Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Energy Efficiency First

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

By investing in energy-efficient technologies, the Commonwealth of Virginia can reduce its electricity needs by 20 percent, cut electric bills by $15 billion by 2025, and create 10,000 new jobs — the equivalent of bringing almost 100 new manufacturing facilities to the state — says a new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

And, oh, by the way, by cutting electricity consumption, Virginia can reduce pollution and, if you think global warming is a big issue, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Read more in “Energizing Virginia: Efficiency First.”

I don’t have time to dig into the report today, but thought it potentially important enough to post on the blog. Happy reading.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “Energy Efficiency First”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “In bid to save energy, Va. asks Wal-Mart for help
    Retailer’s engineers will seek efficiencies at Capitol Square”

    “Engineers from the discount giant will conduct an audit of the energy efficiency of the downtown state government complex.”

    huh?

    No Dominion?

    Call me stooopid but methinks ultimately – the folks who will move us forward on energy efficiency are more likely to be WalMart and GOOGLE or similar than the Utility companies….

    and a question for fellow bloggers:

    “He said Virginia needs to be “much more focused on efficiency and conservation,” and offer incentives to develop “clean” energy technologies for resources like coal.”

    My question is: What exactly IS clean coal technology and where is it actually in use (or if not in use what are the issues that need to be resolved to get it into use?

    or is “clean coal technology” yet another sound bite for the addle-brained?

  2. Lyle Solla-Yates Avatar
    Lyle Solla-Yates

    @Larry: I agree, major energy consumers will be leading the pack on efficiency until state government decouples utility profits from higher energy use, as was done in California, allowing the market to find the most efficient ways to meet demand. I'm not certain that this would increase Dominion's profits (after all, it would encourage a level of competition to their monopoly), but I suspect the cut fat may very well produce an overall bump in profits for them.

    Clean coal is complicated. It was originally developed by the coal industry as a PR maneuver to rebrand their product, which has been mostly successful. A google search for "clean coal" gives over a million sites. A search for "dirty coal" gives just over 100,000. The idea was that companies would voluntarily adopt some measures to reduce emissions, capture some carbon dioxide and sequester it. Essentially it's coal plant best practices with some experimental technology thrown in. In that sense, it's deployed at many of our more modern coal plants in the state, giving those plants a much better (though still atrocious) carbon to energy efficiency compared to older coal plants.

    If you take global warming seriously, clean coal is a joke, with little impact until 2020 or 2025, also known as too late. I strongly support research & development to create a cradle to cradle energy economy, and I believe we may get to the point where coal can be a safe part of that economy, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In the near term, it's all about efficiency, economy, and clever thinking on technologies we have now. Wikipedia has some more detailed info if you're interested.

  3. Lyle Solla-Yates Avatar
    Lyle Solla-Yates

    Also, this is a great site to get a sense of where coal plants are on environmental performance. When carbon pricing comes through, some of those older plants will need to be upgraded or shut down completely.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have no doubt the state can save 20% on its energy use.

    When carbon pricing comes through, be careful what you wish for. Before long it will filter down the food chain to more and more enterprises besides the coal plants. It will become part of the mentality that says if a little is good, then more is better.

    Eventually carbon pricing will hit your wallet, just as if it was another tax, which is what it is.

    RH

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    yup – here it comes. The ultimate EMR wet dream:

    “But now, in what many observers are calling the most significant environmental bill of this year’s state legislative session, builders and environmentalists have found common ground on a compromise they hope will limit global warming by changing where homes are built.

    The bill would make California the first state in the nation to attempt to reduce global warming emissions by drawing up regional plans to reduce miles driven by passenger vehicles, then directing most transportation funding only to so-called “smart growth” projects.

    If it becomes law, the measure could affect everything from San Jose’s proposed Coyote Valley development to future construction in eastern Contra Costa County, Watsonville and Napa.
    “We know people are going to drive. We want them in their cars for less time,” said state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill, SB 375.

    Steinberg, elected Thursday as the new state Senate leader, wants cities and counties to develop new housing close to rail lines, bus stops and bike lanes, and housing that’s clustered near existing development, rather than built out in the countryside, necessitating long commutes.”

    http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_10290641

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As long as California is going to run the experiment for us at their expense, then I think we should sit back for thirty years and see how it begins to play out.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The line forms on the right for lobbyists skilled in selling their clients’ developments as “smart”.

    RH

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: the economy of California

    despite claims to the contrary in this blog – California is #1 in Gross State Product

    at the same time that they use 2/3 the electricity of other states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_(nominal)

    how do you explain this if you believe that higher consumption is equal to higher production?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Higher production is generally correlated to higher energy consumption, but that does not say they are equal.

    This is a proven close correlation, so there is no point in debating it. It is only that the correlation is not equal to 1.

    The fact that they use 2/3 the electricity of other states means nothing in this context. What is California’s TOTAL energy consumption compared to its gross state product? What is the per capita energy use compared to the per capita production?

    Also, what does California really produce, other than fantasies and grapes? How much of the products they use are imported, such that their energy use appears low, because the energy used to make them is consumed elsewhere? This is part of th esituation in Europe, where they import refined fuels, and the energy used to refine the fuels does not show up in Europes energy budget.

    Your stats show nothing about the true energy efficiency of California compared to their production, let alone California’s economic vitality. If you look at the list of 100 fastest growing counties, California has just one on the list, ranked number 75. The five fastest growing counties are in LA, KS, GA, and AZ. (Culpeper county is #12.) http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/tables/HU-EST2007-06.xls

    On the other hand California is 52% larger in population than the next state (Texas) So you would expect it to have the largest gross state product.

    The INCREASE in gross state product in California was 1.5% in 2007. In Texas is was 4.1%. Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Utah all outpaced California growth by a factor of more than two. Per Capita income in Texas is also growing faster than per capita income in California.

    “WASHINGTON CONTINUES TO PRODUCE MORE REAL VALUE IN GOODS AND SERVICES PER UNIT OF ENERGY CONSUMED, DESPITE GROWTH IN TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION.” Bureau of Economic analysis.

    More efficiciency does NOT mean less energy use.

    All that said, on a per capita basis California still uses less energy per person and produces more gross state product per person than Texas. Texas uses more of every kiind of energy than any other state, but it is dwarfed in energy use per person – by Alaska.
    By any measure, California, Texas and Alaska will be outliers.

    As a general rule though, you will find that those places that use more energy also produce more gross state income. It is a simple question of letting the machines do the work.

    RH

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    actually – I was asking you to explain WHY if California has the #1 GSP and 2/3 the per capita electricity usage that it violated your often-stated assertion that energy conservation means less production.

    I consulted a standard measure – GSP – a standard reference.

    If you want to measure differently to support your claim – go for it.

    Do you not subscribe to GNP/GSP as legitimate measures of productivity?

    If so.., then offer an alternate – that we can compare and measure… to put some light on your basic assertion that higher consumption is the only way to have higher production.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Electricity usage is only part of total energy usage.

    California DOES have a low percapita total energy usage compared with its per capita GSP.

    Texas DOES have a high per capita energy usage compared to its per capita GSP.

    Dubai also has a high per capita energy use, for the same reason: it is a center of energy intensive refining.

    If California imports its electricity from out of state (80%) and imports its refined products, then the total energy usage will be artificiallly low (The energy going INTO california’s electicity is actually USED in another state. That state gets charged with that energy use. Then they get credit for the electricity exported, but that involves considerable losses, as EMR often explains.)

    California is exporting their pollution AND much of ther true energy costs.

    But, if you plot the state IN GENERAL you will find that more energy use is associated with more GSP. That is because energy users are not stupid: they have already conserved.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More