From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Energy Strategy and Global Warming
Keywords: energy efficiency CO2 abatement cost effective
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <51892@seismo.CSS.GOV>, stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
# In article <1993Jan20.130701.14221@aisb.ed.ac.uk>, jamesh@aisb.ed.ac.uk
(James Hammerton) writes:
# > 
# > 		       Energy Strategy and Global Warming
# > 		       ----------------------------------
# > 			   Essay 1: Energy Efficiency
# > 			   --------------------------
# 
# This is fine essay, well documented, logical, etc., but I am left with a
# question -
# Are you favoring government mandated efficiency?

Yes to provide a bottom line on energy efficiency. In the essay I was
mainly trying to show that there was a large potential for energy
efficiency, and that it was a cost effective means of CO2 abatement. I don't
believe that mandated efficiency is the only tool that should be used. Also
it should be introduced gradually. As an example, in Sweden way back in the
early decades of this century, they decided to increase the insulation
standards of their housing. The introduced guidelines which stipulated
standards only marginally above the norm at the time. Gradually they 
increased these standards over the years, taking note of any economic
effects. The result: Now Swedish building standards mandate house that use 
as little as one fifth of those that British standards require. The idea is
that any efficiency standards should be phased in, starting with some that
only marginally improve on the norm.
 
# That's an important question, because it leaves people without choice.

True, but in many cases, one finds that unlike light bulbs, there is little
correlation between energy usage and price of an electrical appliance. In
the study done for the Swedish State Power Board mntioned in my essay
there's a graph of the price of fridges against their electricity
usage. It looked like random dots over a square area. The most efficient
models were as often cheaper than others, as they were more expensive. In 
this market at least, it wouldn't force people to buy more expensive
machines. 
# But without it, people often choose lower efficiency options.  Even if they
# cost more, just for reasons of "style" or "sexy".  As I've pointed out
before,
# this must be considered.  I tend to be be worried about government
mandating
# on choice or another.  I have no problem with carrot-and-stick approaches
# to encouraging certaina choices (subsidy if you do, tax if you don't),
# especially if it can be demonstrated that both the subsidy benefits
# those paying the tax on the other end.  The experience with cars is a case
# in point.  Few people really want to buy a Geo Metro.  They'd rather
# get sports car, even though it costs more and is much less efficient.
# They have good reasons and not so good readons for their choice.  How
# about hair dryers?  Big energy user, but does anyone really need one?
# I never use one, and so I don't have hair like Tom Brokaw or Bill Clinton,
# but my hair is clean and neat and only takes about 20 minutes to dry all by
# itself.  I have met very few other people who don't use them.  I haven't
# used a clothes dryer in 2 years - it can be inconvenient, and it certainly
# involves a lifestyle change, but then I pay nothing for a dryer, and
# nothing for the power, and that's the ultimate in energy efficiency.
# But how many people do you know who do that?  I have never used a
dishwasher
# in my life.  The list goes on.  Although all these options would require
# people to change how they live, few really cost any time.  People choose
# to use these appliances for other reasons, not really convenience and
certainly
# they aren't thinking about energy when they make the decision.

Firstly, I did try to demonstrate that it was through using more energy 
efficient designs rather than change of lifestyles that much of the savings
could be achieved(Don't get me wrong, I do feel that we should think more
carefully about some of the more trivial uses we have for energy). I think
minimum efficiency standards though are in the consumer's interest, in that
they will pay less money on running the appliance. There are some cases
where this won't balance the extra cost of the energy efficient model, and 
here more thought would be needed before such measures are taken.

# This is a hard problem.  I don't want to prohibit choices.  But I would
# like to encourage good choices through appropriate taxes or whatever.
# 
# But I doubt that taxes and subsidies could accomplish the large goals
# you have in this area.

I don't know about that. If by law all products in addition to meeting
certain efficiency requirements had to display their energy requirements
clearly, and tax exemptions were given for particularly efficient models, I
feel that this could have quite an effect. In the area of electrical supply,
utilities could be mandated to use least cost planning(as many do now in the
US) and here it can often be cheaper to give away free energy efficient
light bulbs than to build a new power plant, or even operate an existing one
for longer or with higher output. I'll try to give some evidence on the
performance of energy efficiency so far later, but I recommend you read some
of Amory Lovins's work in this area, he seems to know what he's on about.
# --
# Richard Stead
# Center for Seismic Studies
# Arlington, VA
# stead@seismo.css.gov

James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *