The Best Energy Source Is……
Posted by changmai on June 15, 2009
So what do I think is the best renewable energy source – nuclear, wind, or hydro? Neither. The best is, say it with me now..”EFFICIENCY” . That’s right folks. There will always be a debate about what is best, what is available, how much its going to cost and so on. But if we think about it, all this energy usage, are we using it wisely or efficiently? The average American uses 11.4kW, while Japan and Germany are around 6kW. China is around 1.6KW per person and growing, while India is around 0.7kW. These numbers cannot be looked at face value because the US, while only have about 5% of the world’s population, uses 22% on a global productivity level, and consumes 25% of the world’s energy. However, it would be fair to say that Canadians and Americans use a lot more than the rest of the world. A study at MIT has revealed that generally higher income would mean greater carbon footprint.
Education on energy reduction and conservation are both great but I doubt majority of people would change. For example, if oil became a lot cheaper (like $0.399CDN/litre 14 years ago) people will buy larger engines and drive more..roadtrip anyone? There is less of an incentive to buy hybrid vehicles that cost significantly more. Coining the economic term, people would go for whatever gives them the most “utility”. When oil is expensive, people look for alternatives and may derive more utility from hybrids since it may not cost that much more after factoring in oil prices, and factoring that hybrids are supposedly better for the environment. I don’t want to paint the picture that people are so narrow-minded, but I think it depends on what costs are involved. It can be difficult for someone who is use to such luxuries (large plasma screens and intense home theatre setups that draw insane amount of power) and now having to make some changes. This causes resistance, and resistance usually leads to lower success rates. If there were zero costs of changing their ways, almost everyone would change. BC Hydro encourages being power smart and some people would likely change. But it may need something greater, like an incentive, to have a greater effect on the general population. The trade in for led bulbs worked because the benefits (better lighting, lasts longer, lower energy usage, free trade-in) outweighed the cost (having to drive to the store for trading in, then going home and replacing it).
Efficiency is getting the most out while using the least. There have huge strides in efficiency. For example, the speed of computer CPU’s have increased exponentially that PC’s from last generation are sufficient for majority of home users (gamers are always an exception). With the advent of netbooks, long battery life is a factor. Intel released the Atom CPU, lower performance but power-efficient processor, that has enough speed for most day-to-day tasks. When AMD released the Opteron CPU, aimed at enterprise servers several years back, it gained considerable market share – performance was great and it was the most energy efficient. This means less cooling needed, as heat is an unnecessary evil.
Intel Atom
I will not deny that efficiency is more like targetting a symptom rather the root cause. People may still go away about their wasteful ways, but at least the impact will be greatly reduced. If we changed to renewable energy and people still used energy the same way, I view that as failure. Lower emissions and long-term sustainability (which includes human behaviour) is the key to a greener future. As developing nations like China and India are expanding, their energy usage will sky rocket. More efficient methods or products will viable for such economies. Check out PowerSaver.ca for energy tips. For example, using a energy-saver shower head can reduce 30% in hot water usage.
barnston said
I definitely find your approach interesting and I like that you think out of the box. I actually think that targeting efficiency is more like targeting the root cause. The main problem is not the type of energy we use, just how much we use it. Oil would still be a relatively harmless fuel source if the people using it were limited. The one quetion I would ask is about promotion. How do you plan to convince these large populations in China and India that saving energy is important? Do you feel that they would be unreceptive to the idea that they have to compensate for what we have done to the planet? Well, I guess that is technically 2 questions but ……. Anyway, I like what I am reading.
changmai said
Thanks for your comment Barnston.
I’m aiming for efficiency as the key to energy reduction. I’m jumping on a two-prong approach here. Like I had mentioned in the blog, it is easy to tell people to reduce this, or turn this off, but will they do it? Maybe sometimes. If they purchase energy efficient items, or if new homes become furnished with it, then the times that they do not actively reduce their energy, these energy efficienct would minimize wastage. The efficiency of such devices are like a transitional step, in hopes people will be proactive about their energy usage in the future. So with that said, effiency is like being reactive – people are going to keep “wasting” energy so find ways to minimize it. Manufacturers are alreading producing lights, TV’s, heating units, that are much more efficient than the conventional ones. I’m hoping that pressure from governments to reduce carbon emissions will cause manufacturers to find incentives to innovate more, are as functional as a conventional one, and priced attractively. With that all said, this applies to all countries including India and China. Since both of these countries’ economies are booming, they will starting purchasing more and more goods. If these energy efficient units are in place, then the demand for energy usage should be lowered.
The power plants in those countries would be the best bet for advocating energy reduction. Honestly, who else better to tell a consumer than the provider itself? Providing government incentives to these companies, who then pass these savings on to its customers. I find most people will be motivated if there are some incentives, such as energy credits.
Your second question is a bit more difficult to answer. I wouldn’t say that the west is to blame for all these issues as China is a major contributer to green house gases (GHG). But if hypothetically China and India were not major contributes to GHG, they most likely would feel resentful. However, if the west is trying to make amends by reducing their energy usage while finding renewable, sustainable and energy sources, then the rest of the world should follow suit. We all live in the same planet, share the same air and water. Its not about punishing anyone but now that we have the technology and knowledge, we share it and correct our ways. No one wins in a global warming world (except maybe for those companies that make a profit of it).
arita said
Hi Changmai,
I’ve read a book called “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things”, you may be interested in it. The book puts forward the concept of “eco-effectiveness” by following healthy natural systems and nature’s “design principles”. It is hoped that resources can be used, recycled, and used again without losing any material quality in cradle to cradle cycles.