Efficiency efforts could sharply cut growth in energy consumption, study says

[jpak]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/business/energy.php

NEW YORK: Growth in energy consumption worldwide could be cut by more than two-thirds over the next 15 years through more aggressive energy- efficiency efforts by households and industry, according to a study released Wednesday by the McKinsey Global Institute.

The report says that energy savings could be achieved with current technology and would save money for consumers and companies, and it offers a list of suggested steps, including the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs and solar water heaters, improved insulation on new buildings, reduced standby power requirements, and an accelerated push for appliance-efficiency standards.

Those moves, among others, could reduce the yearly growth rate of energy demand through 2020 to 0.6 percent from a forecast annual rate of 2.2 percent, the report concludes.

The estimate of potential energy savings is one conclusion of the yearlong research project by McKinsey, which analyzed energy productivity worldwide by regions, fuels and industrial and residential markets.

<more>

[JohnWxy]

1. Efficiency improvements in appliances, buildings and power equipment is the most cost effectrive way

improve the atmospheric CO2 situation.

Recommended.

[AZCat]

2. Really?

I'd be interested in reading anything that discusses that, because unfortunately I usually encounter the opposite - that green building renovations are prohibitively expensive (at least in an economic sense) for the owners. While I would like to convince everyone to replace their inefficient package rooftop air conditioning units, the capital investment required is considerably more than what is required to maintain the low efficiency units. The price goes up even more when considering large air handling units and central plants - replacing several-hundred-ton chillers isn't cheap even when swapping like for like.

[skids]

3. Yeah, pretty much.

Factor in the energy savings over the life of the unit, heck add interest if you had to take a loan out to make it happen. You'll still come out on top even if energy prices flatline.

Of course there is a point of diminishing returns, but at the same time, the future liability of running the things is not imaginary -- it is going to cost extra money.

Of the renewable technologies available to home builders/owners, solar thermal hot water and geothermal have the fastest packback time, but up here where it gets cold even they pale in comparison to saving energy in the first place by not skimping on windows, designing for solar gain, and general insulation. As far as air conditioning goes insulation can help there, too, but there are other ways like this here:

http://www.ice-energy.com/Default.aspx?tabid=61

[AZCat]

4. I also live in an extreme climate.

We worry more about heat gain than heat loss here, but the principles are similar.

Your link didn't work (the site was overloaded) but it appears to be a site for an ice storage company. The local university here (the University of Arizona) recently installed a large ice storage array along with two new gas turbines used to power the University Medical Center and to provide low pressure steam for the campus. The turbines run a couple of high efficiency Trane ice chillers (made even more efficient by running them at night) that feed an expandable ice storage array. It's pretty cool (heh) and shaves a considerable chunk off the peak demand for the university, but even with the savings it has a predicted 30 year payoff period. I can't expect a home owner to get a 30 year loan to pay for installation of new equipment (or replacement of old equipment either). The university is capable of weathering such expenses but homeowners need some sort of a financial cushion to do the same, IMO.

[skids]

5. Here in MA...

Renewable energy systems don't count towards property tax values, IIRC, which is good -- the real problem is getting the assessors trained to valuate them to bring up the fair resale value. That helps some; so do any government incentives, but of course the real meat of the matter is enough people need to buy in for the providers to scale up manufacturing and the costs to come down. (Like with hybrids, which Toyota's 08 model drive is supposed to be cheaper and better.) Building into a new home, or replacing a unit that needs to be replaced anyway is how the numbers are made to work, since you get to subtract the cost of the unit that would otherwise be needed anyway from the payback equation.

My bet is the University finds the payback period shorter as natgas prices rise and the dollar falls, FWIW.

[AZCat]

6. Yes, but I'd like to see some form of gov't assistance.

It would be nice if the government (local or otherwise) would offer to cover the difference between a higher efficiency unit and a minimum efficiency unit (although the minimums have recently increased). New home construction here unfortunately occurs in huge clumps managed by a developer who cares about initial cost but not operating cost since the homeowner will be the one shouldering that burden. The same thing applies to new commercial construction. My office does maybe a hundred new office buildings a year (office park stuff mostly) and the developers are these cheapo bastards that (just like the home developers) aren't willing to invest extra money for increased efficiency. In their defense, there is no financial incentive to do so. This is why I look forward to January when the local county government adopts a more stringent set of building codes. I haven't been able to find my copy of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 (the standard that will apply beginning in January) for the last month (I think I loaned it out to someone) but the differences between it and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001 (the currently applicable standard) are significant. Hopefully it will be adopted soon across the country.

[BeFree]

9. This conversation reminds me of this saying:

Sure, we can save the world. But we can't afford too.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. It depends on Which energy efficinet device

Adding insulation to a building can pay back quickly. Spending an extra $2000 for a high efficiency Residential AC system in Mass. Could take a long time to recover the incremental cost via electricity savings. More so if the home was already very well insulated to start with.

[JohnWxy]

8. Here is A good site:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/program/lifecycle.html

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Will an investment in energy-saving projects pay off in the long run? You can find out whether projects are a wise investment by performing a life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis. To help facility managers make sound decisions, FEMP provides software, training, publications, and guidance on how to apply LCC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of energy and water investments. (Some of the following documents are available as Adobe PDF.) Download Adobe Reader

[YankeyMCC]

10. Efficiency is good no doubt

however it must come hand and hand with sustainable policies and practices otherwise it just makes energy cheaper and will actually Increase usage.