Efficiency

Energy efficiency is probably the cheapest, easiest renewable resource we have available to us. For a long time, energy was cheap and national policy was to make it as cheap as possible. That's left us with a legacy of infrastructure and appliances built on the assumption that wasteful use of energy is no big deal. But it is a bit deal and we have a lot of the needed technology and know-how needed to deal with it. Which I assume is what Barack Obama was getting at when he said this at an energy town hall meeting today:

Finally, one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to conserve energy and use less oil is to make America more energy efficient and more competitive with the world. That’s why, when I’m President, I will call on business, government, and the American people to make America 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030.

But what does it mean to become "50 percent more energy efficient"? Does that mean we'll use half as much energy? That our GDP's energy intensity will be cut in half? Or that there's some measure of "energy efficiency" such that 2030 energy efficiency will be fifty percent larger than in 2008? Unfortunately, efficiency is a difficult subject to talk about. An SUV could have an engine that's "more efficient" than the engine on a moped (i.e., it does a better job of converting a given quantity of gasoline into horsepower) while still getting many fewer miles per gallon. I was in an elevator earlier today where the lights were freakishly dim, and a woman in there with me speculated that it might be for energy efficiency purposes, but dimming the lights isn't really the same as making them more efficient.

Photo by Flickr user thingermajig used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I was in an elevator earlier today where the lights were freakishly dim, and a woman in there with me speculated that it might be for energy efficiency purposes, but dimming the lights isn't really the same as making them more efficient.

It's not making the lights themselves more efficient (since nothing is changing about the actual lights), but isn't the building being more efficient by doing this? I know that reducing waste (let's say the lights were brighter than necessary before) isn't the only way to make something more efficient, but doesn't it fall under the category of efficiency?

Posted by Jake H. | July 31, 2008 3:43 PM

I have no idea what he meant and am too lazy to do any research to find out, but if he was talking about economy-wide energy efficiency, then, yes, the metric probably is BTUs per dollar or something similar.

The other plausible alternative is that he's referring in a general way to a sectoral plan, similar to what California is doing, where you set efficiency benchmarks for transportation, buildings, etc.

Posted by Adam | July 31, 2008 3:44 PM

Energy efficiency generally refers to production per unit of energy, so it would be intensity. Note that intensity targets aren't very good at generating overall emissions reductions (because the economy grows).

Posted by no | July 31, 2008 3:44 PM

A perpetual motion device would help. It's said no such thing exists. They haven't met the fucking poodles that live next door.......

Posted by steve duncan | July 31, 2008 3:46 PM

If you are talking about the energy efficiency of the entire country, isn't the standard measure the energy intensity of the economy (energy units per GDP unit)? If he meant cutting energy usage in half, I assume he would have said that (which, by the way, would have been insane for him to say, so I doubt he meant that).

Posted by DTM | July 31, 2008 3:47 PM

Energy efficiency is something that would help the individual instantly, but it wouldn't necessarily reduce world consumption.

Today, McCain blasted Obama for suggesting that consumers make sure their tires are correctly inflated. Imagine that. This is one of the easiest ways to raise gas mileage of any automobile. But for those interested in more info:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/drive.shtml

It is politically dumb to point out that anyone could reduce their own energy costs today, without waiting for Congress, Obama or McCain. But when the gas tax is 18 cents, you only need to get about 5% efficiency to save that.

Every psi of underinflation costs you .4% efficiency. A clogged air filter could cost you 10%!

Posted by tomj | July 31, 2008 3:54 PM

Just for a baseline sense of what's possible, Carter-era conservation measures meant that the US economy in ~1988 used about as much energy (oil, NG, coal, nukes, hydro, &c.) as it had in 1976, but of course was almost 50% bigger (in real dollars). This despite cheap oil (gas was at historic lows in real terms by '88) and aggressive anti-conservation by Reagan & his Republicans.

Some of this was a less energy-intensive, post-manufacturing economy (altho there were magnitudes more factories in 1988 than in 2008), but mostly it was an intensive program of energy efficiency and conservation across the board in a country that had never considered such things before.

It's trivial to make houses, for instance, 50% more energy-efficient for heating and cooling than they are right now, but the incentives made granite countertops preferable. Those incentives have changed.

Posted by JRoth | July 31, 2008 3:55 PM

Whether it means we'll be 1) using 50% less energy or 2) using 50% less energy per dollar of GDP or 3) using 50% less energy per unit of output (e.g., per lumen generated by light bulbs or horsepower generated by cars), it's a good thing.

Posted by TH | July 31, 2008 4:00 PM

"That’s why, when I’m President, I will call on business, government, and the American people to make America 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030."

What does "call on" mean? Saying "pretty please"?

If Obama is serious he'll tax fossil fuels until using less becomes more cost effective than using more.

Posted by kafka | July 31, 2008 4:05 PM

Oh, and while foolish building managers can go overboard, there are enormous savings to be found by reducing footcandle levels in most structures - while there are guidelines and professionals who know how to meet them, most structures have rule-of-thumb lighting designs that overilluminate by 25-50%. And that's setting aside things that should be no-brainers like photo/motion-sensor switches.

One sad legacy of 1970s-era conservation are countless schools across the country where large windows, adequate to provide free daylighting of classrooms (where students perform better - it's documented), were shrunk to save heat loss. Partly short-sightedness (daylight wasn't valued at the time, as at my HS where there were no windowed classrooms), but mostly short-cutting and a lack of resources: how do we cut the heating bill, quick and cheap?

Posted by JRoth | July 31, 2008 4:06 PM

Readers of Victor Davis Hanson will recognize this as a threat to outlaw 50% of the electricity currently produced:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQzOGM4ZThmMmI0ZjQzOThmNGY3MzAwNzZjNTI5YjQ=

Posted by mark | July 31, 2008 4:17 PM

"What does "call on" mean? Saying "pretty please"?

If Obama is serious he'll tax fossil fuels until using less becomes more cost effective than using more. "

Presidents don't tax. The congress does. If Obama were serious, he would have done this (or proposed it) last year.

sk

Posted by Sk | July 31, 2008 4:53 PM

"
but dimming the lights isn't really the same as making them more efficient.
"

cf the people who say, simultaneously
(a) we can all live just as well using x% less resources and
(b) we should all give up eating meat

(You all know my stance on this subject.
We can limit our numbers and live like kings, or we can reproduce like rabbits and live like animals. 20th/21st C human society has made the choice to do the second, and, since I specifically made the choice not to have kids, I'll be damned if I have my lifestyle curtailed because of the stupidity of other people.)

Posted by Maynard Handley | July 31, 2008 5:13 PM

In all honesty, does it really matter what the candidates are saying right now? Aren't they just trying to move towards the center of each respective party? I believe that 50% just sounds good, as do the words 'energy' and 'efficiency' when used in the same sentence.

Posted by Sam | July 31, 2008 5:31 PM

For the resource use I'm familiar with, we usually talk about management, which is the combination of efficiency (getting the same results for less input) and conservation (doing something different that uses less). Efficiency is real popular, 'cause who doesn't want to cut out waste but have all the results you're used to? Conservation - changing your ways to cut out some uses you're used to - is a harder sell.

I'd say switching to bulbs that put out the same light for less power is efficient. Dimming the bulbs in your elevator is conservation. Either may be good energy management.

Posted by Megan | July 31, 2008 5:58 PM

If you have policies the subsidize energy use then you lower the opportunity cost of high energy activities. If you remove those subsidies thenn people will either do less of the things that use lots of energy or they will use technology so they can continue to do those things. Ideally government wouldn't encourage one option over the other. However in some cases government has no choice but to make the decision. Governments do decide how much public goods we purchase such as roads or mass transit. I am not sure which way government should decide this question, but if people were forced to pay the true cost of driving automobiles they might demand their local governments provide better mass transit.

Posted by Craig | July 31, 2008 6:12 PM

I am not sure which way government should decide this question, but if people were forced to pay the true cost of driving automobiles they might demand their local governments provide better mass transit.

Drivers pay far more of the true cost of driving automobiles than mass transit users pay of the true cost of using transit.

Posted by Mixner | July 31, 2008 7:14 PM

A clogged air filter could cost you 10%!

So can we just assume Big Air (K&N, Fram and STP) are in Obama's pocket?

Posted by ThresherK | July 31, 2008 7:23 PM

As I read along I was expecting that you would just make the point that efficiency is a means to an end. The end is using less engery per some measured unit - GDP could be one as you mention.

Then dimming the lights would be another means to the end. Better still using dimmer & higher efficiency lights.

Posted by George | July 31, 2008 7:26 PM

What Megan said.

The only thing to add is, the general ideas about reducing energy use really aren't hard. Most topics in this blog are far harder to think straight about. It's the doing of something about energy that’s hard. We don’t have a 12-Step program for our energy addiction yet.

Posted by Rob Knapp | July 31, 2008 7:39 PM

Conservation, as Megan helpfully defines it, would constrain the growth of the economy and lead to a lower quality of life for most Americans. A better approach would be to increase efficiency (again, as Megan defines it) and increase supplies of energy. Start reprocessing our nuclear fuel, which will reduce nuclear waste; start clearing the regulatory obstacles to build nuclear plants; open the 85% of the outer continental shelf that's currently off-limits to energy exploration, etc.

Posted by Fred | July 31, 2008 8:46 PM

That our GDP's energy intensity will be cut in half?

That's most likely what he means, yes.

Posted by Zed | July 31, 2008 10:10 PM

Drivers pay far more of the true cost of driving automobiles than mass transit users pay of the true cost of using transit.

More silliness.

Posted by Zed | July 31, 2008 10:50 PM

Presidents don't tax. The congress does.

Congress levies taxes without presidential consent? Since when?

Posted by Zed | July 31, 2008 11:12 PM

Drivers of Automobiles actually pay double in a way because we are paying for the fuel to fill our automobiles and the taxes on that fuel is used for both Mass Transit (this is because they wont charge more for it because people wont use it if it is too expensive) and road repair. And now the Govt is using your fuel taxes to pay for the in ability of Mass transit to pay for its self. That is right your taxes are bailing out the Mass Transit Debt. Making it less avaliable to be used to its full extent for road repair.

Posted by Jeremy | July 31, 2008 11:17 PM

Jeremy, I've never flamed grammer or spelling in my life but I'd dust off an English book because capitalizing random letters reminds me of every tract I've taken from a shizophrenic in the street.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 31, 2008 11:21 PM

Energy intensity of the US (BTU per 2000 US dollar) in 1983: 13,466

In 2005: 9,113

32% decrease in energy intensity, or 48% increase in "efficiency" (unit GDP per unit energy).

Posted by AT | August 1, 2008 12:32 AM

Ed Marshall,

Capitalizing random letters could be an homage to America's founders, who were fond of doing that themselves.

Posted by Fred | August 1, 2008 12:44 AM

Jeremy, I've never flamed grammer or spelling in my life

Probably a good idea, since there's no "e" in "grammar" and "schizophrenic" has two "c"s, not one. Probably a good idea to put a comma before "but" in your sentence as well. ;-)

I agree that person's comment was very difficult to decipher, though.

Posted by Zed | August 1, 2008 12:51 AM

"I have no idea what he meant and am too lazy to do any research to find out, but if he was talking about economy-wide energy efficiency, then, yes, the metric probably is BTUs per dollar or something similar.
The other plausible alternative is that he's referring in a general way to a sectoral plan, similar to what California is doing, where you set efficiency benchmarks for transportation, buildings, etc.
Posted by Adam"

The Japanese have put about 30% of their energy policy funding into efficiency&conservation since
the mid-70s. About 30% into nuke power research now, up from 20% in the 80s, and sharply up on nat gas high tech systems substituting for oil and some wasteful electric systems. They have sharply scaled back solar since it is so non-productive an avenue in Japanese experts opinion - most the remainder is in wind, geothermal, and deep-ocean hydrates.
The Japanese say their conservation&efficiency drive makes sense, even if non-competitive now - for greater indpendence and not bleeding off all their saved national wealth.
Provided they limit native population growth and more or less bar all immigrants as a vital element of that conservation and efficiency strategy.

The Euros also count on low population growth to make their own energy programs for using less per capita making permanent gains in energy transformation and less NET national use. Though the Euros are still in the grip of unrealistic worship of solar power and unrealistic rejection of nuclear.

Both the advanced Euro and Asian states readily admit they are dumping high carbon use industry off on China, India, and LDCs just so they LOOK like they are making solid CO2 reduction gains.

California officials are saying, not for attribution, that this is also their strategy. Farm out CO2-intensive electricity, high energy use ag systems and transpo to other adjacent states and import the "clean product" so the California Green Strategy looks good on paper.
The US has blown this with too many high-breeding native poor and too many new Juans, Marias. Plus millions of Abdullahs & Mbekis and Chicom "abortion refugees".

Posted by chris ford | August 1, 2008 2:12 AM

"Though the Euros are still in the grip of unrealistic worship of solar power and unrealistic rejection of nuclear."

There's plenty of nuclear power plants in Europe and France is building new plants, IIRC.

"Europe" is a continent, not a political entity.

Please.

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | August 1, 2008 4:47 AM

Finally, one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways to conserve energy and use less oil is to make America more energy efficient and more competitive with the world. That’s why, when I’m President, I will call on business, government, and the American people to make America 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030.

Posted by PiriketSeverler | August 1, 2008 5:19 AM

This website has some
http://www.piriketseverler.tr.gg
check them out today

Posted by PiriketSeverler | August 1, 2008 5:22 AM

Conservation, as Megan helpfully defines it, would constrain the growth of the economy and lead to a lower quality of life for most Americans.

Hmmm. I think this assumes that most Americans lead lives with the highest "quality of life" available to them: whether by conscious choice among market options or by random accident, they have the best lives they possibly can. If that is really true, then doing something different that uses less (Megan's definition of conservation) would have to be doing something that reduces their quality of life. But I don't think most Americans are living in the best of all the worlds possible to them.

So if energy prices jolt people into considering doing something different that uses less, some may find themselves ways to be better off.

Posted by Rob Knapp | August 1, 2008 7:22 AM

Conservation as defined by Megan doesn't necessarily translate into a lower quality of life.

For example, according to Megan switching to a dimmer bulb is an example of conservation. But JRoth claimed (and I have no reason to dispute) that there are many cases of overillumination (which I assume means something like additional illumination in a space beyond the point where there are substantial advantages to such additional illumination). So, switching to a dimmer bulb in an overilluminated space presumably doesn't lead to a reduction in qaulity of life, because there was no substantial advantage to the extra illumination being eliminated.

That said, this suggests to me there may not be such a hard distinction between efficiency and conservation in some cases. I can see why Megan called switching in a dimmer bulb conservation, since you are getting a different result in the sense of less light. But on the other hand, if you defined the result as something like "getting enough light for the relevant space", then per JRoth you might still be getting the "same" such result. In other words, it seems to me the distinction between efficiency and conservation seems to depend a bit on your measure of results.

Posted by DTM | August 1, 2008 8:27 AM

"Energy efficiency is probably the cheapest, easiest renewable resource we have available to us."

The strange thing about this statement is that it's been understood by energy economists for thirty years: Amory Lovins made the case for energy efficiency investment in "Soft Energy Paths" in 1977. So why is energy efficiency such a tough political sell? My hunch is that Jimmy Carter poisoned the concept when he talked about driving slower and turning down the thermostat as "the moral equivalent of war." This fed right into energy industry (and Republican) talking points that efficiency is a code word for freezing in the dark, when in fact efficiency is completely neutral with respect to the level of consumption of end use utilities like transport and space heat.

Posted by Bruce P | August 1, 2008 10:38 AM

"Energy efficiency is probably the cheapest, easiest renewable resource we have available to us."

The strange thing about this statement is that it's been understood by energy economists for thirty years: Amory Lovins made the case for energy efficiency investment in "Soft Energy Paths" in 1977. So why is energy efficiency such a tough political sell? My hunch is that Jimmy Carter poisoned the concept when he talked about driving slower and turning down the thermostat as "the moral equivalent of war." This fed right into energy industry (and Republican) talking points that efficiency is a code word for freezing in the dark, when in fact efficiency is completely neutral with respect to the level of consumption of end use utilities like transport and space heat.

Posted by Bruce P | August 1, 2008 10:39 AM

"Energy efficiency is probably the cheapest, easiest renewable resource we have available to us."

The strange thing about this statement is that it's been understood by energy economists for thirty years: Amory Lovins made the case for energy efficiency investment in "Soft Energy Paths" in 1977. So why is energy efficiency such a tough political sell? My hunch is that Jimmy Carter poisoned the concept when he talked about driving slower and turning down the thermostat as "the moral equivalent of war." This fed right into energy industry (and Republican) talking points that efficiency is a code word for freezing in the dark, when in fact efficiency is completely neutral with respect to the level of consumption of end use utilities like transport and space heat.

Posted by Bruce P | August 1, 2008 10:40 AM

I really liked Rob Knapps comment at 7:22.

Posted by Megan | August 1, 2008 2:39 PM