Environment & Energy

txlibdem

(6,183 posts)

83. Efficiency the low hanging fruit

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:27 PM

Dec 2011

That's true. The other term for that, of course, is NegaWatts (watts that you don't have to produce because you didn't use them).

Your numbers are a bit off, however:
US Residential = 32% space heating, 13% water heating, 12% lighting, 11% air conditioning
US Commercial = 25% lighting, 13% heating, 11% cooling, 6% water heating, 6% ventilation

1. Geothermal heating and cooling saves between 80% and 90% of heating and cooling needs.
2. LED lighting saves between 80% to 85% for residential
3. Solar water heating depends on your location but I'll SWAG it at between 25% and 80%

Commercial lighting is, as you said, a little more tricky to calculate the savings because of the high percentage of fluorescent and halogen in use but I feel at least 25% savings.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"The battle of the energy titans comes down to one great contest: nuclear vs. coal." [View all] wtmusic Dec 2011 OP

Mastodons and Saber-tooth Tigers Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #1

The EIA sees up to 29GW of new nuclear in 25 years wtmusic Dec 2011 #2

The EIA... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #3

Based on? wtmusic Dec 2011 #29

Where is the scientific analysis that concludes "renewables are...not enough on their own"? kristopher Dec 2011 #4

I didn't provide a scientific analysis of the deficiencies inherent in billions of hamster wheels wtmusic Dec 2011 #19

Sadly, �common sense� does not always match up with truth OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #34

18 billion tons of CO2 saved with 150 extra nuclear plants over 20 years NickB79 Dec 2011 #5

Only shills for the nuclear industry say that energy choice is limited to either coal or nukes. diane in sf Dec 2011 #6

Or shills for the coal industry, yes? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #7

No, shills for the coal industry don�t allow for the nuclear option OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #8

The OP presented it as a contest between the two. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #9

It presents the false dichotomy, �if not nuclear then coal� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10

98.7% of the energy now used by is destroying the future of 100% of life on this planet. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #11

You've been on both sides of the nuclear fence XemaSab Dec 2011 #12

It's not nuclear power on its own that threatens all life. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #13

It would certainly mean a redefinition of "civilization" XemaSab Dec 2011 #14

Yes, it would. On the other hand GliderGuider Dec 2011 #22

In the US... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #16

How? wtmusic Dec 2011 #18

Here... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #21

You're confused. wtmusic Dec 2011 #24

Yes, we could be producing 100% of what we now produce with renewables OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #32

Oh please. wtmusic Dec 2011 #38

Or, so you say OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #55

Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #59

Will this do? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #39

Wow, those green squares are tiny! wtmusic Dec 2011 #42

I'm discounting this figure XemaSab Dec 2011 #62

DoE figures from 2003 OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #63

I'm not saying that solar can't provide a lot of our energy XemaSab Dec 2011 #66

I believe the map with the boxes reflects the DoE figures OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #67

It's a very important chart to understand. txlibdem Dec 2011 #70

I believe the DoE figure (100 miles � 100 miles) relates to electical needs only OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #78

It's not just electricity, it's all energy including fuels. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #20

Why? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #23

Here are articles with a non-mainstream view of various aspects of the global eco-clusterfuck. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #26

There's possible and then there's probable XemaSab Dec 2011 #27

..reduce energy consumption, material consumption, our numbers and overall activity levels by 85%.. Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #33

The population reduction requirement is based on two factors GliderGuider Dec 2011 #35

How is that 1 billion number calculated? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #41

As I said, GliderGuider Dec 2011 #44

In other words... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #48

That's a pretty strong accusation for a noob, Bob. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #51

Jam your "noob" Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #64

The reason I commented like that GliderGuider Dec 2011 #69

Point by point... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #71

Well, there we are. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author joshcryer Dec 2011 #73

Barely a point... joshcryer Dec 2011 #74

And to follow up on what Josh is saying XemaSab Dec 2011 #75

Josh, my opinion on Peak Food is probably the most controversial. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #76

We're already seeing an increase in food prices XemaSab Dec 2011 #82

The thing is, oil will become unaffordable a decade or two before the aquifers are depleted. joshcryer Dec 2011 #84

I'm more concerned about rainfed agriculture. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #85

Well, yeah, I should say my whole POV is America-centric. joshcryer Dec 2011 #86

I'm on the opposite side of the fence XemaSab Dec 2011 #87

I'm on the opposite side of the planet. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #88

The ones who don't know how to use a gun? joshcryer Dec 2011 #89

'Cause that went so well in Vietnam? XemaSab Dec 2011 #90

"Will we do it? Hell, no." Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #52

That's pretty much the situation as I see it too. n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #56

That's why I've been focusing at least as much on economics Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #57

Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #58

Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65

Speaking strictly of TVs, your choice of tv can mean up to 70% energy savings (Chart) txlibdem Dec 2011 #28

Efficiency is the low-hanging fruit... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #68

Efficiency the low hanging fruit txlibdem Dec 2011 #83

Not false at all. wtmusic Dec 2011 #17

How about we don't make up facts? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #25

Yes, let's not. wtmusic Dec 2011 #30

Are you intentionally misleading? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #60

Of course it�s a false dichotomy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

No, they couldn't. wtmusic Dec 2011 #36

Uh� take it up with the people who were there OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #37

I was there. wtmusic Dec 2011 #40

Jimmy had an excellent heart and was � not an engineer. OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #43

Qualified engineers are everywhere wtmusic Dec 2011 #45

Admit it, you�re wrong OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #46

Pathetic. wtmusic Dec 2011 #49

Those are Seaborg�s words OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #50

Biography of Jimmy Carter OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #54

Actually, Carter has a pretty solid engineering background... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #47

Germany... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #61

National Geographic shills for nuclear now? wtmusic Dec 2011 #15

Don�t pretend that an excerpt from a book is the entire book OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #53

And don't pretend that a review about a book is the book, either wtmusic Dec 2011 #79

Unwavering, in that he�s held this view for a few years OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #81

Like those are the ONLY options on the table? Dover Dec 2011 #77

Which is why I call it a false dichotomy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #80