadel
describes two types of rebound effect: direct and indirect.
Direct
rebound occurs when a consumer buys a car with better gas mileage and then drives
more, or a homeowner installs tighter windows and reduces the home’s heating
bill, but then cranks up the thermostat because of the lower cost.
Indirect
rebound occurs when we take the money saved through energy efficiency and use
it to purchase new energy consuming devices or pursuits. For example, the
consumer might spend money saved on heating to buy a flat screen television. Or
a widget manufacturer might drop the price of the widget to reflect the lower
energy cost, and as result sell more widgets. That leads to a decision to
produce even more widgets and thus use more energy.
The direct
rebound effect amounts to about 10 percent of energy savings and indirect
rebound around 11 percent (based on best estimates), according to the paper. To
put these numbers in perspective, if a program reduces energy use by 10 percent
and there is an 11 percent rebound, that means actual energy savings is only
8.9 percent, not 10 percent.
So the rebound
effect is not all that big. It’s not all that bad either. The energy savings
are not lost; the money saved on energy generally goes back into the economy or
it serves to make the home more comfortable (warmer or cooler).
It’s
important to note that rising energy use does not indicate rebound –
although some wrongly cite it as such. The US Energy Information Administration
expects worldwide energy consumption to grow 53 percent from 2008 to 2035. This
is certainly not because energy is becoming cheaper thanks to efficiency
measures, but because advanced economies are adding more and more electric
gadgets and air conditioning (not
to mention electric cars), and India and China are wiring up their remaining
off-the-grid regions and also adding more electric devices. In short, life is
getting better for a lot of people. This isn’t a sign of an energy efficiency failure,
but of economic success. Deprivation is not the goal of energy efficiency; the
goal is consumption done more wisely.
Elisa Wood is a long-time energy
writer. Subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter
here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
