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.
i like buffoons comments
It would have been interesting to see the difference in energy required to wash dishes with a dishwasher or by hand. I suspect ‘by hand’ is more wasteful because of the increased amount of water that must be treated.
Just a guess though. I’m sticking with the dishwasher :).
What I have done is the following:
I made and inventarisation of of all equipment connected to the eletrical grid.
I lokked at the ratings, and made an estimate of how many hours they were actice per day.
All data entered into Excel, and started to look at the effects.
It was soon obvious that my garden pond pump, along with the pumps for the low temperature floor heating, were responsible for 30% of my consumption of electricity.
It was an easy saving.
Next savings are much harder to achieve.
Efficiency is generally a good thing. However, most people, including the authors of this paper, are woefully ignorant of economics and are incapable of assessing true costs as some have suggested above. All of this green stuff is a combination of the religious and the desire for state control of everything. Me, I’m so tired of all this nonsense that I won’t even buy green bananas.
A large cruise ship consumes 1 gal of fuel to move 30-40 feet. And that’s an efficient one. They can hold up to a million gallons…
How many Hummers is that?
Pure, unadulterated waste.
Limo liberal idea of saving energy:
I want you to save energy so I don’t have to.
I have gone to a smaller 2 seater to drive than my large Ford SUV.
Of course, I think my gas mileage does suffer when I pop the top on this ’77’ Corvette for a drive through the mountains.
Its tough, but everyone does need to do their part.
Patvann says:
“Pure, unadulterated waste.”
Then don’t go on a cruise. Instead, follow your leader’s example.
Ed Forbes,
Thanx for taking one for the Team.☺
I learned some time ago that fluorescents do save money over incandescents, provided you don’t turn them off and on. With their magnetic ballasts, the start-up surges will eat your savings. So if it is a light that’s always on, then fluorescent is a good choice. Otherwise…
Yes, I well know there are different ballast types than magnetic these days. I also know the average lifespan of electronic solid-state ballasts is pitiful compared to those old-fashioned magnetic ones while the per unit costs are higher. I have also replaced two electronic ignition transformers on new oil furnaces that failed within only a few years, with dependable copper and iron transformers that should last at least a decade.
And from an electrical standpoint, electronic switching power supplies are horrible things that introduce strange harmonic currents to a building’s power system because they are non-linear loads. There are examples where the switch was made to “money saving” electronic ballasts in office buildings, which resulted in the neutrals becoming overheated and even melting. Thus there are now “super neutral” electrical cables with an oversized neutral to handle the issue.
This isn’t an issue with residential electric services yet, as the normal minimum for new electrical services of 200 Amps (US, 120/240 Volt single phase) is rather large compared to the expected current usage, while commercial installations are more closely sized to demand based on equipment and installation costs. But there are still lots of homes with old wiring and old services that are inadequate compared to modern electrical standards, some as low as 30A 120V (with gas-powered appliances like stoves, clothes dryers, and water heaters). And I’m wondering how many home fires we’ll see attributed to “faulty wiring” after a “money-saving upgrade” to “modern efficient” devices like curly lightbulbs with electronic ballasts.
old construction worker says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:50 pm
The next time your local electric company goes for a rate hike because they are not selling enough “product” remind them of their advertisement.
They get thier money out of us whether we turn things off or not.
If we used zero electricity, then they would get $$$ out of us by running more outdoor lighting, in the name of ‘public safety’, thence getting the property taxes jacked up. For those that don’t own, rents will rise to meet the challenge.
It’s a game where we the people have little incentive or choice. Amazingly enough, we all cut back when last they made the call, but it did no good. They sold us throwaway gadgets with ‘standby modes’ and clocks in everything. Does your coffee pot really need a clock?
Such a vicious cycle.
If what many predict comes to pass, and the UK starts having brown-outs because of a lack of new fossil fuel power plants and a reliance upon wind, I wonder what happens to all those marvellous (expensive, and polluting) florescent light bulbs they have been forced to buy by law? They really don’t like drops in voltages as you get with dimmer switches, for example. Brown-outs (and such a shame Gordon is no longer there to take the flack) could become blackouts really quickly!
RE: “Many Americans believe they can save energy with small behavior changes that actually achieve very little…”
I still remember the case of a poor woman living in an electrically heated apartment citing all the things she did in an attempt to reduce her winter electric bill: setting the thermostat to the coldest temperature she could tolerate, never using her TV set, and otherwise avoiding the use of electricity as much as possible.
It occurred to me that as long as electricity was required to heat her home, once she set her thermostat; it would call for extra electricity to replace most of the energy she saved by her other sacrifices as long as the heat created would be dissipated inside her home. One hundred watts extra from your *electric* furnace or one hundred watts from the TV set would have about the same heating effect and cost.
After replacing all my incandescent lights with the new fluorescent types, I now find that I must return from ‘AC’ to ‘Heat’ mode in the summer at night when before I could usually leave my thermal control system in ‘AC’ mode all summer.
The trouble is there is no honest information out there, hybrids can use less gas but their whole life footprint is worse than a conventional turbo diesel,, CFLs are cheap to run in maybe 50% of locations, they cannot compete with a halogen lamp fitted with a dimmer, and the enviromental cost of the mercury in the CFL??????? windmills and solar panels, they are a con, so where does this leave their list?
I drive either of 2 Geo Metro automobiles on the property: a 2000 car that gets 44 mpg, or a ratty-looking 1991 car that still gets 54 mpg. Those cars, I believe, are no longer made; too bad. I have recycled for 40 years, while wondering how effective it is. The fact is that what we save, and how, is still a personal choice, and needs to stay that way if this is to remain a free country. There is nothing wrong with conserving, living economically, and all the rest; but we do it by choice, not compulsion.
There is no better energy consultant/adviser/watchdog than your mother. Mine put all the greenie weenies to shame.
Turn off the lights you’re wasting electricity!
Leave the water in the tub for your brother (when younger)
Five minute showers is plenty (when a teenager)
Don’t run the water so much (or hot) when rinsing the dishes
No you can’t borrow the car, use your bike or walk
Turn the TV off and go outside and play
If you’re cold, put on a sweater
Other notables:
Reuse towels after showers/baths
Hang clothes on the line to dry
Reuse lunch bags over and over…..oh and wax paper too
Dad wasn’t too bad either:
Want a car? Get a job……
Want to borrow the car? No problem, get a job……
Too many things to list.
Now that I think of it, neither one of them ever mentioned a word about saving the planet, polar bears or watching their carbon footprints.
Any woman who buys into this stuff should have her head examined. Electricity and the availability of household appliances has done more to liberate women and give us the opportunity to get an education and work outside the home than anything else. I surely would not have time in my day to go to school if I had to wash clothes by hand, hang them to dry, iron them with a fire heated flat iron, heat water over a fire to wash the dishes, etc. etc. etc. and so forth! Not to mention beat the rugs, sew clothes by hand, and do all of it by daylight because it would be too dark at night. Oh and nighttime lighting–gas and oil lamps are dirty and have to be cleaned by hand every day–another time consuming chore. I fell truly blessed to live in a time when I have lots more opportunities than my grandmother.
Turobodiesel guy here. I cannot see how hybrids can even be sound just from the Batteries alone. I don’t use A/C just a swamp cooler, but I live in a very dry climate.
Wife lived that “back to nature” lifestyle with her Elk River hippie ex. You will pry her dryer out of her cold,dead,fingers….
DirkH says:
August 17, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Hmm. Good points. Kid is in college now. I don’t think I’m polluting at all for another couple of years!
“Previous studies have indicated that if Americans switched to better household and vehicle technologies, U.S. energy consumption would decline substantially within a decade. ”
The efficiences that we’ve bought have paid or will pay for themselves, and bring relatively significant savings over time. We live in North Texas, and it’s been a damn hot August but we keep our house cool (74F) without going broke.
We added solar screens three years ago ($700), and they’ve already paid for themselves. This spring we put radiant barrier (foil, not spray-on) and add’l insulation in the attic ($1700), and we should recoup that money in energy savings in 18-24 months.
I traded my 2005 F-150 (15mpg) for a 2006 Escape Hybrid (30mpg), and with the relative values of the two vehicles, that was a lateral move. Admittedly, it’s less fun living in Texas without the truck, but I’m saving about $75-100/month in gas.
Here in Australia someone did a survey and found that those who identified themselves as “green” were more likely to drive a big 4WD (so they could enjoy the environment I suppose) and more likely to do major overseas holidays (to watch Alaskan glaciers melt). Just maybe it would be better for the planet if these people stopped being “green” and just left their lights on.
I’ve really enjoyed most of the comments here. I don’t have much of an economics background but as an engineer I’m familiar with evaluating the business case for capital equipment replacement. Which, let’s face it, is what the average family is doing when replacing a major appliance or car.
I know people who replaced their relatively efficient older cars with brand new hybrids back in ’08 when gas prices were through the roof. They ate depreciation costs in the many thousands of dollars to save a few hundred per year in gas. As stated above several times, it almost always makes better financial sense to repair an item than to replace it.
The current political atmosphere in the US has motivated me to reread the history of the Founding Fathers and the buildup to the Revolution. The recurring theme of that era is liberty, something that I rarely even hear about anymore. I’m sick of the green movement’s infringement on my liberty. I resent the idea that I’m supposed to somehow feel guilty about using “real” light bulbs or driving my car to the store. I resent having limited products to choose from because of the green agenda. I’m irritated with the fact that many of the products I enjoy are marketed as “green friendly” when I don’t give a rat’s a$$ either way.
I’m not a wasteful person but too much of the green agenda is based on establishing the authority to tell me how to live my life. Up until the last election I guess I figured we would never get far enough down that road to worry about it. Now I’m afraid we’ve let them get too far already.
Sorry to rant, but the green nanny state mentality is a sore spot for me. In the end, I take solace in the fact that we have the Second Amendment in case they forget about all the others. All that money I saved by not buying a Prius will buy a lot of ammo.
An excellent article highlighting where real savings can be made – but why is the graph supporting this paper using a logarithmic vertical scale?? Surely the real savings would show far better when expressed in linear format
Andy
I have seen a lot of comments about the high fuel economy of older vehicles. There is a reason why old cars get better mileage, it is because they are lighter. Why are they lighter? Because they have less safety features and less luxuries. My dad’s 1994 Honda Accord with over 250,000 miles on it gets 50 MPG with its putt-putt engine and a manual transmission (Shifting gears is a joy in a Honda.) Maybe you are different, but the first thing I look at when choosing a vehicle is the safety rating. If I had to choose between fuel economy and safety, I choose safety every time.
“…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.”
Anthony, you seem to indicate that making something from recycled glass requires 50 times the energy of making the same item from virgin glass. No doubt there is some truth in what you say, __but 50 times? What is the source of this claim?
If this is figure is accurate then all the municipal drives to collect and sell used glass containers to industry must be a sham. No industry in its right mind would choose to recycle glass. If this is true, what happens to all the glass containers that my municipal collection service takes in?? Does it just stack up in a warehouse some where, and then be secretly shipped out to a land fill in China at taxpayer’s expense? By the way, the recycling service in my community is not voluntary!
I have heard similar claims made about other types of recycling, that only medal is actually cost efficient to recycle. What is the truth about recycling of glass, paper and plastics?
After returning from dinner, several Schell’s Zommerfest pints, and checking this article, I find the graph to be totally incomprehensible. What is it saying?? Perceived vs used/actual from a poll? What are the demographics? Should I care? I get that for which I pay. Maybe tomorrow morning with a clear head…