Free Energy Savings Available Right Now
from the not-quite-free-energy dept
There's obviously a lot of investment right now into alternative energy, some of which is already starting to pay off, though much of it is still quite speculative. But developing clean energy sources is only one way to protect the environment and and the economy. Finding ways to reduce consumption is equally useful in this regard. Tim Haab reprints a recent graph from The Economist, which nicely shows the costs of various methods of reducing carbon emissions. While things like solar power remain expensive, certain things, like improving indoor insulation and using different types of lightbulbs, save both energy and money. The question, then, is why aren't people already taking advantage of the low-hanging fruit of energy savings? A lot of it probably has to do with inertia or personal taste, which is why some politicians wants to mandate fluorescent lightbulbs. While that particular legislation may save people energy, the thinking behind it is the same as the subsidies of ethanol, which seem to be causing economic harm. It's better to let consumers learn about these options and have the best solutions emerge through the market.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carbon emissions, energy savings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
mandating fluorescent bulbs?
WTF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mandating fluorescent bulbs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mandating fluorescent bulbs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mandating fluorescent bulbs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government mandates as innovation driver
Market driven innovation is too short-sighted to see the need of increased mpg. The average user doesn't care about a 5 mpg difference in a car. However, the less gas used the better. The manufactures won't change the overall fleet to increase mileage because they perceive the demand to be too low to be worth the infrastructure cost. As a result we would slowly drive ourselves into Global Warming. However, the government came in an upped fuel economy requirements. It made a market force. The market will respond.
Same thing with house improvements. The initial cost of upping a houses insulation is sizable. However, over 10 years the cost isn't bad and probably would end up saving people money. Unfortunately, the house builder can't sell the 150,000 dollar house to a person that would have bought the same house, sans the insulation, with only a 130,000 dollar budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about maybe having politicians turn off half the lights in their mansion - perhaps that might help too?
Or maybe, just turn the TV off anytime a politician talks - that would save energy too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except...How would you know when to turn it back on???:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: overcast comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Market demand cannot select nuclear power. That requires governmental action to streamline the approval process for requests to construct these plants, and easing of environmental restrictions. We have to do this to reduce our usage of carbon based fuels. Environmentalists can't have it both ways. They cannot reduce carbon based fuels and block nuclear power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lol
no one is even sure that global warming is true. and so what if it is. everything that is, as a result of humanity, is NATURAL. cause see, WE ARE A PART OF NATURE. so taking that into consideration, if this global warming crap were true then this is mother nature taking her corse. and dont give me the "SAVE THE ANIMALS" BS either. species go extinct everyday, but guess what, others evolve and take their place. Earth has seen many mass extinctions. proven fact. now take a look around you. what do you see? LIFE!
seriously, our main goal as a species is to progress. this would mean adventually leaving Earth. wow, look at that. we dont really need to worry about this planet ne more. we can now go to any other other billions upon billions of other planets.
look, if global warming is true then the only thing i would be worried about is if i was dumb enough to buy a home on the coast line. sorry, thats just a fact.
However, the only thing we do know for sure is that the resources we are using for energy now are someday going to be gone. taking this into account, i do agree we need better energy alternatives. maybe this fussion BS will work out someday soon?
cant wait to the replies to this. Just keep in mind that i, like you, have an opinion.
however, if you think im pullin all this crap outta no where then take ur puggy fingers outta your a$$ and go to Google and look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lol
True, but you see... I have a particular fondness for the species known as Homo sapiens, and I really don't want to see it go extinct! And don't tell me that it can't, because as you just said, we are part of nature, and species go extinct all the time.
Do I seriously think that global warming is enough to make H. sapiens go extinct? No, probably not. But a) why take the chance, and b) the survival of the species is much different from the thriving of the species.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: lol
*FUSSION IS THE WAY*
cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
And, for God's sake, it's fusion. One "S".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
the signs of global warming are not going to all of a sudden show up out of no where. when florida start to sink then i might says let do something. i still wouldnt say that its "global warming caused by man" necessarily but i would advise the people in florida to finally give up on their homes (that are blown away every year ne ways) and move elsewhere.
if florida is underwater because of global warming then all that ice in the north/south poles will be gone. so its not like we're necessarily going to have less space either,due to the oceans flooding the land.
im trying to find a video that may help you think more logically about this topic. if i can find it i promise to post it. though, as i see with all your posts, you can find flaws in anything. maybe you should consider thinking about yourself a bit more :)
*tootles*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: global warming
Your faith in human ingenuity is touching, but do you really want to trade a slightly difficult problem now (cut down emissions) for a very difficult problem later (remove carbon from the atmosphere in bulk, or re-engineer how humans interact with the planet)?
"*FUSSION IS THE WAY*" [sic]
Amen. But... when will you have your fusion plant up and running? Last I heard it was still a rolling "forty years from now". Forty more years of coal and gasoline is too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lol
Sad to say I don't think your pulling this crap out of your ass. 20 some odd years ago scientist were worried that pollution was causing global cooling.
I can't believe a group, *cough*Greenpeace*cough*, that has been known to petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Look that one up on google it's really funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: lol
Some *individual* scientist _speculated_ that. It did got a lot of play in the press, but it did *not* get buy-in from the scientific community.
The scientific community, after two decades of increasingly detailed data, is now agreed that global warming is a real phenomenon that *is* happening.
"I can't believe a group, *cough*Greenpeace*cough*"
Fine. Ignore them --- their opinion on the subject is indeed irrelevant. But would you fucking listen to those who have taken the time to actually examine the evidence in painstaking detail and have concluded that the evidence for anthropogenic greenhouse warming is very compelling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
as for all our crops dying off because the climate in that particular region has changed, and theres mass famine, just grow corn in Alaska instead of in the lower 48 states (using that just as an example. you get the idea, i think). its not like ur going to have to worry about it next harvest season....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: proofs
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The principle you are alluding to is a basic problem in the application of logic: if you have to enumerate an infinite number of possibilities to establish the truth of a proposition, you will not be able to achieve the proof in finite time. This is often stated as "you cannot prove a negative". If I were to state "there are no pink unicorns" then a single pink unicorn would suffice to prove me wrong, but it would take the examination of the entire space and time of universe to prove I'm right.
There are several problems with invoking this principle here, however. First off, science does not really deal with "proof" in the mathematical sense, as much as popularizers of the subject may mislead you into believing that it does. Second, despite the superficial syntactic resemblance, the proposition "there is no global warming" is not actually an instance of the "cannot prove a negative" principle: the spatial scope is limited to earth and the time is limited to now. And third, there *is* abundant evidence that the global average temperature has increased beyond "natural variation" since the dawn of the industrial age, that there is currently an excess of CO2 over equilibrium in the atmosphere, and that this excess CO2 has contributed to this warming, and will continue to contribute for the forseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: name
Short answer: we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we have been mining carbon, and burning it to CO2 in abundance since the dawn of the industrial revolution; we can tell from isotopic analysis that fossil carbon now constitutes a portion of our atmosphere, at a level adequate to contribute to CO2-based warming feedbacks. For a longer, more detailed, and more convincing analysis, read the
"this planet has been much warmer than it is now"
Yes, but not in the history of primates.
"hell, its also been much colder"
Yes, but not in the history of post-agricultural man.
"why is everyone so fixed on *keeping things the way they always been*"
Because modern humans, with their agriculture and their technology, have taken advantage of the details of the world as it has been during the Holocene, not how it was in other epochs. We *might* be able to adapt to a significantly different climate, or we might go extinct. Nature doesn't care either way.
"unfortunately no matter what you do its not going to stay the same"
True. But why accelerate things? If we had 400 years before we started seeing any effects, then sure, make your bets on fusion and interstellar travel. But 40 years isn't enough time to transform those fantasies into reality, yet with BAU (business as usual), 40 years is plenty of time to see dramatic changes in climate.
"as for all our crops dying off because the climate in that particular region has changed, and theres mass famine, just grow corn in Alaska instead of in the lower 48 states"
It isn't that simple. For starters, even with a warmer Alaska, the growing season up there is still going to be shorter, because they have very dark winters. You might make up _some_ of the difference by finding a way to make use of the abundance of summer daylight, but not without re-engineering the corn (or whatever) genome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: name
Short answer: we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we have been mining carbon, and burning it to CO2 in abundance since the dawn of the industrial revolution; we can tell from isotopic analysis that fossil carbon now constitutes a portion of our atmosphere, at a level adequate to contribute to CO2-based warming feedbacks. For a longer, more detailed, and more convincing analysis, read the IPCC report. Somewhere in-between, you could read the resources on realclimate.org .
"this planet has been much warmer than it is now"
Yes, but not in the history of primates.
"hell, its also been much colder"
Yes, but not in the history of post-agricultural man.
"why is everyone so fixed on *keeping things the way they always been*"
Because modern humans, with their agriculture and their technology, have taken advantage of the details of the world as it has been during the Holocene, not how it was in other epochs. We *might* be able to adapt to a significantly different climate, or we might go extinct. Nature doesn't care either way.
"unfortunately no matter what you do its not going to stay the same"
True. But why accelerate things? If we had 400 years before we started seeing any effects, then sure, make your bets on fusion and interstellar travel. But 40 years isn't enough time to transform those fantasies into reality, yet with BAU (business as usual), 40 years is plenty of time to see dramatic changes in climate.
"as for all our crops dying off because the climate in that particular region has changed, and theres mass famine, just grow corn in Alaska instead of in the lower 48 states"
It isn't that simple. For starters, even with a warmer Alaska, the growing season up there is still going to be shorter, because they have very dark winters. You might make up _some_ of the difference by finding a way to make use of the abundance of summer daylight, but not without re-engineering the corn (or whatever) genome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lol
If that ever, ever happens, it will be the remnants of a dying human species, on the verge of extinction. And, billions of planets? Maybe if we spend a few billion years traveling to them.
"maybe this fussion BS will work out someday soon?"
Nope, probably not. We can't even sustain a fusion reaction, much less extract any useful energy from it. And, it produces radioactive waste! Gasp! It really is not as "clean" as everyone thinks. It also needs radioactive fuel (tritium).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: lol
Earth is a resource. one of many resources in this universe. instead of spending trillions on fixing something thats broke lets spend it on advancing technology, move on, and spread the gift of life throughout this universe.
fussion is in its infincy. time will change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear Power
It shouldn't be a problem except that:
- the "spent" fuel only remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years
- no containment method for the "spent" fuel has been invented that will last tens of thousands of years
- nobody wants to store the "spent" fuel anywhere near where they or their future generations will live, and they are correct.
You want eased environmental restrictions? Screw that!
How did you like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? How do you like the nuclear plant they built on the San Andreas fault?
Government is bought and paid for. I don't trust them to do the right thing - and we all have plenty of reasons to have reached that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuclear Power
Another method of disposal (which could be used in conjunction with vitrification) involves burying the waste in a subducting tectonic plate. The waste gets sucked into the Earth's mantle where it mixes with the rest of the molten rock.
A third method is to basically reformulate the spent fuel and use it again. We get more power out of the fuel and the remaining fuel is less radioactive. Repeat until you can't recycle it anymore and then dispose using one or both of the above methods.
Another thing to consider is that nuclear power plants of a modern design are much safer and more efficient than the ones designed in the 50's. They extract more of the power from their fuel, which means that the spent fuel is less radioactive.
Are you convinced yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I think the temperature rise has more effects on our environment than our personal comfort.
I am 100% with SPR. Nuclear power allows us to have a large-scale deployable reliable source of energy without any carbon emissions. I am also for renewables like wind and solar; but, we have to use them all in combination. And, if we start reprocessing spent fuel in the US, there is no limit to how long we can run off of nuclear power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: global warming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: global warming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: REDNECK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: REDNECK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: REDNECK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: REDNECK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: REDNECK
Freedom is the ability to squander your resources any way you want regardless of the color of your neck.
Let me decide how I want to squander my resources;
let me decide the color of my lightbulb, the temperature of my home and its insulation; let me decide to drive a Hummer or a bicycle; let me decide to recycle; let me decide to use vegatable oil to run my Diesel Mercedes; let me decide to hunt for my own meat or buy steaks at the grocery store; let me decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: resources
Your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. Your freedom to squander resources ends when it impacts the quality of life for my grandchildren.
Look, I agree that the gov'mt shouldn't be micromanaging people's lives, but I believe that it *should* be in the business of setting public policy for the general benefit of the populace and posterity, because it is the only entity we have that has a chance of "doing the right thing". I readily admit that the big G does a lousy job at times, but we really don't have any better institutions available for taking the long view (where, pathetically, the "long view" is anything more than five years out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk to the governor of IL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What adbout folks with Dimmers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What adbout folks with Dimmers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dimmer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dimmer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dimmable CFLs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dimmable CFLs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dimmable CFLs
I did not think that it was even physically possible to create a dimmable CFL. You learn something new every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah - maybe these politicians could lead by example and turn off some of the lights in their mansions?
Or maybe it's just another example of "Do as I say, not as I Do."
And it's really more like 'DICTATING' more than anything.
I find it's just better to turn off lights when not in use, I try to keep them off - if for nothing else, just to save on the power bill.
I have already bought energy efficient light bulbs where I can use them. I Don't need the Government telling me what to do; however.
It's just a lot of hype - it's a matter of fattening the bank accounts, vote tallies, and stock portfolios of some.
For if these politicians TRULY cared about the environment and saving energy - why wouldn't they be doing it themselves?
Doesn't it seem simple?
Ask yourself personally - do you care about the environment?
I do and I take personal steps to reflect that. So - if our 'leaders' really cared, why wouldn't they be doing their part too?
Or are people that big of a sucker to believe whatever the Government and Media try to force-feed them.
Saving the environment is good - Government Dictators Mandating stuff for us - it not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't there mercury in those fluorescent light bul
--Beo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canard
Having said all that, bring on the LED lightbulbs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moving the expense
Fluorescent bulbs, lower electric consumption but put more mercury into the land. Electric cars, less auto pollution but requires more from power plants which generate more pollution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving the expense
we should continue to wait until the perfect, effortless solution materializes from nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving the expense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving the expense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very simple solution to the conservation movement
Let them know that water is precious, treat it that way by increasing the cost.
Raise the price of gasoline and people will be conscious of the MPG rating on their car, they will start to seek lower costing higher MPG solutions.
Increase the cost of Energy and people will be more conservative about how they use that energy.
Quit complaining about the high cost of gasoline and be thankful that it sparks the conservation that you so desperately want.
Duhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ban ALL lightbulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer.
Though, I've switched all the bulbs I thought I could with the CFL bulbs solely because it makes the power bill lower, which makes the Jack Daniel's allotment go up. I, too, was unaware about the dimmable ones-- I thought I knew how CFL bulbs worked, and that inherently resists the idea of dimming-- but hey, now that I know I'm certainly going to check it out!
Everything I do, I do for Jack. WWJDD? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or perhaps give out tax credits on income taxes? Just provide receipts of the stuff you bought that's 'Eco-Friendly'?
Perhaps give incentives to manufacturers and retail to drop the price so that they are cheaper than other products?
Or maybe they could just give them out free?
Why must it be 'mandated' when I can sit here and think of good ways to implement energy savings incentives in 5 minutes? How can 'dictating' to us what we HAVE to buy with our 'own' money be a better answer? Are these politicians really that removed from the rest of us?
I tend to agree, most if not all of 'Global Warming' is natural, but also - there's no reason, as the technology exists to not conserve power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when that Lighbulb Breaks?
How many low/middle income families are going to be able to afFord that? If they even know there is a danger, will they tell the next people who move into the house?
How many people just throw the new bulbs away instead of checking the packaging for proper disposal?
This is a HUGE environmental disaster waiting to happen.
-Jason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The real obstacle to reducing energy demand is subsidized electricity prices. If consumers were charged the actual cost of producing electricity (on an hourly basis), you would see an increase in energy conservation. Unfortunately, certain groups scream about low and fixed income households.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grid
http://renu.citizenre.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's more to it than light bulbs,
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/a_picture_is_wo.php
The US uses more gasoline than the next top TWENTY countries in the world. Is it no wonder as why we're embroiled in wars in the Middle East?
Saving power and gasoline can do more than help the environment: it can also help ensure that your son or daughter isn't growing up just to die in some future war over an oil well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CFL Problems
CFL's are not very tolerant of cold temps. I have to leave my porch light on 7x24 because a cold CFL won't restart reliably outdoors.
My big concern is that disposing of old CFL's means dealing with hazardous waste! How many households are going to make a special trip to their local Hazmat facility to throw away a light bulb? This begins to sound like the argument for "clean" nuclear power. Please don't ask me to support it until you have a way of disposing of the hazardous waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CFL Problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple start..
Here's a shot of the U.S. at night from 1996 http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960617.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A simple start..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWJDD??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
The government wants to mandate usage of more efficient bulbs in lights. WOW! Big deal. Most countries in the EU and Britain outlawed, or are in the process of outlawing, incandescent lights because they're seriously inefficient. No one's complaining about the fact that they're saving money and the governments have recouped millions in energy expenditures. In turn, that also means less fossil fuels are burned to light your house up.
Who hates saving money? Apparently America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
global warming
If we really are accelerating the process and it's going to get much warmer in 40 years, then doesn't it stand to reason that we're also accelerating it's effects?
Why stand the four hundred years of heat when we can keep doing what we are and cut that time in half? Sure it will come sooner but if the earth keeps to the constant climate change it's been on, then we're not really making any real difference, just time.
I also remember quite a few climatologists that believe global warming is a hoax, and if you haven't heard of them, you are only hearing about the ones that believe the way the media and all the hippy (or left wing) nut-jobs approve of. Take into account the media and political bias that most of the US is under at the moment, and tell me you consistently hear both sides of all stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was also quite a few Nazi's who believed a dead jew was a good one. I don't think that just because you have a group of paid-off science jerks lying through their teeth to support a political agenda that you can just nod your head like a sheeple. Life requires more action than following the lemmings off the cliff.
"and if you haven't heard of them, you are only hearing about the ones that believe the way the media and all the hippy (or left wing) nut-jobs approve of"
Oh yes, lets once again reduce this to a political pissing contest!
"Take into account the media and political bias that most of the US is under at the moment, and tell me you consistently hear both sides of all stories"
What is this tripe? You get your scientific facts from the NEWS!? You must be frigging insane! Why not try reading some REAL scientific articles about the situation.
Then again, that would require effort and you just want to sit there and nod your head....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you really want to help the environment . . .
IMHO, anyone who proclaims themself to be an environmentalist and isn't a vegan is either uninformed or a hypocrite.
Learn more. Make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
we are all screwed anyways so who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Govts mandate things all the time, some good, some bad.
Mandated elementary education was somewhat unpopular at first. So was mandated desegration of universities, vaccinations (and still are unpopular among some numbnuts who don't understand herd immunity), the clean air act and giving the vote to people who didn't own land.
It's about time the government forces us to do some easy things to cut back on energy use that we are too lazy to do ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]