Efficiency First

Many renewable energy advocates always support more and more renewable energy. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, while many people asser the "twin pillars" of sustainable energy, being energy efficiency and renewable energy, efficiency is more where more of our energy should be focused. If you're not using x amount of energy, there is no need to create any more energy. It's like economics. We'll compare energy efficiency to tax dollars being spent, and renewable energy as taxes. If our money is being spent well and wisely, there is no need to increase taxes, now is there? Likewise, if we use our energy in a reasonably efficient manner, there is no need to increase any more power generation, is there? This should delight renewable energy proponents, because quite honestly, every time renewable energy is in the news, its usually not good: From Solyndra, to Government Motors (or General Motors, whichever you prefer), people are starting to get a similar feeling of renewable energy companies comparable to oil companies like BP and Enron. If there is no need for 50 MW of solar energy, than I don't have to worry about covering hundreds of acres with panels. If I don't need 500 MW of energy, I don't have to worry about covering hundreds, possibly thousands, of acres with unsightly wind turbines. I'm not an advocate for incentives, but if they are going to remain in place, we should be incentivizing items that save energy, instead of subsidizing energy production sources which inefficiently produce energy. In a telling article in the Wall Street Journal, Sari Krieger pits Energy Efficiency v. Renewable Sources. “When you look at the stimulus tax rebates, the amount that goes to insulation is the least, but it’s the most effective,” says Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat. She then goes on to say the following: "A study by New York-based management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. earlier this year compared the cost of eliminating one ton of CO2 emissions using different means: Wind power cost about $38 per ton of CO2 saved; solar cost about $30. But replacing incandescent lights in a home with light-emitting diodes saved about $159 per ton of CO2, and using energy-efficient appliances saved about $108 per ton." Renewable energy has many challenges as is, so trying to keep up the pace with providing small amounts of power for inefficient energy consumption makes no sense. Make sure the place of consumption is using that energy as efficiently as possible in the first place, then provide the renewable power. As I've advocated in an article of mine from last year, it may be a good idea to sell the power to LEED Certified homes so it makes more business sense. All this visual pollution coming from the overwhelming amount of wind turbines would not be necessary if the homeowners or businesses that they were selling the power to used the energy efficiently in the first place, or were LEED certified.

This "energy pyramid" picture is pretty telling of how energy should be viewed.

What people are doing instead, is putting renewable energy on bottom. This is truly an unsustainable path, because inefficient sources of power production cannot keep up with a power hungry planet. In conclusion, when we view the topic of energy, always start with thinking about using the power efficiently, and then producing it. As a final illustration, look at this picture describing the energy-efficient home. Notice how it puts power production, or solar panels, as number nine on the list of whats important.