This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Energy Efficiency Myths, Busted!

There are companies, both large and small, already taking advantage of new technologies in the realm of energy and operational efficiencies, demand response, sustainability, and energy management. However, many organizations still have yet to embrace innovative energy management solutions, thinking they are either too expensive, too difficult to deploy or that they already have sufficient tools in place. The infographic below breaks down six energy efficiency myths that permeate the market and blow the cover to show that many best-in-class companies are now treating energy as a strategic asset in order to cut costs and improve operations.

Efficiency Myths infographic

Jon Rabinowitz's picture

Thank Jon for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Jul 13, 2014 6:59 pm GMT

The most effective way is NOT merely “quit subsidizing solar…”. That alone would still contain us in the fossil fuels box. We need cheap solar, advanced nuclear and CCS (in the meantime). Anything less than that is mere rationing!

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Jul 16, 2014 4:26 am GMT

I agree that the main focus should be directed towards the re-development of any molten fuels or closed cycle high temp nuclear and, in the meantime, insure that the nuclear plants we still have (and planned) do not get shut down by those who don’t do their energy math.

Solar would be neat if lots of pumped storage could get built (and if the claims of 28 cent per watt ever gets surpassed via machine automation), however, I believe it would always be intrinically cheaper to build nuclear, and its far lessor amounts of “storage” (in the form of molten salts already in the MSR).

Clifford Goudey's picture
Clifford Goudey on Jul 17, 2014 6:53 pm GMT

Chris, you wrote, “Frank says conventional hydro, nuclear and natural gas power can reduce C02 better because of their higher capacity factors.” 

Of the three mentioned, only nuclear has a high capacity factor.  Most natural gas plants are peakers and have a very low capacity factor.  Wind is similar to hydro and offshore wind capacity factor is even higher.  See:

In general, capacity factor has little to do with CO2 emissions and more to do with plant utilization and therefore profitability.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on Jul 18, 2014 8:29 am GMT

Nuclear gets already subsidies worth far more than $50 per ton of CO2 equivalent avoided. Real huge subsidies such as:

– the huge liability transfers regarding accident/disaster insurance costs. That insurance premium of ~$50/MWh is now paid by citizens/government. Invisible, but becoming very real once disaster strikes!

– the huge liability transfer regarding nuclear waste towards government & citizens. Worth also ~$50/MWh.

– the many subsidies for new nuclear plants such as loan guarantees, shifting the risk to rate payers paying the investment in advance, etc.

So nuclear shouldn’t get such carbon credit, but in general take more of the costs it causes.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »