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.
Paul,
I have replaced all my 240 volt GU10 halogen light bulbs with LED based products. They were horribly expensive, and could not be dimmed by regular dimmers. So I also replaced the dimmers. Total investment: 1000 US$. I only hope they (the LEDs) will fulfill their life expectancy of 50 years. The first two have already been destroyed, probably to voltage spikes on the utility net.
I noticed one of the behavior categories was “Not have children”. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but that sounds like, to me, a population control idea. Reduce your environmental impact by reducing the human population. This whole study just seems to be a Gaia-worshiping manifesto.
I can sympathize with the findings to a certain extent. I own some rental property on the side, and every summer some tenants will complain about their electric bills which they pay and which I have nothing to do with and no control over. (this is in Texas, btw) And I tell them over and over – AC, AC, AC – your electric bill in the summer is all AC.
And yet even after telling them this I will go by and see that they leave their AC units running at full cool all day long, even though no one is home! And I tell them fine, if you want to pay a lot to keep your furniture cold while you’re gone, fine, just be aware of where your money is going.
Personally I never turn my thermostat below 81 in the summer.
Will people never learn?
Not with the current teachers.
And what’s with “current”?
The teachers are incapable of a response, certainly not to the standard required by the UK IEE, the professional body that dictates (e,g.) what can and cannot be installed in your home (obviously in the UK).
The press release is misleading. In it they state the following:
“The largest group, nearly 20 percent, cited turning off lights as the best approach—an action that affects energy budgets relatively little.”
And that assertion relates to the last sentence in the previous paragraph:
“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.”
But, according to the paper, the question asked (which elicited numbers such as 20% for turning off lights) is right at the top of the table: “Categorized responses to an open-ended question about the single most effective thing that participants
could do to conserve energy in their lives. “This is described in an even more personal way in the Survey Materials section of the paper: “At the beginning of the survey, participants answered an open-ended question about the most effective thing they could do to conserve energy in their life.”
Anyone who drives a very efficient car, already clotheslines their wash, and/or lives in a home meeting current code for energy efficiency (whether a new home or rehab’d over the 25 years that the government has pushed it through credits, grants or tax reductions), is not going to consider these options as things they could do. And as others, above, have noted no one “could” do something, if doing so is financially prohibitive.
Now I haven’t skimmed the paper to see if these scientists asked clarifying questions to put this first question in perspective, but I doubt they did. I hope taxpayer money is not involved because this has the rank smell of incompetence.
What seems to be forgotten is that the amount of energy you save, for example, going to flourescent lights, is a function of latitude. The further you go from the equator, the less energy you save. Here in Canada, most of the time we have out lights on, we are also heating our houses. Any energy “wasted” by incandescent bulbs, merely goes to heat the house. When you get to Florida or Southern California, not only are you not heating houses most of the time when you have lights on, you may also may be running air conditioners. So there is a double whammy; the heat from the incandescent, and then the electricity to drive the air conditioner to get rid of the heat.
The discussion about saving energy alone is “green propaganda”.
Besides that, those who lowered their monthly bill were punished with higher electricity rates.
CFLs work pretty good for reading if you go to Home Depot and by a Y adapter so you can put two CFLs in the lamp.
Why didn’t “not have children” make the graph? I guess the lead time is too long, but sheesh, the most polluting thing you can do (on average, at least) is have children! Especially children who go on to have more children.
I’ve long thought if high schools taught spreadsheets by including a section on the cost of a kid, there’d be fewer teen pregnancies.
Another problem with CFLs is that they operate at a low power factor (ratio of watts to VA) and so even though they might only draw say 10W of real power – which shows up on your electricity bill, the total apparent power they demand is pretty high. This apparent power (VA) still has to be generated by the power company and transmitted. Its just that you are not billed for it. Old incandescent bulbs are essentially pure resistors and so consume only real power (watts) – there’s no hidden extras. The CFLs also contain mercury which ends up in landfills. They are just another incredibly stupid “green” solution to a non-existent problem.
Old habits die hard.
Some of us were schooled on the knees of parents and grandparents who grew up when the only thing electricty was used for was to light the house. So the biggest savings for them (insulation was still a thing for the future since energy was so cheap) was to turn off the lights.
I am not that old (mid 50s), but that is how I was raised. We had one TV – B&W, and nothing else electric (no AC, heat was oil, hot water was gas as was cooking). We turned off lights. I still do today out of habit. That does not mean I do not know the value of insulation and economy cars. Just that turning off lights is ingrained to me. if you ask me for a quick response, I would have said the same. If you wanted me to write down a thoughtful response, I would have come up with the high dollar ones.
In the table, is the best top or last? I mean, should i turn off lights, or do “There is no way/I don’t know”? And how do i do that?
“You can’t conserve your way to prosperity”
J Pournelle
Some ideas for saving energy put forward by warmists are absolutely brilliant because they reduce bills, but are so loaded with the AGW agenda that I don’t think I’m the only one who feels alienated. The question also arises of how much money is actually saved, given that prices for utilities are artificially inflated to try to influence behaviour change. The only behaviour they’ll end up changing is at the ballot-box.
Ric Werme says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“Why didn’t “not have children” make the graph? I guess the lead time is too long, but sheesh, the most polluting thing you can do (on average, at least) is have children! Especially children who go on to have more children.”
You’re wrong, Ric. As soon as you have a new kid your energy usage per capita goes down by up to 33% percent. The effect gets smaller with each new kid but should still be measurable. Furthermore, your income per capita also goes down, preventing you from polluting as much as your kidless neighbour.
Steven Goddard says:
I save at least $1000 per year by riding my bicycle everywhere. I ride more than 600 miles per month.
I think you should check your “personal” fuel bills. I cycled to university when I was a student (about the same number of miles as you) until I realised that I could not afford it. At 15 miles per hour I was consuming about 300 extra calories per hour. Your 600 miles would expend about 12000 extra calories, which is about 5 days extra food in a month. I bought a small car for £30 which did 40 miles per gallon which was 15p per gallon at the time! The car lasted me the year and the petrol cost in that year was £30. I could not buy 60 days of extra food for £60 so the decision was obvious. If you calculate the energy needed to provide that food it will surely exceed the energy in the petrol.
However, if you cycle for fitness and you would wish to expend those extra calories for health reasons then your saving is real. Indeed you save on petrol and you save on the gym memership!
Personally I am all in favour of reducing energy consumption by banning all activities that involve hard work. I am willing to make this sacrifice in the interest of saving the planet.
If the only target of energy efficiency is the consumer, then 2/3 of the equation sits idle.
But the consumer is too often at the mercy of getting the longest life out of what commercial sold them.
Then there is outdoor lighting which sits on top as 10% .
You’ll get my electric dishwasher away from me when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!
Reply: We’ll sneak it out while you’re engaged in a WoW raid. ~ ctm
It is an 80 mile round trip to drive to the yacht club to sail. My diesel auxilliary uses very little fuel. The boat has a/c and uses propane for cooking. It is docked in the water so it is not hauled but once a year.
We have 2 types of fireplaces and gas furnace. We have a clothesline and raised the kids with cloth diapers except when away from home. We raise some grain and many vegies. I bought a New Harley Davidson and Trek at the same time. I put more miles on the Trek bike.
I notice all the self adoration about carbon virtues and tips.
Can’t do the Sheryl Crow deal with single sheet of tp and flush only solids. We bathe daily. We should have chickens to eat table scraps. My architectural engineer says to hold off on LED lighting. The payoff is not there.
I gave up my electric can opener a long time ago, I drew the line there.
They missed something in their survey.
“Fly commercial”.
Interesting comments . As regards air conditioning , whether you leave it on all day really depends on where you live . If you live in a hot but relatively dry environment , then a/c for individual rooms and /or turning off the a/c when you’re out makes sense . However , in fiercely humid climes mold and mildew are major problems , so one has to leave the a/c on constantly to help dry the air inside during the summer . The same is true with heat in winter . Here on the coast of GA , the humidity will defeat even the most stringent efforts at energy efficiency via caulking , insulation , double paned windows etc .
Well as usual, the propaganda is all pushing us in the direction of giving up freedom.
Hey if I wanted to live in a third world country; I would choose one and move there.
So what is this winter/summer thermostat business ? In my house; the air conditionere is turned OFF no matter what the thermostat says; moreover it never ever has been turned on in all the time I have lived in the house. And the central heater is turned off until my wife nags me to go and light the pilot; she doesn’t know it doesn’t have one, so I go out and turn the heater on; and it gets turned OFF when we go to bed. She has a radiant heater to use in the morning when she gets up to go to school (in the winter); and a two foot pile of blankets replaces the heater during the night. I have CFLs everywhere theyw ill fit; simply because they last longer; but they do give lousy light. And I know how to do my daily ablutions with less water than most people know how to make a pot of tea with. But that is about saving water which we don’t have in California; excuse me; that’s we don’t have water in Northern California; even though it only rains in Northern California.
And my work computer goes OFF before I leave for home; and the monitor goes off , if I quite typing furiously, since the Demon switch sits right adjacent to my Mouse, so if it can’t detect me mousing it sometimes turns off. Well none of this affects my life style in any way
All this biking and walking thing is misdirected; but I walk and bike all the time. Bike when my carblows up and goes into the shop; which is far more energy efficient than buying something newer than 15 years old; well my newest car is only 13 years old.
Walking sues up a lot of shoes, and calls for me to eat more food. It takes less food to push on the accelerator pedal; than to walk; but I walk some palces where my wife won’t even try to drive.
So my sister in law has an electric/gas bill that is maybe 20 times what mine is; but when I visit them; I don’t turn off all the lights in the rooms where nobody is.
So it’s all a question of habit; and it so happens that my chosen way to live is somewhat sparse, in terms of energy usage; but I don’t even have to work at it.
So I gather acorns from all the oak trees around the plant I work at, and I plant them somewhere on the grounds. The squirrels seem to find most of them; but for some strange reason, the number of trees on the property keeps going up; so I guess I am winning over the Squirrels.
I’d like to see this table in terms of things people are likely to do, not what is best to do. The world will have to become a miserable hot place before I rip the siding off my house to re-insulate, and hang the wash? Right – that could happen.
However – I did buy an efficient TV, an efficient AC unit, replaced all the incandescent bulbs for poisonous mercury vapor lamps, and I quit using briquettes and now use a propane BBQ to cook my flatulent bovine tissue.
The biggest BS is the statement “save energy to save money”. The next time your local electric company goes for a rate hike because they are not selling enough “product” remind them of their advertisement.
As electric company sell less product, their cost per unit goes up not down.