by Michael J. Brandemuehl
05-12-05
Awareness of energy challenges comes in waves, and one seems to be building
today.
A big wave hit about 30 years ago with the first OPEC oil embargo and resulting
energy crisis. In 1973, President Richard Nixon proposed, "Let us set as our
national goal, in the spirit of Apollo, with the determination of the Manhattan
Project, that by the end of this decade we will have developed the potential to
meet our own energy needs without depending upon any foreign energy source."
Every president since then has offered similar statements of stirring resolve.
Much of the recent discussion has focused on oil, the security of its supply
and its role in transportation. However, transportation accounts for only about
28 % of the energy consumed in this country. By comparison, commercial and
residential buildings account for almost 40 % of total US energy use and 70 % of
electricity use. When it comes to the big picture of US energy consumption and
its impact on the global environment, our buildings dominate the scene.
As we look to meet our future energy demands, renewable energy inevitably comes
up -- as it has for more than 30 years. Renewable energy resources are well
matched to building needs for heating and electricity. Solar heating
technologies are well understood and have been used for decades, around the
world, to heat buildings and to provide hot water. Wind power and solar
photovoltaic technologies are also readily available to directly generate
electricity from the sun.
These energy sources are clean, reliable and widely distributed. And yet, the
energy from wind and solar resources combined account for only 0.2 % of total US
energy use. In fact, solar energy production in the US has actually decreased
over the past 10 years.
Nevertheless, the tide is about to change. First, public interest seems to be
higher than ever. The Solar Decathlon, a public demonstration of solar building
technologies by university students held last November in Washington, DC,
attracted more than 125,000 people. Twenty-two states currently have some type
of renewable portfolio standard, setting a target for state energy use to be
generated from renewable sources. Last year, the Colorado Renewable Energy
Initiative (Amendment 37) became the first state renewable energy standard to be
mandated directly by voters.
Renewable energy becomes more economical as markets mature, incentives expand
and fuel costs continue to rise. In most cases, wind now competes head-to-head
with other energy-generation options, and builders and power companies are
gaining greater experience with photovoltaic technologies.
Beginning next year, the cost to the Colorado home or business owner of
installing a solar system will likely be less than half of today's costs --
assuming that products will be available. Driven by markets in Europe and
California, photovoltaic manufacturers worldwide are currently scrambling to
build more manufacturing plants as they struggle to keep up with the demand.
It could also be argued, though, that most of our buildings are not ready for
photovoltaic energy. From a purely economic standpoint, it is still much more
cost-effective to conserve energy than to produce more of it. With decades of
incremental improvements in building codes and equipment efficiency, our
buildings are more energy efficient. With the growing application of integrated
and sustainable building design -- including efficient lighting, passive heating
and cooling strategies and more natural building materials -- our buildings are
also more comfortable, healthy and productive indoor environments.
Today, given current fossil fuel prices, it is typically still smarter to invest
in energy-efficiency improvements -- more insulation, better windows, efficient
lighting and appliances and better controls -- than to put solar on the roof. On
the horizon, though, is a future of efficient solar-powered buildings that
produce more energy than they consume.
How close is a sustainable energy future? It depends where you look. The
recent energy bill offers little more than tax incentives, mostly for the
nuclear and fossil fuel industries. Federal funding for energy efficiency and
renewable energy is only 5 % of the federal Department of Energy budget and is
expected to decrease by 4 % next year.
The annual budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is less than $ 200
mm, less than a third of the spending last year on the continuing cleanup of
Rocky Flats.
We didn't reach the moon or win World War II with industry incentives and tax
credits. If we expect to reach a sustainable energy future, we need substance
behind the rhetoric.
We need a federal policy that recognizes the true costs of our energy appetite
-- not only the cost to get it out of the ground, but the impact on the global
environment and the lives of our sons and daughters. We need national
leadership. Of that I wish I could be as optimistic.
Michael J. Brandemuehl is an associate professor of civil, environmental and
architectural engineering at the University of Colorado.
Source: www.denverpost.com