The Folly of Energy Conservation

Smoke and Change ^ | 4/9/2010 | Smoke and Change

[pb929]

Why do you turn off the lights when you leave a room or buy a more fuel efficient car? There are two basic reasons for reducing energy consumption, the first is to reduce your energy bills and the second is to conserve a ‘limited’ resource which in many people’s eyes will help save the planet. Trying to reduce your energy costs, whether in a personal or business setting, is generally a good idea for obvious reasons, however, the idea of conserving energy because it is limited resource is sheer folly and will probably do more harm than good to the planet over the long run.

To understand why energy conservation for its own sake is misguided it’s important to understand what energy really is. Energy is simply the ability to do work. Modern society has learned to exploit certain types of energy...

[Daveinyork]

I always turn off the lights because my Dad always reminded me that we do not want to make the electric company any richer.

[norraad]

Yes, so true, & I do 2, on the other hand , . .5 fingers (so solly), some devices suffer from being turned off & on, so it's better to just leave them on.

And yes, we do have unlimited oil, natural gas, etc., the earth makes it continuously.

If we didn't use it, we'd be up to our elbows and tusks in tar pits breathin' methane like the Woolly Mammoths, you don't that to happen now do you?

[hoosier hick]

My experience is: conservation on a personal level is good, and saves money; forced conservation is bad and costs money. In California during one of the water shortages, a policy of mandatory rationing with penalties was instituted. The revenues of the water company dropped drastically, and “required” a 20% price hike to keep them solvent. Once the shortage ended, the rationing and penalties were dropped, but the price increase remained....

hh

[stuartcr]

Since it’s generally a good idea, what does it matter why?

[Sacajaweau]

Conserve???...we bus thousands of kids who should be walkinf to their neighborhood schools or using public transportation and put a computer at every desk....

And our little town library has about 50 computers...

The way I see it....government is the worst offender...

Oops...I forgot the unnecessary post cards to tell me the census was coming...paper, transportation....all a waste...

[Dark Fired Tobacco]

If all energy sources were equal in performance, this essay would be valid. However, oil has had such a high energy ratio of return on investment compared to coal, whale oil, wood, or anything else before it, the logic breaks down.

Despite what many believe, we cannot substitute solar or wind power, or even nuclear, for oil and still operate our society on a business-as-usual basis. The energy needed to construct the infrastructure for solar or wind is very high, and several rare elements are needed. Our land use patterns were developed assuming a permanent state of cheap and abundant oil. Even our agriculture is heavily dependent on oil-based fertilizer.

Once the price of oil goes back over $100, the second dip of the recession will commence. Oil companies will not risk their remaining capital to chase the most difficult-to-reach oil. That is why Obama can appear to open up off-shore drilling; there will be no takers.

To make the switch to wind, solar, nuclear, or as Sarah Palin says, “all of the above,” we need more than decades and dollars. We have to reorganize our communities to reduce vehicle miles of travel, throw out our zoning laws, learn to grow gardens in the back yards of suburban, and adapt to a different energy source.

Changing to a fluorescent light bulb doesn't change the world, but it starts to change our individual mindset about how to adapt to a world of expensive and limited oil supply.

[norton]

Not a bad argument.

But, no one can dismiss the thousands of minor and major advances we got from investing in space exploration. (Who could live without freeze dried ice cream and mylar "space blankets"?).

If the fed's actually wanted to replace coal and petroleum energy sources they would be investing in the R&D necessary to find out what will be the next generation of power. (First hint: it won't be the hybrids they are forcing out today). (Second hint: There was a time in the 70's and 80's when DOE did invest in those areas - what are they doing today?).
They'd be approving and financing latest technology nukes and working on what to do with the waste materials. (On the financing part; why not build it and lease it out - maybe even at a profit?)
They'd admit that neither solar farms nor wind farms are practical on any scale beyond small local augmentation of an existing grid. (Maybe they'd work at a mid range scale for a small range of geographic and climate specific areas).
They'd be announcing a contest similar to the private space race now ongoing and apparently having success.

You don't get there by mandating performance by any means possible and raising taxes to punish folks who do not run out to purchase today's latest fad-mobile. (Good luck in selling your 2010 Prius six or so years down the road).

Now, please excuse me; I need to go out and unfurl the sail on my solar powered, encapsulated, tricycle that talks to me and offers GPS, rear view TV, and hands off cell phone service. (Did I note that we could live with far less complex, cheaper and lighter, amenities that actually used less energy if we chose to do so?)

[BitWielder1]

The problem is that when they politicize a technical problem and try to force an answer by adding artificial cost and subsidies, you don't get the best answer, you get exactly this kind of mess.

(BTW, fusion power is not available yet, the author must mean "fission".)

[pb929]

Actually I think the point is that fusion power could be available if the necessary investments were made.

There are probably other ways to produce energy as well that go untapped simply because no one is willing to make the investments to develop them since the economics are not there.

[CanaGuy]

Wind and Solar power generating systems will NEVER replace even ONE gas/oil/nuclear plant. The simple reason being that when there is no wind or sunshine, the gas/oil/nuclear power stations must be available to carry 100% of the load in their absence. Do you all understand this?

In fact, Solar and Wind cannot even REDUCE the oil/gas/nuclear consumption when sun and wind are available, because the gas/oil/nuclear plants must still be operating on backup and switchable at a moment's notice to fill in the gap when the sun and wind fail. The dynamos in a standby situation must always be spinning and it takes energy to do it.

This is the sad truth of the intermittent, random and unreliable sources that are solar and wind. Do you all understand this? As the article says, it is pure folly.

[pb929]

You could generate power with wind and solar, store it, and use the stored power when the sun/wind are not available.

I don’t think wind or solar will ever be our primary sources of power but they can be used to replace some reliance on coal/nat gas until the real alternatives are developed.