Every electrical appliance today is being advertised as energy-saving, the newer, the more energy-saving. Has this helped us use less energy, and resources, or not?
I don't have a firm opinion on this but I'm thinking about lifespans and recycling. Your turn.
I would say no. Lots of items over the past century have improved in efficiency yet energy use per capita increased during that entire period. Any energy savings are used to find additional sources of energy or to produce new products, with things like Bitcoin being one of the latest.
I replaced all the light bulbs in my house with LED. A 60 watt bulb is now using only 8.5 watts. I replaced 9 - 40 watt fluorescent bulbs with 14 watt LED replacement tubes, and I direct wired the fixtures to get rid of the fluorescent ballasts which typically eat another 8 watts each. So definitely, there is no question we use less electricity for lighting at my house.
I replaced my 3 1/2 ton A/C unit last year with a 3 ton unit with 2 stage compressor and 2 stage direct current fan. I have seen a 30% reduction in my electricity usage. Unfortunately the electricity cost per kWh is about 30% more this year because of the energy crisis.
I think it is true that the savings we get from LEDs and more efficient appliances are offset by new ways of using electricity, but if we didn’t have the LEDs and energy efficient appliances, our energy usage would be much higher.
I believe in my part of the world the problem is we are building bigger and bigger houses with higher and higher ceilings. It’s wonderful having so much room, but a 4,000 sq. ft home with 10 ft. ceilings has 40,000 cubic feet of space to heat and cool. My 1680 sq. ft. house with 8 ft. ceilings has 13.440 cubic feet to heat and cool. My opinion is the increased energy consumption of these enormous homes (many of which have 2 AC units) are offsetting the energy savings I am experiencing by using energy efficient lighting and appliances.
But I don’t think the government should dictate what kind of house we have. It is a very difficult issue to solve.
It depends on what you mean by the energy saving trend. With respect to better fridge efficiency, A/C, more fuel efficient engines in planes trains and automobiles, etc. Better efficiency is fantastic as it allows us to do more of what we want for less money and with less waste. Of course we also use those savings to do more productive things, which is the Jevons paradox.
Regarding the idea of general “conservation” including the idea that people should just use less for the sake of it- I actually think this is a poisonous mindset. Energy is by definition something that allows us to do useful work (and sometimes it can even be for fun). Why don’t we recycle most trash? Largely it is because the energy required for chemical separations is too expensive.
If we had massive low cost energy abundance, then we would recycle almost everything because it would be cheaper and less impactful than pulling new materials out of the ground. We would all be in wonderfully temperature controlled houses, insulated with infinitely recyclable materials. We would use excess energy to combine CO2 and water/hydrogen to make liquid fuels. We already know how to do these things, but we are just missing energy at a low enough cost. The only way this happens is with nuclear power due to the nearly unlimited uranium reserves in the world and the incredible energy density it affords. One would think you could make energy 20x cheaper with a million times energy advantage, no?
This abundant ecomodernist version of sustainability is exactly the opposite of the green austerity version. It is basically the argument that J Storrs Hall makes in his book “where is my flying car.”
I'm no expert but I think the GDP per unit of energy consumed, has decreased over time. That being said the only thing that matters is EROEI. There are no battery fairies. Making batteries consumes energy, and it's only for use when base load and intermittent need to be balanced. BIG money to be made in companies that can juggle load input with smooth output. The external costs of dumping hundreds of millions of tons of plastic must be stopped. Clean HDPE for recycling is about $.55/lb about same as aluminum. Trouble is we're not set up for it and it only recycles once while aluminum (and steel) are infinite. Deposits should be charged on all plastic containers of everything and make the producers incorporate the cost of bringing it back into the sales price. Forcing everybody to suffer those externalizations is a crime. Economic anyway. Watch John Oliver on "Wishcycling."
May 21, 2022·edited May 21, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
Nope.
Let's say I move an automobile from A to B.
It requires the *same* amount of energy no matter how I do it.
Therefore the "cost" of that energy is the same, no matter what.
It just depends on who pays the price and how that price is paid.
For example, ever looked at the complicated electronics in a modern-day air-conditioning unit? We didn't used to have complicated electronics in air conditioning units. Many of those electronics are built in, you guessed it, China.
How about today's autos with all their specialized electronics? Guess where those specialized electronics are made? Yup, China. Otherwise the prices of autos would be far, FAR too high for most people.
Another example? The batteries in Battery Vehicles, sorry, "EV"s. Guess who supplies the cobalt for those batteries? China and Congo. In Congo, it's thousands of children working for $1-$2/day mining that cobalt. That's how EV manufacturers manage to keep the cost of their vehicles down.
Two things: Read the excellent book “The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Fuel” by Peter Huber and Mark Mills. And read about “Jevons Paradox “. The first gives a great tutorial on what energy is, how we use it, and how we should consider sources of energy. Jevons Paradox is a factual historical relationship between increased efficiency and future use of energy. Spoiler alert: we always find ways to use more.
A lot is written about conservation, and particularly, energy conservation, a subject filled with snake oil.
For example, why do Americans use so much energy and why do Icelanders use even more?
Let’s start with the basics.
Each person requires between 2500 and 4000 calories just to live, daily. The comestibles must be grown or caught; processed, transported, refrigerated, displayed, sold, prepared, and about one-half, ultimately, is wasted. That chain of events embodies a lot of energy. There is a great outcry over the 50% waste. The reality is that with GREAT efforts, a little might be saved, as shown by dumpster-divers in the USA who then distribute ‘beyond expiration date’ food.
The practice is not very safe, sorry.
Then, each person must be clothed, housed, warmed and/or cooled, transported, cleaned, live in a hygienic environment, and MORE. All this energy consumption differs among countries.
As an example, Americans live in a large country, with strong annual climate contrasts, except for the California coast,. The climate contrast has hardly changed over the past 150 years, as is known from clever and convincing analysis of US weather patterns, in spite of the destructive horrors of climate change occurring elsewhere on the planet. Aren't Americans the lucky ones!
We cool and heat - summer and winter, unlike Europeans. Americans also must travel long distances compared, for example, with the Dutch who can bike to work over flat terrain.
The result is: conserving a little changes energy consumption a little since the big items are climate and space, unless you disable an entire country. Germany is entering that phase of energy conservation voluntarily, or so say the ruling elite who conserve nothing personally. Conservation is for the herd.
The embodied energy plus energy consumption of a given appliance (or light bulb) must be considered. An LED is more efficient in the production of light than an incandescent bulb, but the incandescent bulb does more to heat your home in winter. Boiling water for your coffee or tea requires the same energy no matter how you do it, so your coffee pot and microwave are kilowatt devices. The waste heat from an open NG flame also heats your home in winter and opposes your air conditioner in summer. So, one route may be better for your personal electric or NG bill, and not better for the overall energy consumption. The reason is electricity is a secondary (or tertiary) power source which must be manufactured. Usually, this distinction is ignored when it is to the advantage of the propagandist.
Then, there is the environmental cost. Disposing of dead LEDS and CF bulbs is not the same as disposing of a burnt-out incandescent bulb. CF lamps contain mercury, etc. LEDs contain toxic metals. The disposal is also is a part of the embodied cost since proper environmental management is essential in a world of 8 billion people.
BTW, Icelanders have a large amount of geothermal energy available and live in a cold climate, so, although, they use energy abundantly, naturally, there is no need to “conserve.”
There is plenty for all. That is' best in the best of all possible worlds'...
May 23, 2022·edited May 23, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
I have been told, but can not attest to the truth of the statement, that many appliances are more energy efficient by using lighter, less durable components. For example, build the transmission in your washing machine (yes, the washing machine has a transmission) out of softer aluminum or even plastics rather than steel.
So you might save a few dollars in electricity, but the appliance wears out much sooner.
Appliance do wear out much faster now, or so it seems. Whether that's because of poor material choices encouraged by energy efficiency requirements, I do not know.
If you save 10% of the energy for a few years, but then must manufacture an entire new machine, I doubt any actual energy savings are realized.
If you believe statistics produced by Eurostat, both the final energy consumption and electricity production/consumption of the EU decreased in the last couple of years (even before COVID, because 2020 is really low in statistics). Some part of it could be, no doubt, attributed to energy efficient appliances. The introduction of energy labels into ever-widening market segments probably helped a lot to inform the average EU consumer and gently push them towards more efficient (and expensive) devices that save on the electricity bill.
When it comes to lifespans and recycling - I'm not convinced. There are conflicting tendencies - the longer you keep your dishwasher, the better it is for the environment. On the other hand, the sooner you buy a more efficient device, the better it is for the environment.
The repair industry in the EU has been decimated, the widespread use of electronics and integrated products all but prevent effective repairs (speaking from experience). Recycling rates are very low: barely 5% for rare earths. In the EU, over 50% of large appliances are "recycled", which means - they are collected in municipal container parks. For IT equipment and other consumer electronics - it's 15%. A long way to go...
I would say no. Lots of items over the past century have improved in efficiency yet energy use per capita increased during that entire period. Any energy savings are used to find additional sources of energy or to produce new products, with things like Bitcoin being one of the latest.
I replaced all the light bulbs in my house with LED. A 60 watt bulb is now using only 8.5 watts. I replaced 9 - 40 watt fluorescent bulbs with 14 watt LED replacement tubes, and I direct wired the fixtures to get rid of the fluorescent ballasts which typically eat another 8 watts each. So definitely, there is no question we use less electricity for lighting at my house.
I replaced my 3 1/2 ton A/C unit last year with a 3 ton unit with 2 stage compressor and 2 stage direct current fan. I have seen a 30% reduction in my electricity usage. Unfortunately the electricity cost per kWh is about 30% more this year because of the energy crisis.
I think it is true that the savings we get from LEDs and more efficient appliances are offset by new ways of using electricity, but if we didn’t have the LEDs and energy efficient appliances, our energy usage would be much higher.
I believe in my part of the world the problem is we are building bigger and bigger houses with higher and higher ceilings. It’s wonderful having so much room, but a 4,000 sq. ft home with 10 ft. ceilings has 40,000 cubic feet of space to heat and cool. My 1680 sq. ft. house with 8 ft. ceilings has 13.440 cubic feet to heat and cool. My opinion is the increased energy consumption of these enormous homes (many of which have 2 AC units) are offsetting the energy savings I am experiencing by using energy efficient lighting and appliances.
But I don’t think the government should dictate what kind of house we have. It is a very difficult issue to solve.
It depends on what you mean by the energy saving trend. With respect to better fridge efficiency, A/C, more fuel efficient engines in planes trains and automobiles, etc. Better efficiency is fantastic as it allows us to do more of what we want for less money and with less waste. Of course we also use those savings to do more productive things, which is the Jevons paradox.
Regarding the idea of general “conservation” including the idea that people should just use less for the sake of it- I actually think this is a poisonous mindset. Energy is by definition something that allows us to do useful work (and sometimes it can even be for fun). Why don’t we recycle most trash? Largely it is because the energy required for chemical separations is too expensive.
If we had massive low cost energy abundance, then we would recycle almost everything because it would be cheaper and less impactful than pulling new materials out of the ground. We would all be in wonderfully temperature controlled houses, insulated with infinitely recyclable materials. We would use excess energy to combine CO2 and water/hydrogen to make liquid fuels. We already know how to do these things, but we are just missing energy at a low enough cost. The only way this happens is with nuclear power due to the nearly unlimited uranium reserves in the world and the incredible energy density it affords. One would think you could make energy 20x cheaper with a million times energy advantage, no?
This abundant ecomodernist version of sustainability is exactly the opposite of the green austerity version. It is basically the argument that J Storrs Hall makes in his book “where is my flying car.”
Jevons paradox!
I'm no expert but I think the GDP per unit of energy consumed, has decreased over time. That being said the only thing that matters is EROEI. There are no battery fairies. Making batteries consumes energy, and it's only for use when base load and intermittent need to be balanced. BIG money to be made in companies that can juggle load input with smooth output. The external costs of dumping hundreds of millions of tons of plastic must be stopped. Clean HDPE for recycling is about $.55/lb about same as aluminum. Trouble is we're not set up for it and it only recycles once while aluminum (and steel) are infinite. Deposits should be charged on all plastic containers of everything and make the producers incorporate the cost of bringing it back into the sales price. Forcing everybody to suffer those externalizations is a crime. Economic anyway. Watch John Oliver on "Wishcycling."
Nope.
Let's say I move an automobile from A to B.
It requires the *same* amount of energy no matter how I do it.
Therefore the "cost" of that energy is the same, no matter what.
It just depends on who pays the price and how that price is paid.
For example, ever looked at the complicated electronics in a modern-day air-conditioning unit? We didn't used to have complicated electronics in air conditioning units. Many of those electronics are built in, you guessed it, China.
How about today's autos with all their specialized electronics? Guess where those specialized electronics are made? Yup, China. Otherwise the prices of autos would be far, FAR too high for most people.
Another example? The batteries in Battery Vehicles, sorry, "EV"s. Guess who supplies the cobalt for those batteries? China and Congo. In Congo, it's thousands of children working for $1-$2/day mining that cobalt. That's how EV manufacturers manage to keep the cost of their vehicles down.
Someone always bears the cost. ALWAYS.
Two things: Read the excellent book “The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Fuel” by Peter Huber and Mark Mills. And read about “Jevons Paradox “. The first gives a great tutorial on what energy is, how we use it, and how we should consider sources of energy. Jevons Paradox is a factual historical relationship between increased efficiency and future use of energy. Spoiler alert: we always find ways to use more.
My bad. Misnamed the book subtitle: Should be “…..Why We Will Never Run Out of ENERGY.” Not fuel. BIG distinction.
A lot is written about conservation, and particularly, energy conservation, a subject filled with snake oil.
For example, why do Americans use so much energy and why do Icelanders use even more?
Let’s start with the basics.
Each person requires between 2500 and 4000 calories just to live, daily. The comestibles must be grown or caught; processed, transported, refrigerated, displayed, sold, prepared, and about one-half, ultimately, is wasted. That chain of events embodies a lot of energy. There is a great outcry over the 50% waste. The reality is that with GREAT efforts, a little might be saved, as shown by dumpster-divers in the USA who then distribute ‘beyond expiration date’ food.
The practice is not very safe, sorry.
Then, each person must be clothed, housed, warmed and/or cooled, transported, cleaned, live in a hygienic environment, and MORE. All this energy consumption differs among countries.
As an example, Americans live in a large country, with strong annual climate contrasts, except for the California coast,. The climate contrast has hardly changed over the past 150 years, as is known from clever and convincing analysis of US weather patterns, in spite of the destructive horrors of climate change occurring elsewhere on the planet. Aren't Americans the lucky ones!
We cool and heat - summer and winter, unlike Europeans. Americans also must travel long distances compared, for example, with the Dutch who can bike to work over flat terrain.
The result is: conserving a little changes energy consumption a little since the big items are climate and space, unless you disable an entire country. Germany is entering that phase of energy conservation voluntarily, or so say the ruling elite who conserve nothing personally. Conservation is for the herd.
The embodied energy plus energy consumption of a given appliance (or light bulb) must be considered. An LED is more efficient in the production of light than an incandescent bulb, but the incandescent bulb does more to heat your home in winter. Boiling water for your coffee or tea requires the same energy no matter how you do it, so your coffee pot and microwave are kilowatt devices. The waste heat from an open NG flame also heats your home in winter and opposes your air conditioner in summer. So, one route may be better for your personal electric or NG bill, and not better for the overall energy consumption. The reason is electricity is a secondary (or tertiary) power source which must be manufactured. Usually, this distinction is ignored when it is to the advantage of the propagandist.
Then, there is the environmental cost. Disposing of dead LEDS and CF bulbs is not the same as disposing of a burnt-out incandescent bulb. CF lamps contain mercury, etc. LEDs contain toxic metals. The disposal is also is a part of the embodied cost since proper environmental management is essential in a world of 8 billion people.
BTW, Icelanders have a large amount of geothermal energy available and live in a cold climate, so, although, they use energy abundantly, naturally, there is no need to “conserve.”
There is plenty for all. That is' best in the best of all possible worlds'...
I have been told, but can not attest to the truth of the statement, that many appliances are more energy efficient by using lighter, less durable components. For example, build the transmission in your washing machine (yes, the washing machine has a transmission) out of softer aluminum or even plastics rather than steel.
So you might save a few dollars in electricity, but the appliance wears out much sooner.
Appliance do wear out much faster now, or so it seems. Whether that's because of poor material choices encouraged by energy efficiency requirements, I do not know.
If you save 10% of the energy for a few years, but then must manufacture an entire new machine, I doubt any actual energy savings are realized.
If you believe statistics produced by Eurostat, both the final energy consumption and electricity production/consumption of the EU decreased in the last couple of years (even before COVID, because 2020 is really low in statistics). Some part of it could be, no doubt, attributed to energy efficient appliances. The introduction of energy labels into ever-widening market segments probably helped a lot to inform the average EU consumer and gently push them towards more efficient (and expensive) devices that save on the electricity bill.
When it comes to lifespans and recycling - I'm not convinced. There are conflicting tendencies - the longer you keep your dishwasher, the better it is for the environment. On the other hand, the sooner you buy a more efficient device, the better it is for the environment.
The repair industry in the EU has been decimated, the widespread use of electronics and integrated products all but prevent effective repairs (speaking from experience). Recycling rates are very low: barely 5% for rare earths. In the EU, over 50% of large appliances are "recycled", which means - they are collected in municipal container parks. For IT equipment and other consumer electronics - it's 15%. A long way to go...