Two leading conservation organizations have set out to bring the efforts together. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Alliance for Water Efficiency this week published a white paper that describes the co-dependence of water and energy resources, and outlines strategies to use both more efficiently.

The paper brings to light some interesting – and rarely discussed – ways each resource heightens use of the other.

• Sourcing, moving, treating, heating, collecting, re-treating, and dispos­ing of water consumes19 percent of California’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually, according to a 2005 California Energy Commission report.
• The River Network in 2009 found that energy use for water services accounts for 13 percent of US electricity consumption, at least 520 million megawatt-hours annually.
• Thermoelectric power accounted for an estimated 49 percent of US water withdrawals and 53 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals in 2005.

ACEEE and AWE hope to work together on local, state and federal policy to bring more energy efficiency to water use and water efficiency to energy use. They have some hurdles to overcome. For example, “the water and energy efficiency communities do not share a common language or appreciation of existing efficiency efforts,” the white paper said. “In addition, the two communities frequently operate under different regulatory business models and existing structures that do not recognize the benefits of both energy and water savings.”

The organizations intend to develop approaches that encourage com­munication and guide the industries and their regulators. They hope to share best practices and integrate water efficiency into existing energy efficiency programs and vice versa.

GIMBBYs aren’t worried about seeing wind turbines or transmission lines from their backyards as are the NIMBYs. It’s the guy next store that they don’t want to see. And GIMBBYs number many among us. A recent study conducted for the National Association of Realtors found privacy to be very important in selecting a home for nearly half of the Americans surveyed.

What’s this got to with energy efficiency? To gain privacy we move to homes that are further from work, schools and stores, suburban and rural outposts that offer us bigger backyards. By way of disclosure, before I go any further let me confess that I am a GIMBBY. I’d probably give up my lights, heat and air conditioning before my five acres of trees shielding me from others.

The Environmental Protection Agency calls big-backyard neighborhoods like mine “automobile dependent locations” and contrasts them with “transit-oriented” neighborhoods, places where you can hop a bus or easily walk to regular destinations. The agency recently looked at which kind of neighborhood uses the most British Thermal Units (BTUs), taking into account size and type of house, its energy efficiency, and vehicle use of its occupants. This is known asLocation Efficiency.

The EPA’s findings indicate that location really is everything. Transit-oriented neighborhoods offered up more energy savings whether the houses were single family detached, single family attached or multi-family. This is significant because homes that share walls typically require less energy for heating and cooling. But that advantage was not significant enough to overcome driving distance for the big-backyard neighborhoods. Travel requirements pretty much trumped all, indicating that a home’s location is “a major variable for household energy consumption,” the EPA said.

So I did what I always do when faced with a question like this. I went to the best source for energy data about the US: the US Energy Information Administration. Here’s what I found (pdf):

Indeed, we do seem to be using less energy per person than we did in 1970. Wow! The shape of this graph tells a lot of American history, too. There’s the sharp increase of the ’50s and ’60s as we suburbanized and accessorized our lives. Then the two bumps in the ’70s showing the downturns after the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian revolution of 1979. Then followed the slow rise in energy consumption of the ’80s and ’90s as our economy recovered and took off.

Then, at the turn of the new millenium, energy consumption flattened out and turned down. We started using less energy per person. The decrease is mainly coincident with the economic downturn of the past few years.

Another graph from this same EIA document showed our expenditures per person over roughly the same time period:

Well, there’s the answer. Energy costs have been rising sharply since the year 2000. The only dip in that part of the graph followed the attack of 11 September 2001, when the economy tanked for a bit.

The moral of the story: High prices influence behavior. The back story is that the days of cheap energy are over. Peak oil is a big part of the reason for that.

But lately, partly because I’m dieting, I’ve been thinking what energy efficiency really needs is something akin to a Weight Watchers dessert.

Let me explain myself.

Saving energy and saving calories share three precepts. They are most palatable to the consumer if they are devoid of self-sacrifice, appear invisible, and offer some element of delight. Weight Watchers has got these down cold. The energy efficiency industry is doing well with the first and second, but not the third.

No self-sacrifice

Weight Watchers is ingenious because it does not describe itself as a diet; it’s a lifestyle, a way of eating. It’s not about self-sacrifice. Sound familiar? The energy efficiency industry over the last decade shook off the ‘conservation’ moniker, much the way Weight Watcher abandoned the term ‘diet.’

The Alliance to Save Energy describes the difference between energy efficiency and conservation beautifully on its website:

But energy efficiency is a far cry from the energy conservation images and practices of old – of doing with less or doing without, of being uncomfortable or less comfortable. Not unlike the tremendous technological strides on the computer, electronics, and other fronts, energy efficiency takes advantage of advances in technology to provide significantly better, smarter services.

Invisible

On Weight Watchers you still can eat the macaroni and cheese. But it’s made with low fat milk. The calorie savings become invisible to me. Likewise, consumers can be energy efficient and still use their air conditioners and televisions as much as before. Appliance standards are the low fat milk of the energy industry. If you wonder about the significance of these standards read the efficiency section of the US Energy Information Administration’s recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2011. The report forecasts a 17% drop in residential per capita energy use through 2035 and says appliance standards often are “the primary reason for efficiency gains.” The currently controversial lighting standards create the biggest energy savings (See EIA chart below.)

Delight

This one is easy for Weight Watchers. It offers wonderful little chocolate cakes that bring delight to the sweet tooth. But what is energy efficiency’s chocolate cake? Herein rests the problem for the industry.  The cell phone, the IPod, the home computer – these technologies were readily adapted because of the delight and convenience they add to our lives. As far as I can tell, neither the smart meter nor any of the other energy savings technologies being offered for the home offer any of this kind of allure. Some folks in the energy industry say they never will because information technology and energy technology part ways here. They may be right. But I remain hopeful. Those who had the first home computers (mine was a DEC Rainbow 100) may remember that they offered far more in the way of frustration than fun or inconvenience. These early computers left critics of the industry doubtful that widespread penetration of home computers would ever occur….and we all know how that all ended.

Elisa Wood is the co-author of the recent white paper, “Exporting US Energy Efficiency.”

The White House issued a report July 14 that credits federal stimulus money for the rapid drop in costs for electric cars. Once written off as a technological mishap, the electric car now appears nearly road ready for American consumers. The price tag is dropping rapidly, in part because of the $12 billion the federal government has pumped into alternative vehicles, according to the report. Of that $5 billion went to electrifying the US transportation fleet.

Electric cars will cost between $25,000 and $35,000, after tax credits, by the end of this year, says the White House. That’s down from $100,000 before passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Electric cars are dropping in price because stimulus-funded manufacturers are producing batteries more cheaply.

Not long ago, it cost $33,000 for the battery of an electric vehicle with a 100-mile range. The Department of Energy expects the cost to drop by half between 2009 and 2013. By the end of 2015 some batteries should cost $10,000. The price of batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles, or PHEVs, is falling quickly too. PHEVs can travel 40 miles on electricity and then automatically shift to gasoline. Priced at about $13,000 in 2009, the PHEV batteries are expected to cost only $6,700 in 2013 and $4,000 in 2015, according to the DOE.

The new electric car is seen as a way to reduce reliance on oil, which now supplies 95% of our transportation fuel. But the electric car has several interesting side stories as well.

Electricity is cheaper than gasoline. So, consumers should find themselves paying the equivalent of only $1/gallon to fuel electric cars, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In coming up with that figure, NREL assumed it will take 9-10 kWh per gallon to operate a typical mid-size car, with vehicle efficiency of 2.9 mile/kWh. Researchers also assumed an electricity cost of 9.4 cents/kWh as the cost of electricity. While that is a fair average, the truth is that the price of electricity varies significantly nationally, and the cost of driving an electric car will vary accordingly. For example, in North Dakota electric rates run about 7 cents/kWh, while in Connecticut they are 19 cents/kWh.

No doubt smart meters are a good thing, but even their most ardent fans must admit that a degree of hoopla surrounds these little digital boxes. We hear that if consumers can just see how much power they use in real time, and what it costs, our energy woes will be no more.

Smart meters will even cure the blind. The energy blind that is.

“It can be difficult to separate the hype from legitimate claims,” said the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in a new report that evaluates what works – and what doesn’t – when it comes to smart meters.

ACEEE points out that we no longer load the stove with coal and wood for our primary energy. Instead, gas and electricity flow unseen to take care of our needs. Since we see only a monthly bill, we have no idea what energy costs in real time, how much we use, or even the acceptable social norm for energy consumption.

Thus, most people in the US are “among the energy blind,” says the report. Asking us to save energy based on our monthly bills alone is like asking a dieter to lose weight without a scale. “Perhaps it can be done, but the task is a lot more difficult,” the report says.

But seeing how much energy we use is one thing; acting on it another. Smart meters will not do their job if we rely on the technology alone. The consumer needs good reason to act, according to ACEEE.

These findings are important because the US and other nations are making a huge investment in smart grid technology. Smart meters represented only about 4.7% of US household meters in 2008. But their market share is expected to grow to 40% over the next five to seven years, according to the report.

The report looked at 57 studies, three decades of research in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan, and found that smart meters can be effective. In fact, households using them have reduced electricity use 4% to 12%.

But much depends on how the meters present information and feedback and how we respond. Ultimately, the smartness of smart meters relies on utilities understanding human psychology.

But is that the right way to think about power?

Truth be told, new energy sources are likely to play a smaller role in economic recovery than advances in energy efficiency, according to speakers at a recent symposium held by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, as part of its 30^th anniversary celebration.

“Cost-effective investment that can reduce the amount of energy necessary to support a dollar of economic activity is the single most important driver of economic productivity within the United States and around the world,” said John A. “Skip” Laitner, director of economic and social analysis, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

But too often policymakers view energy efficiency not as an economic driver, but as a means to control demand until we can deploy conventional resources, such as nuclear and oil, he said.

Consider the following data that emerged from the symposium:

• America’s economy has tripled in size since 1970 and three-quarters of the energy needed to fuel that growth came from efficiency advances, not by adding more energy.
• Still, the U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient, meaning 87% of the energy we use is wasted. We are behind Japan and several European countries, which have a 20% efficiency level.
• Energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and 2050 – while lowering energy bills.

Economic activity and energy use are directly linked. But lately, several reports have noted that the economic slowdown is not the only reason energy consumption is falling. Aggressive energy efficiency efforts also have impact.

That impact will be “major” in the years to come, according to the Energy Information Administration, the chief energy data collector for the US government. The agency this week released its “Annual Energy Outlook 2010” with projections to 2035.

The federal report shows us decreasing energy use significantly if we employ best available efficiency technologies over the next 25 years – that is if we buy the most energy efficient appliances and build homes to the highest efficiency standards. Under this scenario, energy consumption could drop by as much as 27%. But if we stick to the status quo, homeowners will increase energy use by about 0.2%.

This drop in energy use will not happen immediately. In fact, EIA sees energy consumption rising slightly as the economy rebounds. It then begins fall in 2013 as higher efficiency standards take effect for vehicles and lighting.

Lighting standards will have the most profound impact on electric consumption. Federal requirements will reduce electricity used for lights by 30% in 2014. When the standards tighten further in 2020, power use for lighting drops 60%.  Overall, by 2035 our lights should eat up 44% less electricity than in 2008.

This drop in energy consumption does not signal austerity. On the contrary, our use of electric devices is growing. The EIA sees us increasing our use of computers, household appliances, water heaters, stoves, heat, air conditioning and microwaves. And for the first time this year we’ll direct more of our electricity into television watching than food refrigeration.

So it appears the predictions of today’s energy efficiency advocates may be correct: the economy can reduce energy consumption without sacrificing creature comforts.

Jon Stewart said it best: Obama is a lousy poker payer. Lucky thing, too, for the energy efficiency industry as it heads into 2010.

Stewart’s December 8 “The Daily Show” aired a clip of Obama recently telling business leaders:  “I don’t want to tip our hand too much, but one of the things I would be surprised if we don’t end up moving forward on is an aggressive agenda for energy efficiency and weatherization.”

Tip his hand? In fact, as Stewart pointed out, Obama has shown that hand broadly to the world for the last year. Starting with his January 2009 inaugural speech, Obama buoyed the clean energy industry by advancing renewable energy, a first for a US president in that forum.  But that turned out to be just the start. In talk after talk this year, he pushed efficiency. If US voters didn’t know the term ‘weatherization’ before, they know it now. What could be better publicity for a product than having it endorsed by the leader of the free world?

To say 2009 was a banner year for the energy efficiency industry is an understatement. Under Obama’s watch, the federal government has channeled $20 billion in stimulus dollars to energy efficiency and now promises more from bailout funds returned by banks.

While the money – and Obama’s support – was the big story for 2009 and continues to be going into 2010, it is important to remember that electric energy is ultimately a local industry in the United States. What happens before state public utility commissions and regional regulatory bodies often has greatest influence.

To that end here a few local trends of 2009 that may grow in 2010.

*Efficiency as a first fuel. Environment Northeast has been successful in convincing several New England states to consider efficiency to be the first fuel in portfolio planning. That means when utilities plan resources, they must secure all cost effective energy efficiency before pursuing power plant development or power purchases. http://www.env-ne.org/

*Decoupling. Utilities have little incentive to encourage energy savings if they earn their profits from selling power. Decoupling changes utility accounting and cost recovery by delinking profits from sales. California and Massachusetts are examples of states with full decoupling and their utilities have among the most aggressive efficiency programs in the country.  Several other states partially use the approach; others are considering adopting it.

*Energy efficiency portfolio standards. Similar to renewable portfolio standards, EEPS require that utilities, and in some cases competitive retail suppliers, achieve certain energy savings goals. Federal proposals are under consideration for a national EEPS. That may or may not happen. But 19 states now have the standards; look for more to pursue the approach.

What else does the EE industry have to look forward to in 2010?  Please post what you see in your crystal ball.

If you browse into your local auto dealer and peer into any model on the lot you’ll find a MPG (Miles Per Gallon) rating stuck on the rear window. The numbers should help you understand how much fuel (energy) the car will use under normal operating conditions. This info is a great way to determine how depleted  your wallet will be “before” you decide to drive that baby off the car lot. It might even help you budget for the purchase!

What about the home you’re looking to buy? How can you tell, in terms of today’s dollars, what the home will cost you to maintain? Wouldn’t it be good information? The info is available to you today. Right now. This instant…

Want to know more? I have the answer, and if you’re buying the right house the cost to know…is FREE!

Contact me for a detailed explanation of how a home energy audit can help you decide if the home you’re thinking of buying is a lemon. If it is and you just can’t live without it…I’ll show you how to make “lemon-aide”!

601-454-5559 in central Mississippi.

For example, would it have been wiser if Congress pursued cap and trade one year and a renewable energy standard another? I’ve asked this question a lot during interviews the past few weeks, and received a range of responses. But what I found most enlightening, at least from an energy efficiency perspective, was a webinar offered by Bill Prindle, vice president at ICF International.

Here’s what I took away: Energy efficiency helps the carbon reduction cause. But the carbon reduction cause doesn’t do much for efficiency.

Most versions of cap and trade programs now on the table do not recognize the value of demand-side resources in reducing emissions.  Credit goes to emissions reductions at the power plant level, not at the retail customer level. So while my new, efficient heat pump will cut my energy use and therefore carbon emissions, this action is not acknowledged anywhere in a cap and trade system. Cap and trade offers no financial reward to the consumer or business that invests in energy efficiency measures.

In a perfect world, lawmakers would rethink cap and trade to encompass demand-side efficiency. But it appears that political and technical obstructions make that difficult. This is bad news – and downright odd – given that energy efficiency is widely acknowledged to be the cheapest way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

So what’s to be done?

In Part One of this interview, Lisa Cohn of Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Josh Schellenberg, senior analyst, Freeman, Sullivan and Co.–who specializes in demand-side program evaluation–about the role of DSM in integrating wind into the grid.

Below are three ideas that caught my attention this week as I covered the industry. Perhaps you have your own head-tilters to add. Please do!

By the way, two decades ago solar and wind power were pretty much oddball ideas. Consider that before judging any comments.

• A 14-year-old boy in an impoverished African village, who has never heard of the Internet, built a working windmill out of scrap material

Too poor to attend school anymore William Kamkwamba went to a US-sponsored library to try to keep up on his learning. There the Malawian boy found diagrams for building windmills and painstakingly followed the directions to bring electricity and water to his famine-stricken village. He scavenged for junk and found old bike parts, pipes and fans to make it work. His fellow villagers thought he was crazy until he succeeded. His story is chronicled in his book, “The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind.” http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/

There is some irony here that an attempt has been underway for 10 years to build offshore wind power on wealthy Cape Cod, with no luck. Maybe the region needs to hire Kamkwamba as a consultant.

• Baby you can drive my combined heat and power car

We’ve all heard that combined heat and power is a highly efficient approach to heating, cooling and electrifying schools, stores, office buildings, factories, hospitals, and multi-famly housing complexes. But cars? Thomas Blakeslee, president of the Clearlight Foundation, posits that we could achieve far greater fuel efficiency if, rather than feeding ethanol directly into cars, we used it to fuel combined heat and power plants that would in turn electrify cars. The efficiency would be so great, we could drive these electric cars 22 times farther on CHP electricity than if we used the same acre of corn to make ethanol. http://www.clrlight.org/CHPethanol.htm

• Energy efficiency: The invisible hand that Adam Smith never saw

Energy efficiency is often discussed in terms of how much money it can save a household or business on utility bills. But how about what it can save an economy? Environment Northeast issued an interesting report in September that investigates what efficiency can do for state gross product. The macroeconomic report found that every $1 million invested by a state in energy efficiency increases gross state product by $7 million. http://environmentnortheast.org/

Replacing home heating oil with heat pumps

Lisa Cohn of Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Tom Twist, sustainability educator for the Chewonki Foundation in Maine about replacing home heating
oil with heat pumps. He talks about the quick payback and why more residents don’t take advantage of the technology.

They’re efficient but not necessarily economical
Reprinted from Consumer Reports October 2008 (published version includes a cost chart showing payback period)

Heating water accounts for up to 30 percent of the average home’s energy budget. Some makers of gas-fired tankless water heaters claim their products can cut your energy costs up to half over regular storage heaters. So is it time to switch? Probably not.

Gas tankless water heaters, which use high-powered burners to quickly heat water as it runs through a heat exchanger, were 22 percent more energy efficient on average than the gas-fired storage-tank models in our tests. That translates into a savings of about $70 to $80 per year, based on 2008 national energy costs. But because they cost much more than storage water heaters, it can take up to 22 years to break even — longer than the 20-year life of many models. Moreover, our online poll of 1,200 readers revealed wide variations in installation costs, energy savings, and satisfaction. With the help of an outside lab, we pitted Takagi and Noritz gas-fired tankless water heaters against three storage water heaters. We didn’t test electric tankless heaters because many can’t deliver hot water fast enough to replace a conventional water heater if ground-water is cold. Even in areas with warm groundwater, most homeowners would need to upgrade their electrical service to power a whole-house tankless model.

Our tests simulated daily use of 76 to 78 gallons of hot water. That’s the equivalent of taking three showers, washing one laun-dry load, running the dishwasher once (six cycles), and turning on the faucet nine times, for a total of 19 draws. While that’s considered heavy use compared with the standard Department of Energy test, we think it more accurately represents an average family’s habits. We also ran more than 45,000 gallons of very hard water through a tanked model and a Rinnai tankless model to simulate about 11 years of regular use.

Here’s what else we found:
Water runs hot and cold. Manufacturers of tankless water heaters are fond of touting their products’ ability to provide an endless amount of hot water. But inconsistent water temperatures were a common complaint among our poll respondents. When you turn on the faucet, tankless models feed in some cold water to gauge how big a temperature rise is needed. If there’s cool water lingering in your pipes, you’ll receive a momentary “cold-water sandwich” between the old and new hot water. And a tankless water heater’s burner might not ignite when you try to get just a trickle of
hot water for, say, shaving.

Nor do tankless water heaters deliver hot water instantaneously. It takes time to heat the water to the target temperature, and just like storage water heaters, any cold water in the pipes needs to be pushed out. And tankless models’ electric controls mean you’ll also lose hot water during a power outage. Up-front costs are high. The tankless water heaters we tested cost $800 to $1,150, compared with $300 to $480 for the regular storage-tank types. Tankless models need electrical outlets for their fan and electronics, upgraded gas pipes, and a new ventilation system. That can bring average installation costs to $1,200, compared with $300 for storage-tank models.

Tankless units might need more care.

During our long-term testing, an indicator on the tankless model warned of scale buildup. We paid $334 for special valves and a plumber to flush out the water heater with vinegar. Many industry pros recommend that tankless models be serviced once a year by a qualified technician. Calcium buildup can decrease efficiency, restrict water flow, and damage tankless models. Experts suggest installing a water softener if your water hardness is above 11 grains per gallon. Ignoring this advice can shorten your warranty.

Efficient storage models are pricey.

We also tested the $1,400 Vertex, a high-efficiency storage water heater by A.O. Smith. The manufacturer claims its installation costs are similar to a regular storage model. But its high cost offsets much of the roughly $70 per year the Vertex will save you.  Instead, we recommend buying a conventional storage water heater with a 9- or 12-year warranty. In previous tests, we found that those models generally had thicker insulation, bigger burners or larger heating elements, and better corrosion-fighting metal rods called anodes.

How to choose

Tankless models probably aren’t for you if higher up-front costs and long payback are a concern. But  they do use less energy and might make sense for long but infrequent use, such as back-to-back showers. Keep these points in mind:

Factor in location.

Unlike a regular water heater, a tankless model’s water output is immediately  affected by groundwater temperatures. The same model that produces 7.2 gallons per minute (GPM)  when installed in a warm Florida garage will output only 4.2 GPM in a cold New England basement  because the colder water requires the temperature to be raised 77 degrees rather than 44. Use your coldest groundwater temperature to calculate the gallons per minute you’ll need.

Know your flow.

Undersizing a tank-less water heater is a common mistake. Use our online  calculator, at How to size a water heater, to help you calculate your hot-water use for both tanked and tankless water heaters.

Get the details right.

Look for an oxygen-depletion sensor that shuts off the water heater if carbon  monoxide is detected and a film wrap around the heat exchanger that will shut off the device if it  gets too hot. Since tankless models are still relatively uncommon, consider using manufacturer trained  installers. Some companies extend the warranty if you do.

Look for rebates or incentives.

Many tankless models qualify for utility rebates and state tax  credits. Check the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency at www.dsireusa.org.

How they work…

Tankless models don’t store hot water. When hot water is needed, water flows through the device and the flow sensor
fires the burner. Water lines around the heat exchanger warm the water to the desired temperature. When the hot-water valve is closed, the flow sensor turns off the burner. (The flow must be fast enough, typically a half-gallon per minute, to turn on the sensor.) Capacity is expressed in gallons per minute.

1. Exhaust
2. Heat exchanger
3. Burner
4. Fan
5. Control Panel
6. Flow sensor
7. Hot water to faucet
8. Gas supply
9. Cold water supply
10. Cold water to faucet

Energy Savings

In today’s struggling economy are the dollars our representatives voted to spend on the recovery being spent wisely? Do our leaders fully understand the philosophical shift that must take place in America if we are to truly shift our dependence on foreign oil? Will the waste continue?

Dr. Dan Chiras is the President of Sustainable Systems Design, headquartered in Evergreen, Colorado is doubtful. His company, which he founded in 1984, consults on residential green building design and renewable energy. He says:

Let’s propose a list of action items that contributes to a truly sustainable society — one that makes sense for people, the economy and the environment now and over the long term.

And as some of you have suggested, let’s vote with our dollars, too. Let’s take steps personally to promote these activities, starting in our own homes and businesses. We can’t wait for Washington to solve our problems. We must take action individually. If not us, who? If not now, when?

I agree with Dr. Chiras. My hope is that we don’t return to business as usual. Read more here…