Saving Energy Begins at Home — the Myth
Why this approach has not been working
Turn off the lights; don’t use the clothes dryer; get a fuel efficient car; turn down the thermostat; buy energy efficient appliances; drive less; car pool; switch to fluorescent bulbs; insulate your home; take shorter showers; plant some trees; recycle, recycle, recycle; install a home solar system . . .
We have all seen endless lists of what we must do to save energy and reduce global warming. There have been hundreds (probably thousands) of these energy to do lists given in newspaper articles and books over the nearly four decades since the energy crisis of the early 1970s. Have you ever wondered why, after all of this, global energy consumption continues to rise? Is it because everyone isn’t doing what they should be doing or is there is a lot more to it than that? The purpose here is to show why reducing energy consumption has proven to be such a difficult task and why the saving energy begins at home approach has done little to solve the problem. At the end of this article a very different kind of energy to do list will be given. The list shows how we must completely change our views on energy consumption and begin thinking globally, rather than personally, if we are ever to solve the problem. It is directed more towards understanding the problem rather than on what we each can do personally — most of us being well aware of what we should do (and should continue to do) in that regard.
The Mantra — Conservation, Efficiency and Alternative Energy
It is generally thought that conservation, increased efficiency and the further development of the alternative energy sources will ultimately reduce energy consumption and win the war against global warming. Too bad things are not that simple. Only by having a full understanding of the sources, flow and use of global energy can we see the real magnitude and difficulty of solving the problem. We cannot win this war if we continually underestimate the strength of the enemy. The Global Energy Handbook — Understanding the Flow and Use of Global Energy was written to provide this understanding. Here is a collection of thoughts taken from the book.
Personal Solutions are not Global Solutions
Most energy-saving solutions we hear about, like those listed above, fall into the personal solution category. These may save you some money, but unfortunately they don’t translate very well into global solutions. Personal energy use (for our homes and cars) is less than a third of all global energy consumption, the remaining two thirds going to the industrial, agricultural, transportation, commercial, governmental and the other sectors that provide the goods and services we all use and relay on. Personal solutions for reducing energy consumption are like the 1950’s notion of relying on a backyard shelter in case of a thermo-nuclear attack. A backyard shelter could possibly spare you and your family, but is hardly a solution to the threat of global thermo-nuclear war.
Helping, but not Solving the Problem
Conservation and improved efficiency have helped to slow down energy consumption, but helping is not the same as solving the problem. For example, your mortgage payments are more than you can handle, you are maxed out on your credit cards and your job is at risk. You see a financial advisor who suggests using a hamburger extender, generic toilet paper and going to bargain matinee movies to save money. He then says “remember, every little bit helps” as you walk out the door. This is sort of the situation we are in with global energy consumption. The recommended fixes are orders of magnitude away from solving the problem.
It has been estimated that we are now using energy two to three times more efficiently than we were in 1970. Despite the many conservation and efficiency initiatives introduced since the early 1970s, energy consumption and resultant greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Yes, improved mileage, energy efficient appliances, better insulated homes, fluorescent bulbs, programmable thermostats have helped, but the polar ice caps continue to melt at an alarming rate. The problem has only grown worse; it is not being solved by these personal “solutions”.
Translating Energy Information to the Global Level
Magazine, newspaper and television specials on energy are very good at giving technical details, but rarely do they translate energy information to the global level. For most people the many different terms used to describe energy (barrels, gallons, megawatts, kilowatt-hours, etc.) are so intermixed and baffling that articles on energy might as well be written in a foreign language. The Global Energy Handbook uses a consistent and understandable set of units (the QBTU) to describe all forms of global energy. Currently total world energy production is about 500 quadrillion BTU or 500 QBTU yearly. This includes all of the fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear and the alternative (solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, etc.) energy sources. You don’t have to fully grasp the meaning of 500 QBTU. Does anyone fully grasp what a trillion dollar bailout means? Just keep in mind that 500 QBTU represents all global energy used today. Here is an example of translating energy information to the global level. In a recent newspaper article it was stated that geothermal power could reach 100,000 megawatts worldwide by 2050. To the everyday reader this sounds like a lot of energy — until translated to the global level. The value of 100,000 megawatts equates to about 3 QBTU or 0.3 percent of the estimated 900 QBTU of global energy that will be required in 2050.
In another article it was claimed that if each of us (U.S. drivers) reduced our driving by 1000 miles per year CO2 emissions would be reduced by about 100 million tons. What was not stated however was that this represents only about 0.35 percent of the 30 billion tons of CO2 emitted yearly at the global level. Also not mentioned were the 40 million plus new automobiles being added yearly to the world’s motor vehicle population.
Increased Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency — A Silver Bullet?
A more revealing (and disturbing) example of how viewing energy from the global level changes the whole perception of the energy problem is given next. The example is for the hot-button issue of improved motor vehicle efficiency.
There are an estimated 800 million motor vehicles now in the world and the number is increasing daily. Improved motor vehicle efficiency is assumed to be one of the silver bullets in the fight against energy consumption and global warming. If we all drove cars that got 44 mpg instead of 22 mpg we could cut gasoline consumption in half, says the common logic. This is true by itself, but we must look at more than just amount of gasoline involved. We need to turn the telescope around and look at automobile efficiency from the global perspective.
To do this requires that several critical factors be added to the argument: the percentage of petroleum used by motor vehicles (about 33%); the percentage of global fossil fuel used by motor vehicles (about 14%); the expected increase in the world’s motor vehicle population (almost doubling) during the time it would take for the global fleet to reach 44 mpg (about twenty years or more); and finally the inevitable increases (over two percent yearly) in the non-motor vehicle uses of petroleum and the other fossil fuels that would occur during the time it would take for all vehicles to reach the higher mileage.
When these factors are considered together it can easily be shown that overall fossil fuel consumption would still be increasing despite this marked improvement in fuel efficiency. It is estimated that yearly global energy consumption, if we were to stay on our current course, will increase from about 500 QBTU today to over 700 QBTU by the year 2030. If average fuel efficiency were increased to 44 mpg, global energy consumption could still grow to 650 QBTU or more by 2030!
Saving Electricity at Home — How Much Is This Helping?
The typical energy to do list gives us many tips for saving electricity at home. These may help with our electric bills, but how much can they help at the global level? This can be estimated by making the very optimistic assumption that every household in the world (not just the U.S., but the world) permanently reduced its electricity use by 10 percent. Do you think you could do this around your house? The residential sector (households) accounts for about 12 percent of all global electricity use (55 QBTU * out of 500 QBTU). This 10 percent savings would equate to 5.5 QBTU or 1.2 percent of all global energy consumption. Considering that the overall demand for electricity is growing by over two percent yearly, this savings would be very short-lived, lasting about six months before being washed away by the ever increasing demand for electricity.
* (includes the energy losses associated with the generation and transmission of electricity)
Separating Near-term from Far-term Solutions
Before considering the alternative energy sources, near and far-term energy solutions need to be defined. Near-term solutions can be thought of as being applicable over the next twenty-five years or so when the double-whammy of diminishing energy supplies and increased costs combine with the predicted dire effects of global warming, possibly resulting in a global economic crisis unlike ever seen before.
Far-term solutions are those that are more applicable to our children’s grandchildren or beyond. These are solutions that, while being plausible, lie at the other end of the time tunnel. We often get these two time frames confused. When reading about or discussing proposed energy solutions always question whether it is a near-term or far-term solution that is under consideration.
It is often pointed out that while conservation and improved efficiency may not solve all of our energy problems, consumption will be slowed down allowing time for the alternative energy sources to become more mature and cost effective (implying they will eventually be able to replace our conventional energy sources). For the near term, the alternative energy sources now being pursued can never be more than supplemental to the conventional energy sources. This has more to do more with their inherent limitations rather than to technology, efficiency and cost factors.
The Alternative Energy Sources – The Limitations
Biofuel production, as we are now seeing, is in direct competition with the land and water resources needed for global food production. Until biofuels can be derived from cellulosic or other materials grown on arid or marginal land using bacteria, algae or termites as the means for conversion to useful fuel (a far-time solution), they will remain supplemental to the conventional energy sources.
Solar and wind energy sources are inherently limited because they only produce electricity, they only work part time and the energy produced cannot effectively be stored on a long-term, large-scale basis. Until electricity can be stored in massive amounts to be used where, when and how needed (like the fossil fuels) solar and wind also will also remain as a supplemental energy source. Numerous research projects are now being funded by the Department of Energy for storing solar power (Concentrating Solar Power or CSP). These projects aim at several hours of storage, enough to store solar output for later peak demand or night use. However, storing solar energy on a massive scale — like storing water energy behind Hoover Dam for year-round electricity — appears to be at the far end of the time tunnel. Until then, we must accept the reality that when solar and wind facilities are not producing electricity — as much as 75 percent of the time — we must rely mainly on the conventional energy sources (namely fossil fuels) for the electricity we need.
Yes, we must to continue the development of the alternative energy sources, but we also must understand and accept their inherent limitations and for the near term, at least, they can only be supplemental energy sources.
A Different Kind of Energy “To Do” List
Here is the different kind of energy list promised at the beginning of this article. It is meant to encourage you to ask critical questions on energy issues and not just accept at face value the information on energy we hear about on a daily basis:
1. We need to turn the telescope around and look more at global solutions rather than personal energy saving solutions. Looking at gasoline savings alone, for example, is not enough. We must ask; what percentage of fossil fuel is gasoline, how fast is the world’s auto population increasing, how fast are the other (non-motor vehicle) uses of energy increasing? We must always ask how much (or how little) energy would be saved if everyone actually did what was expected.
2. We must insist that the media translate energy information to the global level so that it makes sense to the typical reader. We must not accept arm-waving statements like “if everyone did this, lots of energy could be saved.” Also statements such as “100 gigawatts of power could be produced” or “10 billion barrels of oil could be saved” mean nothing to most people unless given in terms that can be understood from the global perspective.
3. We need to accept that energy doesn’t hold still while we try to fix it. While we are trying to save energy on a personal basis, global energy consumption keeps increasing. In spite of our best attempts, we have not been able to keep up with the ever increasing demand for global energy. There are an estimated two billion people who don’t have access to electricity . . . yet. There are billions more who would like to be consumers like us, but they can’t . . . yet.
4. In addition to developing the technologies for creating more energy at reduced cost, more emphasis needs to be placed on the long-term energy storage problem. Although research efforts for long-term storage are ongoing, they generally are not part of the media and public dialogue. The public mainly hears about solar, wind, biofuels, and of course about improved fuel efficiency. Long-term energy storage, although a somewhat unexciting topic compared to the others, is far more crucial to ultimately solving our global energy problem.
5. We need to accept the difference between near-term and long-term energy solutions. Is the solution under consideration going to help us in the next 25 years or is it something for our great-grand children? Yes, someday we will have the technology for producing low-cost biofuels from arid or marginal land, for the long-term storage of solar energy, and maybe even for energy from nuclear fusion, but for now these remain at the far end of the time tunnel.
6. We need to realize that most of the money we “save” on energy gets spent on buying more goods and services, the real energy addiction. When was the last time, after saving a few bucks at the gas pump, did you actually deposit the savings into your long-term retirement account?
7. The “every little bit we save at home helps” approach just isn’t working. Only 15 percent of global energy consumed at home; the other 85 percent being spent on consumer goods and services. We have to accept that the approach we have been pursuing for the past forty years, while helping somewhat, is not solving the problem.
Continue Conserving, However . . .
Yes, we must continue to conserve, to improve efficiency and to further develop the alternative energy sources. However, we must also understand the magnitude and gravity of the global energy problem and why the problem continues to grow in spite of all that we have been doing. As pointed out in the beginning of this article, we cannot defeat the enemy if we continue to underestimate and ignore his strength. It may be a cliché, but we need to take off the rose-colored glasses when looking at our energy problem.
The Global Energy Handbook — Changing Your Views on Energy
The Global Energy Handbook provides the reader with the basic information needed to ask the right questions on critical energy issues. It also provides the data behind the observations and examples given above. Many other “energy saving” examples are also given showing why it has proven to be so difficult to reduce or even slow down global energy consumption. The handbook will be of great interest to those questioning the conventional notion that by simply encouraging energy conservation and becoming more energy efficient we will somehow solve the problem.
John R. Fortun
The Global Energy Handbook
Robertson Publishing, Los Gatos, CA
ISBN: 978-1-935125-10-5, August 2008
www.globalqbtu.com
