People turn off lights in vain, ignoring real efficiencies
A survey on perceptions of how to save energy was done. I found this statement int he conclusion of the paper (see link at end of article) to be a double edged sword:
It is therefore vital that public communications about climate change also address misconceptions about energy consumption and savings, so that people can make better decisions for their pocketbooks and the planet.
From a press release by: The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Many Americans believe they can save energy with small behavior changes that actually achieve very little, and severely underestimate the major effects of switching to efficient, currently available technologies, says a new survey of Americans in 34 states. The study, which quizzed people on what they perceived as the most effective way to save energy, appears in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The largest group, nearly 20 percent, cited turning off lights as the best approach—an action that affects energy budgets relatively little. Very few cited buying decisions that experts say would cut U.S. energy consumption dramatically, such as more efficient cars (cited by only 2.8 percent), more efficient appliances (cited by 3.2 percent) or weatherizing homes (cited by 2.1 percent). Previous researchers have concluded that households could reduce their energy consumption some 30 percent by making such choices—all without waiting for new technologies, making big economic sacrifices or losing their sense of well-being.
Lead author Shahzeen Attari, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the university’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, said multiple factors probably are driving the misperceptions. “When people think of themselves, they may tend to think of what they can do that is cheap and easy at the moment,” she said. On a broader scale, she said, even after years of research, scientists, government, industry and environmental groups may have “failed to communicate” what they know about the potential of investments in technology; instead, they have funded recycling drives and encouraged actions like turning off lights. In general, the people surveyed tend to believe in what Attari calls curtailment. “That is, keeping the same behavior, but doing less of it,” she said. “But switching to efficient technologies generally allows you to maintain your behavior, and save a great deal more energy,” she said. She cited high-efficiency light bulbs, which can be kept on all the time, and still save more than minimizing the use of low-efficiency ones.
Previous studies have indicated that if Americans switched to better household and vehicle technologies, U.S. energy consumption would decline substantially within a decade. Some of the highest-impact decisions, consistently underrated by people surveyed, include driving higher-mileage vehicles, and switching from central air conditioning to room air conditioners. In addition to turning off lights, overrated behaviors included driving more slowly on the highway or unplugging chargers and appliances when not in use. In one of the more egregious misperceptions, according to the survey, people commonly think that using and recycling glass bottles saves a lot of energy; in fact, making a glass container from virgin material uses 40 percent more energy than making an aluminum one—and 2,000 percent more when recycled material is used.
Many side factors may complicate people’s perceptions. For instance, those who identified themselves in the survey as pro-environment tended to have more accurate perceptions. But people who engaged in more energy-conserving behaviors were actually less accurate—possibly a reflection of unrealistic optimism about the actions they personally were choosing to take. On the communications end, one previous study from Duke University has shown that conventional vehicle miles-per-gallon ratings do not really convey how switching from one vehicle to another affects gas consumption (contrary to popular perception, if you do the math, modest mileage improvements to very low-mileage vehicles will save far more gas than inventing vehicles that get astronomically high mileage). Also, said Attari, people typically are willing to take one or two actions to address a perceived problem, but after that, they start to believe they have done all they can, and attention begins to fade. Behavior researchers call this the “single-action bias.” “Of course we should be doing everything we can. But if we’re going to do just one or two things, we should focus on the big energy-saving behaviors,” said Attari. “People are still not aware of what the big savers are.”
The other authors of the study are Michael DeKay of Ohio State University; and Cliff Davidson and Wändi Bruine de Bruin of Carnegie Mellon University.
The paper, “Public Perceptions of Energy Consumption and Savings,” is posted at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf
Author contact: Shahzeen Attari shahzeen.attari@gmail.com 703-447-3748 http://www.columbia.edu/~sza2106/
More info: Kevin Krajick, science editor, The Earth Institute
kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu 212-854-9729
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The re-education classes are scheduled to begin in a few months. Attendance is completely voluntary, and by “voluntary,” of course, we mean “mandatory.”
Sorry. It’s not that there isn’t a lot of truth in this article, but the overall effect is slightly chilling, especially the assumption that “Of course we should be doing everything we can.” Once it’s established that everyone should do everything he or she can for a particular cause, any lapse becomes heretical and subject to new attempts at “communication.”
Maybe I’m just cranky today. Well — I am. But maybe it’s affecting me more than normal.
This study maybe supports the claim that much of the activism is not about energy, it is about liberty. It has to be 100% clean, or it is not worth even contemplating. I’m sure this mis-information over the past 10 years adds up to quite a lot of CO2 – at least to the people who are counting.
cheap electricity kind of puts a wet blanket on all of these ideas … so without AGW people would just go back to doing what they want and spending as much as they want to do it …
can’t have that …
CO2 bad, rotten lights/half wash laundry/window fan/tiny slow cars good …
“such as more efficient cars (cited by only 2.8 percent), more efficient appliances (cited by 3.2 percent) or weatherizing homes (cited by 2.1 percent). Previous researchers have concluded that households could reduce their energy consumption some 30 percent by making such choices—all without waiting for new technologies, making big economic sacrifices (emphasis mine)”
Is it possible that the upfront expenditure for “hybrid cars” “energy-star certified windows, doors and installation fees” and “new, efficient appliances and delivery” can be considered what they really are? “Big economic sacrifices.”
/anecdotal evidence
Hi! I see you have a 2001 Mercury Sable, with leather and a v6, paid off! That’s great! But if you bought this 2010 Fusion Hybrid for $34k, you would save $800 on gas in the next four years!
Hi! I see your house already has windows, doors, insulation and a roof. But for ~$30k (the recent cost of renovating MY home,) you can make your summer a living hell of contractors tramping in and out of your house for three whole weeks and save almost $50 per month on your heating or cooling bills! Oh, didn’t fill out those green-subsidy forms correctly? Too bad, but, think of it as a lot of free red tape!
Hi, I see your refrigerator is functional and well stocked with beer! But if you purchase this new “Kenbore energysupersipper plus refrigerator,” not only will you get to wait around for the delivery guy to show up three hours late, and lose about $250 worth of food (and drive to town to get an extra cooler to save the perishables, plus ice!,) have the guy ram the sharp corner of the refrigerator into one of your cabinets, scratching up the recent refacing job, connect the water line poorly and cause about 20 gallons of water to leak all over your floor.. But you can also save almost FIFTEEN DOLLARS per year on the cost of running your refrigerator!
“such as more efficient cars (cited by only 2.8 percent), more efficient appliances (cited by 3.2 percent) or weatherizing homes (cited by 2.1 percent).”
All of that involves money, my money. Spending money to upgrade that most of us do not have right now.
How about jump starting the economy and jobs first, so the bulk of us can afford this crap?
In the mean time, I’m not buying a new car, buying new appliances, of visiting Home Depot.
It is almost never economically advantageous to replace an existing, functional appliance or piece of equipment with a new, more efficient device. It is frequently, though not always, economically advantageous to replace devices which are no longer functional with more efficient devices.
Not all energy efficient devices are created equal. For example, some people detest the character and quality of the light provided by compact fluorescent bulbs. Others are too tall or too large to comfortably drive smaller, higher mileage vehicles.
Typical room air conditioners are not as efficient as central systems. However, for infrequently used rooms, their lower efficiency might well be offset by their very low operating hours, assuming that the rooms they occupy can be isolated.
An electric “upholstered roller skate” with a 40 mile range may lack the utility required of a family vehicle, particularly for a larger family.
Some of us would likely have great difficulty adapting to the ascetic life style of an Al Gore, for example. 🙂
How about grounding Air Force One ?
Academic studies such as this founder on product cycles. Households on average replace major appliances only every 15 – 20 years, and why not? Quality merchandise currently performs well for near a generation, and at four-figures per pop replacement costs, Nanny Staters’ vaunted energy efficiencies are not cost-effective. To advocate major discretionary outlays in the midst of a major, long-lasting government-instigated recession, amid shriveling real incomes and looming defaults in medical and pension benefits blithely promised over many years, betrays an ignorant and insular mindset heedless of economic circumstance.
As incremental improvements become available, consumers will choose to implement them via purchases at their discretion, regardless of bloviating eco-freaks who have malevolently sabotaged America’s coal, oil, nuclear-generating capacity for decades. Why not adopt an inverse Cloward-Piven strategy, promoting mass-consumer discontent sufficient to excrete Luddite sociopaths from the body politic forever? Meantime, let climate hysterics and their Green Gang of peculating Warmsters leverage themselves to bankruptcy, pile up unwonted “efficiencies” at their own expense.
I save at least $1000 per year by riding my bicycle everywhere. I ride more than 600 miles per month.
This includes commuting, shopping and socializing. The only time I get in a vehicle is for long trips, or hauling a lot of stuff. I hate traffic, stop lights, dealing with annoying cops, etc.
Plus, I love to ride.
I love how “conserve energy” is one of the options.
I can make up a survey that is just as awesome:
What is the most effective way to save the Polar Bears?
– Eat less bear
– Save the bears
– Avoid buying sealskin boots
– Drive a hybrid car
– Read a poem about bears
– There is no way! They are doomed!
Is it really energy that must be saved?
If people think that it is, then it’s quite simple. Switch off all the lights. Switch off all appliances. Switch off the heating. Walk everywhere.
But then you will realise, if you don’t know already, that all these various things actually do more than just burn energy. Lighting helps people to see. Heaters keep people warm. Washing machines and driers clean things. Ovens cook food.
One simple way of thinking about this is to ask: how much more work would I have to do without some appliance? How difficult would life be without light? How much longer would it take to do something simple like walk up and down stairs? Go and try it. Use a stopwatch to measure it. Do the same with a washing machine. Find out how long it takes to wash clothes by hand. Find out how long it takes to put clothes through a wringer, and then hang them on a washing line. Measure it with a stopwatch. Then see what life is like if you turn of the heating, and put on more clothes. Make an estimate of how long you spend shivering, how long for your frozen fingers to write a few words on a piece of paper, or open a jar.
When you’ve done all this, you’ll probably find that lights and appliances and heating and cars all save time and work. They free people to some greater or lesser extent. And that’s what people gain from using these appliances. The energy cost of using them is what they lose. And that energy cost is paid in money earned at work.
All these devices cost something (energy or money or work or time), but they also gain something (time). If they gain more more their users than they cost, they’re worth using.
Simply ‘saving energy’ ignores the value of the various devices or appliances being used, and it’s a false economy.
Neo says:
“How about grounding Air Force One?”
And Air Force 2, and the House Speaker’s Air Force 3, before this trend gets even more out of hand. We didn’t elect Royalty…
…did we?
Better communications could start with the Columbia press release. I was left still wondering what we are talking about quantitatively in terms of savings with these various choices – even with the help of their crazy graph. Oh and you need a PhD to ask these stupid questions?
I prefer the obvious solution. That is, include basic science and arithmetic in public school curricula. What is a Watt? What is a Watt-hour? What’s the price of a Kilowatt-hour? How many Watts and what is the duty cycle of typical household stuff? Now add them together and get a sum.
And get rid of the stupid packaging of light bulbs! It doesn’t matter what the incandescent equivalent of a twisty bulb is. That is worse than worthless for estimating power consumption and savings. Lumens output and Lumens/Watt are really not that hard to understand or compare.
Except, of course, an educated public would see through the baloney message that human generated CO2 will cause global climate catastrophe. Democracy requires an informed electorate, and that includes critical thought. Also known as skepticism.
And while we’re at it, we should get rid of central heating systems and put pellet stoves in every room. And just think how much water is being wasted due to central plumbing. People will cut back when they have to pump their own water. Out Houses were good enough for Abe Lincoln and they’re good enough for me!
Dear Earth Institute at Columbia University:
Thank you for explaining to me the myriad ways I (along with my friends) can increase energy use, in order to take advantage of the excess capacity created by a few dozen others making their lives more inconvenient in the mistaken belief that they are “saving the planet”.
PS. The 1958 washer/dryer set I bought off Ebay are especially good at washing and drying. The last few I’ve bought from the 80s and 90s, while “efficient”, were just crap.
PPS: maintaining older equipment is ALWAYS more efficient than throwing it away and building new equipment, no matter how much “more” efficient it might appear.
PPSS: The new car I got last year, while “new” and supposedly so much “more efficient” actually gets WORSE mileage than my 87. It’s heavier, boxier and less aerodynamic. Luckily they offset that by giving it almost twice the power. I love technology!
Signed:
An Albertan who despises yuppie scum greens.
I had a washing machine, refrigerator and stove that I bought second hand for a total of about $200 in 1975. I gave it away to a neighbour’s son in 1995 still chuffing, purring and ticking. I’ve bought several sets since then and had nothing but trouble with them. After the Maytag man died of boredom, the whole world of appliances found ways to increase the price out of sight for junk that won’t last 5 years. Nevermind how little energy they burn in their short miserable lives, how efficient is it to have to replace them so frequently? Man I wish I could get a big grant to insulate myself from the real concerns of the real world.
Have you looked at the questions?
“Subsequently, participants ranked the amount of energy needed to
transport 1 ton of goods for 1 mile by truck, train, ship, and airplane. They also
ranked the energy used to make a can from virgin aluminum, a can from
recycled aluminum, a bottle from virgin glass, and a bottle from recycled glass.”
Can I phone a friend?
The report is riddled with references to Climate Change and Global Warming. The first sentence states, unequivocally:
“Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are contributing to global climate
change and could negatively impact our way of life if serious action is further delayed.”
Had to laugh at this statement:
“Although it may be appropriate to criticize the media for not presenting the case for climate change more strongly and for not presenting the implications of individual behavior more clearly….”
I dread to think what the media would be like if they pushed AGW alarmism even more strongly! It’s pretty unbearable already.
Among those who are clueless are the authors of this report. For example, the claim that “high efficiency light bulbs” save energy is often false. One of the reasons is that the supposed equivalence of 20W CFLs with 100W incandescents is a fraud. Subjectively, it takes more like 40W of CFL – and even then only if they’re left on for long periods. I suspect that one of the reasons is their poor spectrum, messing up the appearance of coloured objects in the domestic environment.
In my home I have utilised CFLs in two locations – kitchen and landing. In both they have increased my power usage by a factor of two to three. Since the landing didn’t need a bright light, the 20W CFL was adequate, but had to be left on from dusk to bedtime. I have since reverted to a long-life 100W incandescent. In the kitchen, where I installed 6x11W CFLs to replace old 2×3′ fluorescent lights I could no longer obtain, the start-up light was so poor I had to add a 100W incandescent there too. Net effect, a considerably higher power usage!
I’m doing my part by not attending any Sheryl Crow concerts……. 🙂
But seriously, I like the whole efficiency thing……because I suspect the eco zealot movement may one day make distributed energy hideously expensive, and simply because I don’t like paying the power company even now.
Some things I do for comfort.
I used CFL’s in the garage so I wouldn’t have to add additional circuits. I run 3X150W CFL’s where I previously was limited to 3X60W incandescent. Much more light, less consumption, no electrician bill.
Home Depot has a product called “Reflectix”. Not too expensive, and a very effective heat barrier, similar to space blanket. I’d like to insulate the underside of my floors so the tile won’t be so cold in the Winter.
But I was very pleased to read about a number of coal plants being built. We need the energy. Dig, baby, Dig.
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/17/ap-report-old-style-coal-plants-expanding/comment-page-1/#comment-47840
I wonder how this sort of survey would go in England, where pretty much all the houses are double glazed and well insulated, we use efficient gas boilers, diesel cars are nearly as common as petrol, most people only travel small distances to work, public transport is fairly heavily used, renewable energy is getting a good start, electricity is expensive (so encouraging efficient appliances), fuel is expensive (so encouraging efficient cars and less driving)…
Sometimes I wonder what exactly we’re going to do to become more efficient – most of the low-hanging fruit seems to be gone.
I have a very old car, a Peugeot 405 Diesel break from 1991. It still runs fine, no problems. It runs at 20 km/l diesel when driven with a soft foot. Old technology, nothing fancy, but very economic. A Prius with all its sophistication, will have a hard day to beat this dinosaur.
I doubt that compact fluorescents achieve the savings vs. incandescents in the typical home that their efficiency suggests. When do you tend to have lights on? At night and in winter, times when it tends to be colder. All that energy that GLS incandescent lamps put out as heat reduces the space heating that is needed at night and in cold weather, i.e. a lot of the time it isn’t wasted energy.
I trained as a Building Energy Rater a few years ago and one of the things that struck me about the scheme was there was no way to quantify the cost/benefit of the various energy saving improvements, so while you could give the person an “energy rating”, like the one you see on appliances, and even give them a “carbon emissions rating”, you couldn’t tell them Do A, it will cost you B, and you’ll save C over a period of D years. I think the reason was because if it was actually quantified, a lot of the solutions would never have paid back their costs.
This report seems to do the same thing, chiding people for their choices, yet not outlining the material benefits, in dollar terms, that their actions will bring.
P.S. Insulation, if you live North of 50 Latitude, gives the best cost/benefit.
stevengoddard says:
August 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm
I save at least $1000 per year by riding my bicycle everywhere. I ride more than 600 miles per month.
This includes commuting, shopping and socializing. The only time I get in a vehicle is for long trips, or hauling a lot of stuff. I hate traffic, stop lights, dealing with annoying cops, etc.
Plus, I love to ride.
I live in Northern Michigan some 72 miles from my job. Plus riding a bike in 12 inches of white stuff is difficult. The chains are bumpy. I envy you on being able to do that. But I do have a lawn mower that has rotary blades that I have to push around. No CO2 from it. Except I breath harder so it may come out even.