Whichever
way you slice it, when it comes to energy efficiency, the US lags far behind
much of the industrialized world. For example, according to the International
Energy Agency (IEA: www.iea.org), the
US releases more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, for each
dollar of economic product, than 92 other countries (out of 137) tracked by the
IEA. Additionally—and due in large part to the average size of North American
residences—both the US and Canada lead the world in per-capita CO2
emissions by households. And finally, when renewable energy is removed from the
mix, the efficiency of electricity produced from fossil fuels is lower than many
other industrialized nations.
The
good news is that there’s lots of room for improvement. Currently, the US uses
double the amount of energy as Britain, Germany, and Japan, and so, simple fixes
could reap huge benefits. A 2008
study by McKinsey & Company, for example, states that small
changes—insulating homes, reducing product packaging and transportation, and
increasing fuel efficiency—could help the US reach carbon abatement goals by
2030.
Individual
states have already seen the light, so to speak. For example, 30
years ago, California’s state government began requiring energy-efficient
appliances and buildings, and since then these requirements have morphed into an
extensive energy-conscious program that includes efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, cut “carbon-footprints,” and promote a variety of smart energy
technologies, including renewables and onsite power systems. One of the
beneficial offshoots of this focus on energy efficiency is the growth in the
business sector made possible by reduced energy costs: Less money spent paying
the energy bill freed up funds to invest in research and development, and to
expand and improve a variety of commercial ventures.
California
is not alone. In Massachusetts, the
National Grid—an
energy delivery company for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode
Island—has
had great success over the past two decades due to its energy efficiency
program. In the last 20 years, the program has assisted it’s customers
(approximately 5 million users) to reduce energy use and save up to $3.8
billion. The National Grid has also reduced greenhouse gas emissions in an
amount equal to 3 coal-fired power plants.
Nineteen
states in all have adopted some sort of energy efficiency strategies, and now
the feds have gotten into the act. Legislative leaders, including Edward
Markey (Rep–Mass), Charles Schumer (Senator–NY), and Henry Waxman (Rep–CA) have
all introduced versions of a bill calling for a “national Energy Efficiency
Resource Standard.” The plan is to require utilities nationwide to reduce demand
by 10–15%, while also developing a national energy efficiency standard.
According to a study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, if
enacted, this type of national program could save the US $168 billion, create
220,000 new jobs, and reduce emissions in an amount equivalent to removing 48
million cars from the nation’s roadways by 2020.
As
I’ve said before, onsite
power should be an integral part of any national energy policy. A distributed
power supply is the ultimate form of energy efficiency and reliability. As an
added benefit, the inclusion of onsite power or a distributed energy source
enables you to better project a standard set of costs over a long range of time.
You will know how much each kilowatt will cost you, and that type of price
stability is becoming increasingly important in the face of rising oil and gas
prices.
The
bottom line is location, location, location. It’s precisely because these small
systems work onsite that they are in the position to do the most good.
Individual or small party control of decentralized systems allows for quick
modifications and the easy addition of new technologies.