Yes, Energy Efficiency Matters

In the ongoing conversation about the future of energy, there’s a noisy subset of commentators who insist energy efficiency doesn’t matter, or that it’s been good but we don’t need more of it. The only sensible way to keep up with electricity demand while cutting emissions, they say, is through technological innovations that produce more clean generation. Conservation, in their view, is a waste of time and effort.

This viewpoint was summed up by Michael Shellenberger, an author an self-proclaimed eco-modernist, on the Conversations with Coleman podcast a couple months ago during a segment on the unpopularity of nuclear power: 

“If you have nuclear power plants ... there’s no basis for moralizing. So if you’re someone who gains a lot of pleasure from telling other people how to live their lives...nuclear is a bummer because it means there’s no basis for your demands for radical silo transformation.”

I don’t totally disagree with Shellenberger. The same way some insist technological ingenuity frees us from any need to cut back, others insist technological innovation can play little to no role in protecting our environment. Both groups are wrong, in my opinion. 

Innovation in the field will take us to the carbon neutral promise land one day. But that day is a ways off, and in the meantime we’ll need to consume less. 

This fact is evidenced by two of the most advanced renewable economies in the world: Germany and California. 

Germany has been aggressively pursuing renewables since 2012 but has yet to cut their emissions. That’s because their wind field generation scales with wind, and not demand. When the turbines fail to meet customer power demand, the country falls back on dirty coal plants. Moving forward, if Germany has any hope of meeting their Paris goals, they’ll have to reduce consumption when their renewables aren’t cutting it. Advances in battery technology will help, but new storage won’t completely solve the problem any time soon. 

California has found itself in a similar predicament, albeit compounded by extreme weather and forest fires. The state has pursued ambitious renewable goals for some time now. The reliability consequences of the initiative have been clear the past two summers. High demand during heat waves has required utilities to cut power to swaths of customers. The damage, however, has been greatly mitigated through residential response programs. Improved conservation and EE systems will be required as California continues its push for 100% clean energy. 

Luckily, it seems policy makers are privy to the importance of energy efficiency on the road to a carbon neutral grid. For example, the US Department of Agriculture recently announced $464 million in funding for renewable and energy efficiency projects in rural parts of the country. In Texas, where I live, projects funded by this initiative are already underway. The Stephenville Type B Economic Development, for example, has received $100,000 to conduct 81 bioenergy and energy efficiency site assessments for agricultural producers.

The infrastructure bill also emphasises energy efficiency, as I’m sure you know. 

The successful transition to a clean grid will require an assortment of technologies and strategies. Be weary of those who insist on a simplistic, single dimensional approach, whether it be one of technological might or radical conservation. A mix of both are likely needed.