Energy Efficiency: The Other Side of the Equation

4.21.11

David Holt, President, Consumer Energy Alliance

Last month, when President Obama unveiled the Better Buildings Initiative to provide incentives for businesses to become more energy efficient, we were reminded how efficiency is a critical, but often overlooked component of our national energy policy. Sure, lots of people drive hybrid cars, and use energy-efficient light bulbs in their homes. But beyond this low-hanging fruit, there remains a lot of waste to address.

Consider that last year, commercial buildings consumed about 20% of all the energy in the U.S. economy. Certain industries, such as hospitals, which consume more than twice as much energy as the typical commercial building, have great room for improvement. And the volumes of energy that technology-heavy industries spend on computer servers is so large that it is hard to quantify.

What's a consumer -- already challenged to fill the tank and heat the house -- to do? The good news is that even when it comes to large commercial buildings, there are a lot of things that consumers can do to make them more efficient. Consider this recent tip sheet from the Wall Street Journal on ways to make buildings more energy efficient. Number one on the list: Change the corporate culture. This includes a long list of items from banning extras like Christmas lights lining the cubicle to reconsidering the space heater under the desk. Other steps it cited, such as turning off computers at night and lowering cubicle walls to maximize the flow of air and sunlight are also small, individual changes that can make a big difference when adopted en masse.

Clearly it will take more than just turning off the space heater to achieve the 20% reduction in consumption that the Better Buildings Initiative targets. The good news is that on a larger scale too, buildings are making strides. Children's Hospital Boston has made a series of changes from green lighting to water conservation and better ventilation systems, which are saving about $950,000 a year in utility costs. Bentley University in Waltham, Mass. has used software to integrate its energy management and has been able to reduce campus-wide energy consumption by 10% in less than a year. And to offer just one more example, Geisinger Health System in Charlotte, North Carolina, has incorporated a series of energy-efficient measures that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 80% annually.

Inevitably, when oil prices rise, the consumer in all of us tend to focus on how this will impact the cost of our commutes and our home heating and cooling. It bears reminding that these are not the only ways we pay for power and that if we want to conserve we must be always vigilant, even after we step out of our cars or our homes. Tax incentives, better access to financing and other strategies outlined in the Better Buildings Initiative may help buildings tackle some of their biggest energy challenges, but to achieve lasting efficiency, it will take both big and small steps.

COMMENTS:

Fred Linn
4.25.11 We already have multi-fuel vehicles on the road that can run on several different different fuels. Natural gas(methane) is the most common alternative.

Using the same cost amount of fuel(BTU equivalent), you can drive over 4X as far using natural gas as you can petroleum.

Solar thermal energy is easy to capture and store. It is low tech, cheap to manufacture, easy to install and requires almost no maintanence. Solar thermal heating works best as an auxiliary system. Your furnace or hot water heater works the same as it always has, coming on and going off according to thermostat settings----but with solar thermal will come on less often, and run far less time.

The largest use of natural gas is heating buildings and water. If consumers install solar thermal for heating their homes and water, then use the natural gas displaced(or $$$ if they use electric)-----they will be running their vehicles on free solar energy. No batteries required.

You can't get any more cost effective or efficient than free.

Len Gould
4.25.11 Fred Linn's wrong about N Gas fueled vehicles, they don;t make sense for most cases, for several reasons. 1) it is much smarter to convert the N Gas to liquid fuel at or near the source with a large GTL plant, then distribute and use the MUCH more flexibly useful liquid fuel for transport or agriculture etc. 2) N Gas "alternative fueled" vehicles still don't gain the large advantage of regenerative braking which electric / hybrid alternative fueled vehicles do gain. By the time one accounts for pipeline compression energy and methane losses, compression energy into and out of storage (due to heat losses in the storage facility), it is IMHO almost certain that very few if any people actually know how the carbon footprint of a unit of natural gas energy compares to e.g. a unit of Saudi Heavy crude, or a unit of Oil Sands crude. They are likely to be surprised.

Len Gould
4.25.11 To say nothing of those ridiculous "Home N Gas Fueling Stations", where the N Gas, sent at 3,000 psi from the transmission entity to the distribution entity, who progressively reduce its pressure until it is eventually delivered to the home at 7.5 psi, then re-compressed to 3,000 psi to go into the auto's fuel tank. A complete energy waste promoted by arts graduates who can't add.

Edward Reid, Jr.
4.26.11 Len,

Typical natural gas transmission pressures are +/- 1000 psi.

Natural gas underground storage pressures are higher than the pressure in the pipeline, so withdrawal operations do not require compression. The storage pressure is typically roughly equal to the initial pressure in the well when it was placed in production.