Why Can't Energy Efficiency Get Any Respect?

In partnership with AESP: The increasing roles of DERs, connected technology and Big Data are driving rapid change in energy efficiency. As we shape the Utility of the future, this community will help you keep up with the latest developments.

Join

Follow via RSS

Author Profile

Chris Partridge

Sr. Marketing Associate Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

About me

Chris Partridge is the Sr. Marketing Associate at the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. He oversees MEEA's social media, email marketing, graphic design, websites and other communications...

Member since 2018
8 items added with 2,591 views

Top Members

Matt Chester

Energy Analyst

Chester Energy and Policy

Julian Jackson

writer and researcher

BrightGreen PR

Charles Bayless

Retired CEO

Tucson Electric Power

WARNING: SIGN-IN

You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please sign-in or register to continue.

Shared Link

Mar 5, 2019 10:34 pm GMTMar 5, 2019 10:33 pm GMT
880 views

Why Can't Energy Efficiency Get Any Respect?

Energy efficiency is widely regarded as the least costly source of additional energy, the most immediate way to reduce carbon emissions, a crucial part of any plan to achieve climate goals and advance a clean economy. It enjoys bipartisan support. But...the industry has struggled to get attention in a dramatically distracted capitol.

Source: www.forbes.com

Energy efficiency doesn't always get the credit it deserves, but behind the scenes, the sector is an economic and environmental powerhouse, creating good jobs and slashing emissions across the region.

Forbes visited MEEA's 2019 Midwest Energy Solutions Conference to cover our plenary session on using policy levers to spread the benefits of energy efficiency.

report

Thank Chris 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.

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

Bob Meinetz on Mar 5, 2019 11:20 pm GMT

"Energy efficiency is widely regarded as the least costly source of additional energy,..."

Chris, energy efficiency does get respect. It doesn't get credited as a source of additional energy because it isn't one, and no amount of salesmanship can change that.

Energy efficiency evangelists, like their renewables brethren, seem to think terms like "efficiency", "capacity", and "energy" itself are subjective, that they are malleable to their needs. They aren't. They are scientific terms with precise definitions, and people who use them incorrectly don't sound smart or disuptive, they just sound ignorant.

Energy efficiency, for example, is the ratio of output to input, usually expressed as a fraction or percentage. If 3/5 of the potential energy in fuel used in a turbine generator comes out as electricity, we say the turbine is 60% efficient. The term defines a relationship, not a quantity.

It's often called a "source of energy" to make it sound like it can serve as a substitute for energy, as something which can light electric lights or pump water. That technique also has a precise definition: BS.

Chris Partridge on Mar 6, 2019 4:08 pm GMT

Thanks for the reply, Bob! I tend to agree that the phrase "additional energy" in the Forbes piece isn't how I would put it. I prefer to talk about efficiency as a way to help meet our energy needs. That said, I think a charitable reading is that using less energy with the same supply results in a surplus, though that additional energy isn't strictly created by efficiency. A coupon isn't money, but helps you keep additional money in your pocketbook. But I take your point: it wouldn't make sense to talk about powering something 100% through efficiency.

And I like your way of articulating efficiency as "a replationship, not a quantity". Maybe EE advocates would say that relationship isn't strictly about energy output to energy input as it is a relationship between desired outcomes and our energy input. For example, keeping families warm all winter with less energy.

But you're talking to the comms guy at an EE org, so I might be a little more inclined to accept some poetic license.

Bob Meinetz on Mar 6, 2019 6:33 pm GMT

Chris, all taking poetic license with technical terms accomplishes is to obfuscate matters, and since you're the comms (not the mis-comms) guy, you should understand the people who do understand efficiency will not be impressed.

The difference between efficiency and clean energy isn't merely a syntactical one. Efficiency has meaning for only the minority of global population blessed with too much energy. To the other 5 billion who don't have enough, efficiency is a meaningless conceit. It doesn't cook their food, it doesn't provide them with fresh water - the essentials. That we might lower energy consumption for the richest people in the world certainly doesn't hurt, but it's a drop in the bucket.

I realize you've got a job to do. But in the big picture, misrepresenting the value of various energy options is already having existential impacts. They will only grow as more of the global population seeks, and acquires, access to the energy you and I take for granted.

Chris Partridge on Mar 6, 2019 6:40 pm GMT

Hey Bob - not sure I'd agree that thinking about efficiency in a more holistic way than just energy input vs energy output obfuscates things. We might just have a reasonable disagreement about the way to conceptualize efficiency.

And energy efficiency has a huge part to play in places where energy is scarce, including the developing world. Efficient products, for example, take less energy to power and reduce stress on grids. That improves reliability and lowers the thresholds required for people to meet basic needs like cooking and heating, not to mention controlling costs. If supply is scarce, efficient products mean more people can meet their needs than if the same products were inefficient, right?

Sounds like we both take the threat of climate change seriously, so I share your conviction.

Bob Meinetz on Mar 6, 2019 8:08 pm GMT

If supply is scarce, efficient products mean more people can meet their needs than if the same products were inefficient, right?

Good point, and no doubt a solar panel powering LEDs will provide more useful light than incandescent bulbs for anyone who has them, rich or poor.

Then what? Assuming LEDs could be the most efficient bulbs we have for a long, long time, will consumers on a grid - any grid - be forced to wait for incremental improvements in efficiency to be able to wash clothes, or boil water?

Efficiency is not some holistic concept you can interpret however you like. Defined as "the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in", there's only so much of it you can squeeze out of any system - after that, energy consumption will rise. That's just a fact. And leading people to believe efficiency improvements are potentially unlimited (like clean energy) is a deception with profound consequences for the environment.

Chris Partridge on Mar 7, 2019 3:31 pm GMT

Hey Bob, I actually like that definition of effficiency. I'd just include both energy and non-energy benefits in "useful work". I guess that's what I mean by a "holistic" conception of energy efficiency - one that recognizes both the technical and social dimensions of energy use to help people meet their needs.

And I'm not sure who is saying efficiency has unlimited potential. Sure, I'm optimistic there's more technical potential and good efficiency can do in this world, but that seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

Bob Meinetz on Mar 8, 2019 4:44 pm GMT

A benefit of using scientific terminology correctly, Chris, is that it doesn't matter whether you, or I, like a word's definition or not. It provides a way for people to understand each other, to know we're both referring to the same thing.

Considering efficiency the same as available energy is logically equivalent to believing I can get rich by quitting my job and simply spending less money. It would be nice, but the world doesn't work that way.

Matt Chester on Mar 6, 2019 1:46 pm GMT

"creating good jobs and slashing emissions across the region"

This is the part that needs to be hammered, the economic & environmental benefits are real so investment is needed

Bob Meinetz on Mar 6, 2019 6:21 pm GMT

Matt, it should be hammered, if it's correct.

You claim "the economic & environmental benefits are real": what non-anecdotal evidence do you have energy efficiency efforts by private companies or utilities are "slashing emissions across the region"; that the efficiency economy isn't net-positive for carbon emissions (it doesn't create more emissions than it prevents); that efficiency programs at utilities, for which ratepayers get the bill, result in net savings for consumers?

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.

Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

EnergyBiz® Network

Generation Network

Energy Management Network

Intelligent Utility® Network

Grid Network

Energy & Sustainability
Network

Author Profile

About me

Top Members

Matt Chester

Julian Jackson

Charles Bayless

WARNING: SIGN-IN

Shared Link

Thank Chris for the Post!

Discussions

Sign in to Participate

Get Published - Build a Following

Related Content

The Power Industry Network™

Author Profile

Top Members

WARNING: SIGN-IN

Thank Chris for the Post!

Discussions

Get Published - Build a Following

Group Sponsors

Related Content

Sponsors & Partners