Americans Harbor Misconceptions About How To Save Energy
Americans Harbor Misconceptions About How To Save Energy
NEW YORK—Many Americans believe they can conserve energy by taking relatively inconsequential steps, such as turning off lights, while ignoring more impactful measures, according to a new survey. Only 2%–3% of respondents to the online survey by Columbia University cited major energy-saving steps, such as purchasing energy-efficient cars and appliances, and weatherizing homes, as being important in reducing energy consumption. Nearly 20% of respondents cited turning off lights as the best approach to conserving energy. For a sample of 15 activities, respondents underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities.
Replies
Generally, I agree. But I tend to be skeptical of survey results that really don't publish the results or more importantly, the survey itself. Survey's are often poorly constructed to really gain a good sampling of what they are trying to find. I could see a survey on this topic ripe for poorly worded questions that really don't glean good responses.
People talk green and efficiency and then they build a MacMansion ... go figure. I knew this guy once ... wife and two kids. Wanted to have his new house 'efficient' ... so he did a buried GSHP system to heat his 6700 sqft house!! His master shower was like 8 x 10!
People and organizations want to give you the sense they are 'environmental' or 'efficient', but then they really don't understand it.
Energy is science and most people don't understand the science of efficiency ... and more particularly, the economics. Without the economics, the science has much less meaning. I've been in the energy business for almost 30 years. I understand that people don't understand energy enough to make good decisions. There is often so much hype and hard sells going on that people get confused about energy. I respect that.
That's why we need even more energy awareness. People generally understand the importance, but they don't understand ... 'do I do this or do I do that'. Just like me trying to understand the science of medicine to take care of myself. I don't begin to really understand it ... so I make a lot of the wrong decisions (or make no decisions at all).
You want the details
take a look here. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf+html
More than you can stand.
Well I finally went to the site ... and you're right ... more than I can stand. WOW!!!!! A lot of scientists and/or statisticians doing a lot of analysis on ... what? They presented one of the questions and IMO even that question wasn't very well structured. That's the problem w/ scientists/statisticians compiling a survey. Heck a lot of professional survey companies can't compile a survey that isn't biased IMO.
All that fancy analysis ... the paper on your link is obviously meant not really for the casual readers like myself, but only for other scientists.
Don't know if I/we really need to have this survey to tell us what we kind of already know. The same survey on many other topics (e.g. personal medical or financial prowess) would likely get similar rsults.
You can't really ask the average person .... what would you do to save energy ... A) change your light bulbs or B) change your furnace (or dishwasher)? They aren't the same animal at all. They both have their time and place. It's not about just 'where are your biggest energy savings' ... A) light bulbs or B) furnace (or dishwasher)?
You implied ... that your biggest savings is e.g. the furnace (vs. the light bulbs) ... and generally, you are absolutely right. But it isn't simple like that ... good energy decisions and management is more than just Btus of energy ... it is about economics and many other factors that affect whether you can (or should) take action to save those Btus. Renters will change light bulbs, not furnaces. Minimum wage people often can't change furnaces (maybe due to poor money management, but that is not for me to judge).
A short lifed and inexpensive item like a light bulb ... I'd be more inclined to encourage replacement than I would a functioning furnace. That is a generalization as there are situations I would encourage the furnace option ... but not without a recommendation to replace the lamps as well.
Say I have a leaky dam. Many small leaks (say 15%) and a large leak (say40%). The small leaks I can readily fix w/ locally available materials/resources and with little effort. The large leak requires planning, funding aquisition, engineering, and bringing outside help and resources to fix. Do I ignore the small leaks and sit around waiting for the large leak to be fixed?
This is a good discussion, though ... and we need to promote better awareness and motivate people to do good things. The problem is ... it's a complex topic and there really is no silver bullet solution to energy problems. It's a lot like any trade ... a lot of well done details make up a good finished product. The general goal of the trade is moot w/out well executed details.
Dang ... I'm digressing and ranting a bit ... done for now.
I waded through the article over breakfast. Certainly won't claim to have read and understood all the statistical gobbledygook, but got a general feel for what was being said.
First off, I think on initial reading one can get the impression that the list of "ways to save energy" is what was presented in the survey. In fact, if you read closely that question was "open ended", meaning that the interviewees were asked how they could save energy, without providing a multiple-choice list, and then the answers were categorized after the fact. And note that this was only a small part of the overall survey, and didn't really figure into the final results -- just a "teaser", so to speak.
The real "take-away" from the article is that the best (in fact, only) predictor of ones ability to judge effectiveness of various energy-saving strategies (or judge the cost of various energy users) is "numeracy", the ability to reason with numbers (not simply do arithmetic but understand the meaning of numbers). This (to me) was not at all surprising -- you find the same numeracy issues (and correlation) when people judge the likelihood of being struck by lightning, the likelyhood of ill effects from an immunization, the likelihood of a terrorist attack, etc.
Innumeracy is a major problem for the US -- it was a major contributor to the financial breakdown, affects how people purchase products, affects risky behaviors, affects political attitudes. (It would be interesting to see a comparison of numeracy by country, but I can't find such a comparison.)
Some very interesting points. Such a technically based article, yet it really only tells a bit of the story; it's not comprehensive of the study. Sounds like someone had some money to spend on a bias and hired some statisticians to show they were right.
However, I don't at all disagree w/ the OP point ... just his narrow point of view and now his fairly limited reference to this 'objective' survey that proves his point. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people tend to be ill informed about energy ... and as I said about all kinds of relevant things that will directly affect their lives and well being.
As dedicated as I am to this field and as much as I think everyone should understand energy ('cause I think energy affects every aspect of peoples' lives), I understand that people generally simply do not understand it.
It gave quite a bit of information -- couldn't have crammed much more into an article of that length. I didn't see any evidence of bias.
As you say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people tend to be ill-informed about energy (or any other aspect of public policy for that matter). It was a little interesting to see why/how -- simple innumeracy vs political bias, etc. In a way this was something of a "null result" -- not realy much new insight. But that's the way it is for many scientific studies -- the "null result" is really the norm, and new insight something of the exception. However, one must keep in mind that reproducibility is a core scientific principle -- until some experimental/survey result has been repeated several times it's not really trustworthy.
Dude....
that's... deep... but I think you're on to something.
I tend to be skeptical of survey results that really don't publish the results
So true, if an energy survey does not include quantitative number i figure it is just politics, like global cooling, or is it warming, i forget now. Would you believe my HP has been in HP mode more than AC during August even!
Would you believe my HP has been in HP mode more than AC during August even!
That wouldn't be true here. One of the hottest and most humid summers on record.
Meanwhile in South America
Record cold continues.
Must be Global Warming here & Global Cooling there?
Joe H
must be a cold winter there ... after all ... it IS winter there.
USA Today
is not really know for journalistic dillegence. They did perfect delivery the news to a populace of decreasing intelligence via the ubiquitous "pie graph story".
IF one wanted to find the details of the survey, I would check with Columbia University.
While I didn't author the story, I though it interesting in as much as population is relatively unsophisticated in energy. The "greenwashing" of the US now makes much more sense. A mindless populace can jump on the bandwagon and blindly "do green things" for the environment and feel good about nothing.
I recall a survey from over a decade ago, where in respondens were asked to indicate the manufacturer of the heating/air conditioning system. 70% said "Honeywell". Goodman used this for years to sell cheaper equipment to installers because no one knows or really cares who makes their systems.
Or...
simply more likely to need someone else think for them. Hence, the propensity for greater government control of everything, including personal decisions. <VBEG>
But they also harbor all kinds of misconceptions about all kinds of other things: their health, their finances, their cars, their families and love lives, their houses ....
Biggest misconception ... e.g. my 10 x 10 bedroom is just too small for my wife and I ... build a new house and overcompensate by building a 20 x 20 bedroom.
Big misconception: architects are rich and you can't afford to hire them ... or there is no value in hiring one to do my house, so I'll pull a plan from a plan resource and proceed to screw w/ it until it is unrecognizable and then go build a mcmansion 'cause I've no real clue as to what design is all about. Yeah, my house is like 1,000 sqft too big, now .... let me see at a nominal and conservative $100/sqft that is $100K for the excess, but I couldn't afford an architect that [should be able to] save that 1,000 sqft and still provide me with a very livable house ... and I'm guessing his fee will be far less than the $100K.
OK, done with sarcasm ....
I'm not disagreeing with you and I do think what you pointed out is both true and very important.
That's why this tirade is really a disguise for a shameless bump ... and an opportunity to rag on about similar topic.
However, I'm thinking that this thread is borderline Tavern already, and any further ranting should probably go there.
I dunno ... have no idea 'what the tavern is all about'. I'm clueless there.
All politics aside,
I posted the story, not to deride the creators or the participants, but because as we move forward as a nation with incresingly more energy efficieny focused policies and practices, it is apparant that a great deal of education is necessary. How can we make informed decisions about what is real and what is "greenwashing" if the populace in generally is clueless?
We discuss things here as (somewhat) technically knowledgable people and still manage to disagree, but still have the basic understanding that a 100w light bulb uses relatively no energy compared to a 10 SEER AC in the south or an old 65% AFUE furnace in the Midwest. You have geniouses out the changing all their light bulbs to CF and have not the foggiest idea where the greatest energy usages, and therefore potentially saving, really are.
However, we changed our lights to CFLs and changed the furnace to one with a DC blower, and it cut our electric bill in half. Switching to CFLs can produce substantial savings. Of course, we already had a 14 SEER AC (which most summers runs less than 10 days, but this summer ran maybe 30), and the furnace that came with the DC blower was a 96% unit.
Note that the "greatest energy savings" isn't necessarily the most cost-effective way to save, and lots of small savings can add up. It's not an either/or thing -- rather energy conservation should be a full court press.
CFLs, in particular, make a lot of sense just from a maintenance standpoint (which is why you hardly ever see incandescents in a commercial structure anymore) -- even though the lamps are several times more expensive than a regular lightbulb they last much, much longer. This saves money even if the electricity is free, plus it's much more convenient (and $$ saving to the commercial property owner) to not be burning out a couple of lightbulbs every week and having to replace them.
And I wasn't intending to degrade your story ... simply add a perspective/point of view.
"if the populace in generally is clueless?" Got that right.
I disagree w/ your example of lamps and furnaces/AC units, though. Yes, maybe a single CFL is 'small potatoes' compared to the AC unit, but it makes sense to change to it anyway. Often it makes less sense to toss a perfectly good functioning piece of equipment for a more energy efficient one. Plus people can afford to readily swap a lamp, but maybe not the furnace.
Economically it makes sense when you HAVE to swap the furnace/AC to go high efficiency, but is not economical to change a functioning unit for the same high efficiency model.
It's not always about a single 'greatest energy consumption component' thing. And yes, there are many differences of opinion in this field. Like everything, there are often many ways to achieve some success. Everyone has something to contribute.
Me, I like to think that insulation and air sealing are the first defenses against energy consumption, but I don't always tell people to gut their houses and install better insulation.
A single CFL isn't a big deal. A million of them is. And they are more readily available and installed easier than the furnaces/AC units.
Still not degrading the issue, here ... just adding food for thought. Energy in buildings is a complex topic, even though the concepts are fairly simple. And that in itself is part of the problem.
My point is that in residences (that is what this thread is about, commercial bulding are a whole other can of worms) lighting is an insignificant energy consumption. Changing to CFL bulbs that have the potential of giving the average home owner a decade payback make no economic sense. 10 times the cost, 30% the energy consumption. And you're right, a million CFLs, busted and dumped in the garbage and the landfills will make a HUGE difference. In the mercury pollution of your children's groundwater, that is.
Again, this is all a diversion and off point. We can debate the relative merits of various approaches to saving energy, but the point is that the voting public as a whole, cannot.
4 people, each using a 75 watt light bulb for 4 hours a day, everyday for an entire year (this is, I would speculate, many times more than the avaerga household uses lighting) is the equivalent of a 4 ton 13 SEER condensing unit operating for 60 hours or the average residential refrigerator/freezer operating for 3 weeks.
Energy Star states that lighting accounts for 20% of electric energy consumption in homes. This is sufficient evidence that they are a) staffed by non-techical idividuals that flunked science in high school (aka - morons) or b) have a vested, financial interest in pushing disinformation on an ignorant public.
By your logic, it makes sense to discard a perfectly good light bulb that will most likeley never pay you back, causes toxic polution, but not to replace a furnace when you can show a payback in three or four years?
CFLs pay for themselves in a year or less. And the mercury they contain is less than the mercury emissions they save from burning coal for electricity.
(And don't forget that if you use the AC a lot, you spend more for the AC to remove the heat from a light bulb than you spend lighting the bulb.)
Using CFLs (even if you're tossing out good incandescent bulbs to do so) is a no-brainer.
You're illustrating the precise thing you're railing against -- allowing unverified misconceptions (and probably politics) to drive your opinions/actions about ecological concerns in general and energy saving in particluar.
Well ... you're opening a bit of a can of worms here. Dan is right. I ran some reasonable numbers. Incandescent lamps last a year or less (of course depending on their frequency of use). Based on the same frequency of use, CFLs will last over 13 times longer. You won't have to wait too long for the incandescent to burn out to replacement. And no, I wasn't necessarily advocating throwing away a perfectly good light bulb ... I think I was implying the opposite in my statement to you about throwing away a perfectly good furnace.
So CFLs (using my example) would save roughly 3 times a year what it cost to install them. Realizing that this value varies greatly with lots of variables like lamp cost and kwh cost, but I used some reasonable values. In addition, the CFLs save 13 lamp changes in the incandescent ... resulting in much more trash in the landfill and costing another $140 for replacements over the life of the CFLs.
Quality CFLs have little mercury, which is recovered when (if) the lamp is recycled.
Again, while I completely respect your general point, you seem to be anti lamp efficiency.
I would venture to say that we could save much more than both of these if most people building/designing new houses would do two simple things: 1) design a reasonable size house (i.e. minimize sqft) and 2) orient the house to accomodate the climate/weather. Both assumes they meet current energy codes/common practice for energy efficient construction. I never cease to be amazed at how people are still designing in the 50's. Design did better in the 20-40s.
Maybe you could use to get rid of some of your own misconceptions and be more well rounded when it comes to energy efficiency. It's not just about the kwh savings. It's about the economics and the owners ability to buy a lamp for a few bucks vs. replacing a furnace for several thousand dollars. I'm a strong advocate of Energ Star and all that, but for each application you need to fit the right technology and science and economics to the situation. I've never given all my clients the same advice ... always tailor it to their specific situation and needs. There is a time and place for just about everything. The skill is striking the right balance for each situation ... not applying misconceptions across the board.
I fully agree
that building, working and living in more modest and well designed, well insulated, efficient homes and buildings is the best approach, by far. The point of the OP and of this thread is that we will not get there without educating a lot of people.
I am not against lamp efficiency. I have been involved in many relamping projects, saving local school districts thousands of dollars. I just don't believe all the the hype, unsubstantiated by fact and realtiy that you do. YOUR misconceptions include the life of incandescent bulbs (all of mine last much longer than 1 year), that people will keep a CFL for 13 years while the light output degrades to less that 50% of its new capacity and that people will diligently recyclye them. BTW, the 13 year life is a best case, highly speculative number, as well. All wishful thinking at best. Your example uses no numbers, so I cannot agree with any payback, as you have demonstarted none. How much is a bulb, how much is it used and how much does save.? IF you crunch numbers, you will find the misconceptions you have swallowed don't hold up to scrutiny. I don't deal in hype and speculation. The only way real results are achieved is by basing decisions on real, practical data, not generic advertising and hype.
You're the one that's doing the wishful thinking. Many different groups have run the numbers and arrived at essentially the same conclusion -- CFLs save money and energy. (I challenge you to point to an authoritative analysis that proves otherwise.)
In our house it used to be that I would about monthly replace all the burned out bulbs in the house. This would typically be 3-5 bulbs. Now I replace the CFLs as they burn out, and it's maybe one every three months.
And, in terms of mercury, even if CFLs aren't "diligently recycled", there's still less mercury in the environment, since burning coal puts a lot of mercury into the air.
Wow ... you're not related to Riversong are you? Run the numbers yourself on some lightbulbs. I put together a quick analysis with some plausible values (e.g. 7 cents/kwh, hours of use, etc.).
As for the life and the cost of the lamps ... The life I used is the tested rated 'official' average lamp life that lamp manufacturers have to use ... and assuming a reasonable quality, the CFL will last the 13 times longer. This is not a "HIGHLY SPECULATIVE" number ... it is the actual tested number for average lamp life. Yes, some last longer and some, shorter, but statistically the published value is a reasonable value. And have you priced CFLs lately? Man, you can get a 3-5 pack for 10 bucks these days. I assumed a lamp cost of $3 for CFL and 75 cents for incandescent. I think those are reasonable values.
As far as replacing my furnace/AC ... what do you think that might cost me for the "average" house? Maybe $5K? And what might I plan on saving on my annual energy bill? Maybe $200-$300? Not sure where you are getting that the A/C and furnace upgrade will pay for itself in ... what did you say ... 2-4 yrs?? Even at an installed cost of half that, I would see a payback of 10-15 yrs.
Lumen depreciation curves show that CFLs depreciate to roughly 73% over their life wile incandescents depreciate to about 82%. Again, these values are reasonable values you would find under the tested conditions. Yeah, tested conditions, but they all test under the same conditions, so they are reasonable values.
Well ... you were certainly right ... LOTS of misconceptions about energy. This does require a renewed effort in awareness ... but so does a lot of things as I previously pointed out. And it takes more than one concept to solve the miriad of problems out there.
But one thing seems to be certain the person with some of the biggest misconceptions and biases is the one you see in the mirror. I've never said your replacement furnace is necessarily a bad idea, but that other things also deserve attention as being very viable as well ... not just because of the shear energy savings, but because they are more readily accessible for immediate change and for many (particularly the renting community), more economically viable. While you imply you do, it doesn't seem that you respect my point of view.
One minor point about the replacement furnace: IF one gets one with a DC fan motor, and IF the "habit" in the household is to run the fan 24/7, the savings in electricity alone can amount to $200-300 a year. But that still leaves the payback period for a new HE furnace at maybe 10 years, 5 at best.
Well, you seem to be as clueless about lighting as you complain about the general population. First, CFL use about 25% the energy of incandescents, they absolutely do not cost ten times as much as the incandescents they replace, in fact, I believe they may be a saving in cost over purchasing incandescents. Ten 60 wat bulbs running produce about 2000 btu, which may be a benefit or an additional cost. These same 10 60 watt bulbs cost about 17.20 a month here at $.12/Kwh, 8 hours a day. Equivalent cost for CFL would be $4.32 / month. I don't know how many bulbs average homes use so the electrical savings could be considerably more.
Of course most people waste energy like it's free.
http://www.efi.org/factoids/lumens.html
You're telling me
I'm clueless, while in the same statement, acknowledging that "you don't know"?!? I agree with only the latter. What kind of an "engineer" are you?
I was yanking some chains to see if they could come up with valid reasoning for their blind acceptance of a heavily promoted idea. Simple math is too difficult to use as an example I guess. While they produced no sound arguments other than parroted marketing data, I do fully understand and realize the energy conservation and economic viability of compact flourescent lights and use them in my own home.
My own experience contradicts the common misstated life of the bulbs, but you can't (seriously) argue that a bulb that cost twice as much, lasts 5 times as long and produces 4 times the light for the same amount of energy, is not a wise choice.
Ok, I'll answer your question if you can tell me what the average number of bulbs are used per houshold, it's rather simple.
Sucks to be you.
A simple question
you can't answer.
It's great to be me.
Since you didn't answer my question, I'll just use this study completed in 2001, which I personally don't trust to be very accurate.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_tab1.html
It states:
>>>Lighting and Home Electronics
Lighting includes both indoor and outdoor lighting and is found in virtually every household in the United States. In 2001, lighting accounted for 101 billion kWh (8.8 percent) of U.S. household electricity use. Incandescent lamps, which are commonly found in households, are highly inefficient sources of light because about 90 percent of the energy used is lost as heat. For that reason, lighting has been one focus of efforts to increase the efficiency of household electricity consumption.>>>
Assuming that CFL and other higher efficient lighting products are not included in the figure (which also states that torchiere lamps are not included), a reduction of around 6% in total electrical use by US households is possible by simply switching to CFL or other efficient lamps.
That seems fairly significant to me.
Seems to me you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You agree that CFLs save money, save energy, and generally make sense, but you still claim that promoting them is stupid, apparently because CFLs alone won't solve the global warming crisis, eliminate world hunger, and cure cancer.
Seems to me
you got this one right. I was. Hoping to elicit a convincing argument. Failed experiment.
Did I claim promoting them was stupid? Or just promoted beyond suppportable facts? IF I claimed promoting them in any was is stupid, I was wrong. I believe that I claimed they are OVER-hyped. This is true.
4 people, each using a 75 watt light bulb for 4 hours a day, everyday for an entire year (this is, I would speculate, many times more than the average household uses lighting)
After I read that, I looked over to my kitchen. It's 10:44 AM, and I have 6 75 watt bulbs lit up (well, actually 5 - one is burnt out) in recessed fixtures, plus another 4 lit in a ceiling fan. Those lights have been on since about 6:30 AM when I got up. According to your quote, I've already surpassed expected light usage for the day for our household (4 people), and it isn't even night yet!
Since I have CFL in these fixures, instead of running at 690 watts (75x6+60x4), I'm running 166 watts (19x6 + 13x4).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go over and turn those lights off.
How many people
really pay attention to how many lights they have on and for how long? I know my usage, MOL. My off-the-cuff speculation doesn't apply to many, it seems.
Different people have different light issues.
Personally I am a "Light On" kind of guy. I leave lights on like a trail of breadcrumbs around the house. I also leave TV and radio on in the background, but usually only at night. It comes from being an only child... a home feels ALOT more cheery and full of life when it has light and voices surrounding you. It gives you the illusion that you are not alone in the good way.
My in laws are the complete opposite. The only room that is lit is the one that they are currently in. Yes, we clash frequently on that issue. "Who left the light on?" <click> "Who turned out the light?" <click>
Lets get to some basics
I finally read all the posts here and am surpised someone hasn't hit on this sooner.
The fundamental basics are wrong. And please avoid the emotional arguments.
For example:
2x6 w/ fiberglass = energy efficient wall
R-38 batts = energy efficient attic
rolling more batts accross your attic = great idea
double pane windows = good
weatherization is done with weatherstrips, gaskets on outlets, and caulk
hybrids = most efficient form of transportation on the planet
I routinely deal with people that sold/bought a geothermal heat pump system for a house that (new or old) has the worst thermal envelope you could ever shake a stick at. Can you imagine spending 20 - 30k on a geo system, when 3 - 6k on proper weatherization would cut your bill in half?
In general, builders and buyers are locked in a downward spiral of expectations and performance. I can blame the buyers without a second thought, but the builder ought to know better. And even if he does, he only has to be better than the worst guy in his neighborhood.
-Rob
One problem is that it's very difficult for a home buyer who doesn't have trade experience to look at a house and judge how well it's insulated or weatherstripped. Building codes attempt to enforce some minimal level of efficiency, but they get enormous push-back from the industry, and often they're poorly applied and enforced. And don't forget that many builders are as clueless as the would-be home buyer -- they just do things the way they learned 30 years ago.
So often the only clue the home buyer has as to energy efficiency is a GSHP or something similar.
But you're certainly right that the first step to energy efficiency is to chop back that 4500 sq ft home to 2500 sq ft.
Good points. I've found a lot of people attracted by the 'sex appeal' of some technologies while ignoring the basics. PV systems are sexy, bright and shiny. Caulking air leaks and insulation is not. Ground source heat pumps are sexy high tech. High efficiency furnaces are not.
Some of this is the sales pitches by the vendors. Some by tech hype of scientists that like a particular technology.
While the industry is changing, architects and contractors still never cease to amaze me w/ their inability to apply some simple basic efficient strategies in their work. I've been working in the energy industry for about 30 years, now and I still see designs and techniques straight out of the 60's it seems. There are a lot of people doing some nice stuff, but there is a LOT of status quo as well.
Did you see the framing article in the new Fine Homebuilding. Great article, but OMG ... did you see the massive overframing on that hummer they used as an example? There was double jack studs on even short window spans and a triple top plate??
I'm getting into this interesting discussion rather late, and have learned something from all the posters. I agree completely with the basic point of your OP that many Americans are ill-informed about energy savings, and I don't think that's going to be remedied soon.
My personal approach is to avoid living large as if it were an inherent "freedom" due to all Americans; to replace inefficient appliances and lightbulbs with HE ones, but only when the old ones give out--same for vehicles; to walk to and from work (5 mi/day).
I base this approach on a hunch--not on any hard evidence--that there's an embedded energy cost to manufacture and distribute all replacement products, and that their dollar value is largely a reflection of the energy cost. (Except in case where gov't subsidies hide the true cost.)
I drive our 40-yr-old Ford pickup about 1000 miles a year, and it gets 10 MPG. Upgrading to a newer one that gets double the milage would cost maybe 30K and would save me maybe $300/yr in gas. The cost of the new truck would include the expenditure of many thousands of KWH's and barrels of burnt petroleum due to more processes than I can enumerate here, or probably even imagine. My hunch is that I save more energy by just hanging onto the old beast. I could summarize my feeling by saying that, in general, saving dollars = saving energy.
We also have a (probably) grossly inefficient Philco refrigerator in the wine cellar that is 55 yrs old. I still remember the day my parents bought it when I was 4 yrs old and delighted to play in the giant cardboard box that it came in. The only maintenance it has ever had is to replace the lightbulb. Even though a new HE fridge would cost far less to operate, the energy to manufacture it would have to be added to its total energy use--would it really have saved energy to have replaced it prematurely?
I've wondered the same thing about the wisdom of getting rid of pilot lights on furnaces: the hot-surface igniter uses less energy, but is a high-maintenance item compared to the pilot light. How much energy is expended to a) manufacture the replacement igniter, b) send a service tech across town in a gas-guzzling van to do the replacement? It seems to me that the cost of the service call and replacement part--maybe $150--would buy a lot of gas for running the pilot light, and that the $150 is mostly an energy cost.
I claim no substantial evidence for all this, and I suppose I'm by no means the first one speculate along these lines.
Any comments?
My suspicion is that you're more or less right about the truck, but wrong about the fridge -- you might want to put a meter on the fridge and figure out how much energy it's using. (Note that this includes energy going into any "case heaters" which operate 24/7.)
Re hot surface igniters, my understanding is that the main reason for them is to eliminate the need to have the flue continuously open -- that's where the larger energy cost is, from conditioned air going up the chimney. And of course condensing furnaces can't use a standing pilot for practical reasons.
PS: Your point about appliance price being a good rough measure of energy spent in manufacture is probably valid, or at least the best "guestimate" one can come up with without access to a lot of obscure data.
Re hot surface igniters, my understanding is that the main reason for them is to eliminate the need to have the flue continuously open -- that's where the larger energy cost is, from conditioned air going up the chimney.
You're right about that, and the resulting jump from 60% efficiency to 78-83% is an energy saving that I was forgetting about in my thoughts about hot surface igniters. But other, more accurate examples could probably be cited to make the point that, in some cases, the increased cost from service calls and replacement parts actually represents an increase in overall energy consumption that outweighs the energy savings of the "improved" product.
I understand the point, but, going back to the paper referred to in the OP, it's often very hard for the average person to judge appliance (or vehicle) efficiency. That fridge, for instance, if it's a frost-free model, is likely much less efficient than you suspect. Simply keeping it closed does little to improve the efficiency of the older frost-free units.
That fridge, for instance, if it's a frost-free model, is likely much less efficient than you suspect.
My 55-yr-old fridge, if that's the one you mean, is not frost-free. (Were FF's made in the '50's?)
I have no illusion that it is even close to being energy efficient, but I'm continuing to think along the line of the embedded energy that would have been expended if it had been replaced with a more efficient model early on--my guess is that, over the 55-yr span, there would need to be 3 or 4 replacements done to keep up with improving efficiences, and that represents a lot of manufacturing and transportation energy--maybe more than the oldie has used over its life.
Simply keeping it closed does little to improve the efficiency of the older frost-free units.
Yeah, the specific heat of air is so small that I've always thought that the energy needed to cool the air after opening the fridge is no big deal anyway, especially in our dry climate. Putting in a container of hot, juicy leftovers is way bigger in terms of energy use.
One other thing to keep in mind is that many units -- both frost-free and not -- have "case heaters". These serve to prevent condensation on the outside of the fridge in humid weather. Exactly when they came into use I don't know -- 55 years, I suspect, is a little old to have them -- but I can't say that your unit doesn't have them. In most cases the case heaters run 24/7.
This is one reason why I suggest you meter the current the unit is drawing.
And I don't think that anyone would suggest that you replace a fridge every ten years to keep up with improved efficiency, but certainly every 55 years may be justified.
Multiple facets to consider
include, as far as automobiles are concerned, include not only the amount of fuel burned (in your case 100 gal/year) as well as the level of emitted particulates and products of combustion, etc. At current prices, you gas bill, here, would be $270. If you cut that in half, you save much less than $300. Economically, there is no benefit. Depending on you specifics, the reliability and comfort would be more significant factors in making a purchase decision.
For the fridge, probably not worth it either. In a wine celler, opened infrquently, it consumes a quarter of what it would if it were your main houshold refrigerator. You'd have to compare nameplate ratings between it and a new one, vs your cost of electricity. My bet is a new one would pay for itself in no less than 15 years.
If you compare the rated AFUE values of boilers that are avialable with and without standing pilots, the difference is about 2%, or less, as I recall. I use boilers as an example because that is the only product I have seen that has current models with both. The cost of burnig a pilot is insignificant. A high efficiency unit, i.e. one that will not have a standing pilot OR a gravity vent vs a "standard" efficiency unit (one that may or may not have a standing pilot but will have a gravity vent most likely, will be significant. 82% AFUE vs 94%, or so.
Avoiding "living large" is by far the best "strategy" and outweighs energy efficieny in an oversized house.
Avoiding "living large" is by
Avoiding "living large" is by far the best "strategy" and outweighs energy efficieny in an oversized house.
We live that way for a variety of complex and maybe contradictory reasons. I have a sentimental attachment to the 55-yr-old fridge: I don't really keep it around because I think it's the green thing to do as opposed to buying a new one whose manufacturing process uses up energy and resources.
We avoid buying bottled water, not particularly because we want to be green; we're too cheap, and would much rather spend the $ on good wine, which is another contradiction: buying imported wine has a high cost of energy for its transportation compared to domestic wine, and we drink both, based on cost and taste.
DW grows and preserves a lot of the fruits and veg we eat, but I hunt (seldom find) elk, and my trips are a big waste in terms dollars spent per pound of meat procured--another contradiction.
Our example is probably typical, not in its details, but in its inconsistency with claims or desires to be energy conservative.
Another aspect of living conservatively (cheaply) is that people like us do very little to stimulate the economy. I don't give jobs to nearly as many people as some energy hog that builds an oversized McMansion with hot tub and snow melt system, buys and rides 4-wheelers, snow machines and boats, and whose wife buys tons of clothes and shoes that hardly get worn before being discarded, and whose kids buy and toss one electronic gadget after the other.
So, back to your OP: when it comes to energy savings, Americans are misinformed, contradictory and sometimes uncaring.
I are one. :-)
While this is off topic
and I am not an economist, I do not believe that an economy based on ever increasing and conspicuous consumption, is sustainable. It worked post WW2 until a few years ago, but that was the end. Some semblence of the past will recur to one level or another and that will be ample proof to fools that everything is back to the good ole days.
I live conservatively myself. Not because of the current wave of greenwashing, but because that is the way I am. I have my contradictions as we all do. There is, however, a difference between making decisions based on personal preferences in lieu of what has the least impact on the planets resources, vs making decisions completely (or mostly) in the dark.
The OP was an interesting article on general understanding of personal energy use. It was not about how many light bulbs are in the average house or whether or not you should replace older applances. I realize that the 1/2 Hp pump in my pond that operates 24/7 7 months a year uses over 6000 kWh and that the pumps, lights and heaters in my aquarium consume a similar amount. Changing all of my incandecsent lights to compact flourescent, saves me 150 kWh/yr.
Like you and most, I want to save money that I don't need to spend, so I can spend the money I want to. Saving energy saves money in most cases. When it doesn't, nobody cares.