For the next few decades, energy efficiency is one of the lowest cost options for reducing US carbon emissions. Many studies have concluded that energy efficiency can save both energy and money. For example, a recent McKinsey report calculated the potential savings assuming a 7% discount rate, no price on carbon and using only "net present value positive" investments. It found the potential to reduce consumer demand by about 23% by 2020 and reduce GHG emissions by 1.1 gigatons each year -- at a net savings of US$ 680 billion.
Likewise, the National Academies found in 2009 that accelerated deployment of cost-effective technologies in buildings could reduce energy use by 25-30% in 2030. The report stated: "Many building efficiency technologies represent attractive investment opportunities with a payback period of two to three years."
Some economists, however, don't believe these analyses; they say there aren't 20-dollar bills lying around waiting to be picked up. If the savings were real, they argue, why didn't the free market vacuum them up? The skeptics are asking a fair question: why do potential energy efficiency savings often go unrealized?
I asked our team at the Department of Energy to review the literature on savings from home energy retrofits. We are pursuing energy efficiency in many areas -- from toughening and expanding appliance standards to investing in smart grid -- but improving the efficiency of buildings, which account for 40% of US energy use, is truly low hanging fruit.
In this review, we looked only at studies that compared energy bills before and after improvements and excluded studies that relied on estimates of future savings. We found that retrofit programs that were the most successful in achieving savings targeted the least efficient houses and concentrated on the most fundamental work: air-tight ducts, windows and doors, insulation and caulking. When efficiency improvements were both properly chosen and properly executed, the projected savings of energy and money were indeed achieved. In science, we would call the successful programs an "existence proof" that efficiency investments save money. Too often, however, the savings went unrealized, due to a number of reasons, including poor efficiency investment decisions and shoddy workmanship.
There are other reasons why energy savings aren't fully captured. Market failures include inertia, inconvenience, ignorance, lack of financing and "principal agent" problems (e.g., landlords don't install energy efficient refrigerators because tenants pay the energy bills). To persuade the skeptics and spark the investments in efficiency we need, the Department of Energy is now focused on overcoming these market failures.
First, the Department is working to develop a strong home retrofit industry. We are creating a state-of-the-art tool that home inspectors can use on a handheld device to assess energy savings potential and identify the most effective investments to drive down energy costs. We're also investing in training programs to upgrade the skills of the current workforce and attract the next generation. The Department is also focused on measuring results -- to both provide quality assurance to homeowners and promote improvement. For example, we're pursuing new technologies such as infrared viewers that will show if insulation and caulking were done properly. Post-work inspections are a necessary antidote and deterrent to poor workmanship.
To address inconvenience and to reduce costs, we're launching an innovative effort called "Retrofit Ramp-Up" that will streamline home retrofits by reaching whole neighborhoods at a time. If we can audit and retrofit a significant fraction of the homes on any given residential block, the cost, convenience and confidence of retrofit work will be vastly improved. Another goal of this program is to make energy efficiency a social norm.
To help pay for investments, we're working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage new financing tools. For example, homeowners might pay back energy improvement loans via an assessment on their property tax bill. Out-of-pocket expenses are eliminated and energy savings will exceed the increase in property tax. Both the savings and the loan payments would stay with the house if the owners decide to sell.
Another opportunity comes when a property changes hands. Banks require a structural inspection and a termite inspection; they should also ask for the last year's worth of utility bills, which speaks directly to the home's affordability. If improvements are needed, the costs could be seamlessly tacked onto the mortgage.
The greatest gains can be realized in new construction. By developing building design software with embedded energy analysis and building operating systems that constantly tune up a building for optimal efficiency while maintaining comfort, extremely cost-effective buildings with energy savings of 60-80% are possible.
Regardless of what the skeptics may think, there are indeed 20-dollar bills lying on the ground all around us. We only need the will -- and the ways -- to pick them up.
This op-ed appears in a new report by the World Economic Forum and IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates entitled "Energy Vision 2010: Towards a More Energy Efficient World." The full report can be found here.
look at CA million rooftop solar program, 100k new roofs per year.
For northern climates, Bio Fuels is the way to go. In fact local Bio Fuel converters, Bio CHar for instance, and co generates, electricity, natural gas, charcoal, and building heat.
Installing these systems distributed 1 per block or so, will drastically reduce heating and natural gas load, as well as the reducing the mass of waste to be collected by 90% or more.
see my profile for links and details.
http://www.biochar-international.org/technology/production
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html
I'm hoping the Bloom Box will be a better fit when it finally hits the home market (but it clearly won't be if its projected $30K price tag sticks).
Much better fits for the average homeowner are things like on demand water heaters and grey water recycling systems (which I think should be standard).
As national health care took over the consciousness of Huffington over the course of the week, the Secretaries essay is none the less intricately tied to all aspects of our greater goal of achieving overall environmental and economic health consciousness.
Having said this, and admittedly in disagreement with portions of Mr. Chu's approach, my disagreement is not of his approach but the lack of detail benchmarking his goal. As constructive discourse to the most monumental industrial changes we as a nation have ever faced today must constantly be placed front and center, let's keep the dynamics of national public utility restructuring, nationwide emphasis on whole house and whole community energy retrofitting at the core of our dialog.
The more we do this the more local issues of community banking and proactive community education will begin to intertwine with the larger national issues pertaining to global investment banking and mixed use national energy policy.
Rome wasn't built in a day. But when it was finished it was beautiful.
After the health bill passes would be a good time politically to finally make the shift described above and make a wholesale push to move solar/wind into the realization phase and not just treating it like the crazy uncle in the basement phase.
The huge majorities of so-called “deniers” are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air. The real problem is that every solution offered to them costs more than they can afford. They understand that the whole purpose of a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”, just as proponents do, is to raise prices on current forms of energy so new forms can compete. They read that many of these new forms of energy are many times more expensive that coal, that means electric bills many times higher. They are hearing about a future where they cannot afford energy, that’s too hard to contemplate, hence the denial. And all the science cannot convince them the consequences of putting CO2 in the air, is worse than a future they cannot afford.
And for the Al Gore side who love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews. It's NOT “Coal” or “wind and solar”, it’s Coal or Nuclear, with a little wind and solar.
Last year we water consumers cut way back on water usage because we pay a high rate. The city water commission's response? They "had to" raise rates 14% in order to keep taking in the money they "need."
When, as a consumer, I sweated and conserved electricity last summer, turning on our A/C only about 3 times at night so we could sleep, Con Ed had switched to its high "summer rates." No savings realized for this consumer! Sure, had I not cut back, my bill would have been even higher. Is that "savings?" I guess so, but it's no extra money in my pocket.
Where have you been?
we need a campaign, some out reach.
for all you boomers and above, remember the Interstate highway system endeavor?
this effort needs to be jazzed up. made a matter of national security.
a competition..first city to cut consumption 20% gets a subsidy?
women..don't date a guy w/o CFL.
no insulation, no excitation.
go tankless.
have a paint your roof white party.
Dr ,can't you, sec duncan and sebelius
who seem very intelligent
pull a caper
and just like iraq and afganistan- divert funds from DOD ?
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/project_plan.php
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/
They call it LIFE,
because it brings DEATH.
get it?
that makes it funny, right?
such bs, don't be fooled again.
What country are you from?
I live in America, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is our premier National Research Laboratory!
You would think that with the name research you would know that!
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/
We could get ALL our power from Nuclear at a much lower cost than getting 25% of our energy from Wind and Solar.
To get ALL of our electric from Nuclear we need 300 new plants. We will use the highest estimate of 8 billion per plant.
300 plants times $8,000,000,000.00 = $2,400,000,000,000.00
That is 2.4 Trillion dollars. But nuclear plants produce power for 50+ years.
So we would be spending only 48 Billion per year as opposed to 2 Trillion per year.
The cost of 300 nuclear plants over 50 years would be just $120.00 per American per year.
But even better, we are going to use a standard design so the real cost will be much lower.
Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significantly safer than those built during the 1970s because of improvements in technology. This time around, the industry and regulators have streamlined licensing and are planning to use a standard design.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-plant-presi_n_463754.html
The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.
Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperation mentality that will risk the Apocalypse to keep their program running.
The nuclear power industry provides "Cover" for the weapons program.
More nuke power = more proliferation risk.,
always has, always will.
Cancer: http://www.tapcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tap_fact_sheet1.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12938722 France has very high radiation type cancers rates.
25 cent per kwh nukes 9$ per W average. http://energyeconomyonline.com/uploads/Is_New_Nuclear_Competitive_July_10_2009_FNS_Event.pdf
25 cents per KWH for new Nuclear.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
10$ per W nuclear minimum.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/
http://energy.probeinternational.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-economics/the-candu-reactor-bankrupted-ontario-hydro
The Thorium reactors are just more bait and switch.
don't be fooled again.
rooftop solar PV as low as 3 cents.
see my profile for details and links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile
And they don't go off at night or cloudy days!
Your "climateprogress" price quote is just a madeup number and has been debunked here many times. Also "climateprogress" is an ADMITTED ANTI-Nuclear site with zero credibility.
Chu noted that solar power, for one, is still far too expensive to compete with conventional power plants (except on hot summer days in some places, and with subsidies). Making solar cheap will require "transformative technologies," equivalent to the discovery of the transistor, he said.
From MIT interview.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/page1/
Dr. Chu, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response: "Solar technology, he said, will have to get five times better than it is today,“
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html
The real price of Solar is 35 cents a KwH and is tracked here on the Solar Industries own website:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm
I think Dr. Chu is a little more credible
The WORDING "Cap and Trade" and "Using Derivatives" has been Dropped because of the Backlash!
But many are setting up SCAMS to do it under another Name!
http://www.missionpointcapital.com/index.html
MissionPoint Capital Partners is building a platform of investment vehicles that will be transformative in accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy.
Structured Finance - Derivatives
Trading - ?
Insurance - Credit Default Swaps?
Under cap and trade the government and traders get all the money.
Your energy bills go up and you get nothing back. Supposedly the government will use this money to subsidize inefficient power sources, but who knows, it’s gone in any case. That is why Obama included this money in his budget.
Under cap and dividend, there is a “tax” on carbon but 100% of that is rebated back to consumers on a per capita basis, the government keeps none. CO2 free energy sources have to compete fairly with each other on cost.
For example, if you lived in a state where most power came from nuclear, you would in effect be “paid” with money from people in states that burned Coal. This would provide an almost irresistible political force to adopt CO2 sources. I really do not like coal for many reasons.
If we are forced to accept some government intervention to switch to CO2 free sources, it is the best option I have seen. That is not what Congress is considering now however.
http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=readfirst
Coal plants (50% of our electric power) are polluting the Earth, well then build some nuclear plants! All we hear about are wind and solar that can only represent about 20-25% of our energy needs as Obama’s energy czar, Dr Chu, realizes. Any more that that and you would need batteries the size of houses on every block! Wind and solar are great for some applications like in the south where our energy needs from air cond are highest on bright sunny days, but not so much up north where energy needs are greatest on cold nights.
ALL the science tells us that in the near future our only choice is Nuclear or coal. To oppose Nuclear power is to ignore real science and extends our reliance on green house gas producing power sources. Either support Nuclear or quite complaining about using coal. Even Obama’s energy chief, Dr Chu, realizes this. France and Japan get most of their electricity from Nuclear with NO PROBLEMS.
No, nukes do use batteries.
And your cost figures, since even oil today is way to expensive to use for electric generation.
Your own biofuel links talk about "maybe" producing enough just to replace oil in 20 to 30 years and even then at a cost higher than oil. grow up!
So people provide links to solarbzz, that say solar costs 8$/Wp and 30 cents per kwh.
Let me explain the discrepancies:
Buzz is using Average, I am using best. To me this is more appropriate, it's like listing the prices for stereos, I don't care what the average price is. Most people care about the lowest price. Right?
That accounts for a factor of 4, since Buzz uses an average 4$ per Wp panels. Panels are available retail for 1$ per Wp, new 25 year guaranteed. that brings the cost down to
7.5 cents.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
They assume 15 years, I assume 30 which is how long everybody agree the panels are more than likely to last.
now we are are at 3.75 cents.
Close enough?
Do you have trouble believing the installation price will fall with the modules costs?
Buzz doesn't even use real numbers for actual installations like the http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf study does, they estimate the total installed cost by doubling the panel cost!
1$ panels, 2$ installed.
Buzz:
"The time required to install a system will depend upon its size and installation location. A fixed time factor is included,"
Solar is available cheaper than nukes.
A 120 watt solar panel is really nothing more than a sq meter of solar cells worth maybe $120 today glued to that skylite.
Until super efficient solar cells gets down to a reasonable price, the current ones even free glued to that skylight will keep prices above $2 a watt.
Here is research's calculation for his absurd 3 cents kwh
"30years*365days per year*24hourse per day*SunFactor 6/24 equivalent peak sunlight hours = 64 KWH per Peak Watt.
Nano solar at 2$ per installed Peak watt is just 3 cents per KWH. 2$/64KWH = 3.1 cents."
First he uses 6/24(25%) to account for solar variations and electrical losses when NOAA's PVWatts gives 19%for the perfectly aligned roof in Phoenix.
Then he assumes that the money needed was neither borrowed, to pay down your mortgage, or reinvest ie no interest on a 30 year life.
Then he assumes no labor, permits, or maintenance cost and uses the latest going out of business sale prices.
Using an actual solar 5 kw solar Watson House,Massachusetts with Research's grid tie package ratioed up to 5 Kw we get
panels,ship,inverters $18K, labor $6k, 5500 kwh annual actual (confirmed with PVWatts), loan 6% 25 years 8% cost.
2400000*.08/5500 = $.35/kwh
Built in Phoenix
2400000*.08/8085 = $.24/kwh
Current OECD US nuclear cost 3 cents a kwh.
your lies are completely irrelevant.
Nuclear power cost are public lies that do not include capital costs, waste disposal cost nor insurance.
nor will they include the cost of Chernobyl and TMI, nor of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Solar is 5 to 10 times higher.
Dr. Chu, was asked since solar is now a proven technolgy why are utilities not putting up millions of them. His response: "Solar technology, he said, will have to get five times better than it is today,“
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html
Chu noted that solar power, for one, is still far too expensive to compete with conventional power plants (except on hot summer days in some places, and with subsidies). Making solar cheap will require "transformative technologies," equivalent to the discovery of the transistor, he said.
From MIT interview.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/page1/
How about the huge 1 month 1 GW batteries nukes need when they are being refueled every year for a month????
Can you imagine if the same numbers were true for aircraft of automobiles.? We are now the butt of every joke in the nuclear industry - an industry we invented and lead the world - the shame of it.
See how the NRC puts the shaft to American nuclear without any real safety improvements here in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, DSc,Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
His CV: http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=007699
A look at how American nukes were build by American engineers before NRC attorneys took over.
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go
Steve
If improvements are needed, the costs could be seamlessly tacked onto the mortgage".
Correct me if I am wrong here but encumbrances usually affect the transferability of a property.
The more I listen to the rationale behind Mr. Chu's enlightened pursuits, the more evident it becomes that the Obama administration is living in a complete and totally irrational socio-economic frame of mind.
Market forces allow me as a homeowner the right to choose the technology I utilize to make my home energy efficient. As those forces must be allowed to grow unencumbered by legitimate government regulatory management, that management does not go past the front door of MY HOME.
America is not a socialist state, it is a nation benchmarked in active and engaging free market pursuit.
This is again the argument for establishing nationwide building codes that all Americans can non biasedly refer to when making decisions about the public utility they invest in and the products and technologies that serve their home retrofit needs the best.
As the Obama administration is comprised of theories brought forth by inexperienced idealists who may have the best intentions in mind, currently their approach to problem solving does not evoke a strong sense of confidence.
Glad to help. You are wrong. This is a property tax assessment just like local school bonds, water bonds, etc. ZERO effect on transferability, in fact, it will make it much easier to transfer properties because the seller won't have to recoup 100% of the cost of the improvement out of proceeds of sale.
Sorry, but the rest of your reasoning is also wrongheaded and bizarrely fearful. Energy efficiency is not yet another bogeyman that right wingers need to hide under the bed from. REAL conservatives are wildly in support of greater energy independence at the individual level, which is exactly what rooftop solar and efficiency upgrades give you.
Talk about an "inexperienced" political and economic thinker!
As our homes are currently attached to the existing public utility grid by such things as gas, electric and water meters that are owned by the public utility, adding additional technologies that are also owned by the public utility "and of the owners choosing" would serve to broaden the competition between utilities. If the competition was broadened, municipal tax revenues would grow, new housing industries associated with diversified public utilities would develop and retrofitting of homes would move from the simpleton concept of buying a few tubes of caulking to attain energy efficiency to the more advanced concept of attaining energy efficiency and advanced energy production at the same time.