I was thinking about the comparison in economic incentives between houses and commecial buildings, as both have been brought up in the comments here.

In the example of privately owned homes, the problem exists that the home is not built by the person paying the energy bills, so there is no incentive to build an efficient dwelling, and then the homeowner is faced with a large cost for a retrofit with (the belief of) a long payback period.

In commercial buildings, or rental housing, the energy user very often does not even own the home, so doing an energy retrofit is not even an option, as they would be appealing to the building owner to complete the retrofit.

I think there is sufficient room to increase energy costs (and lower other costs for energy users) so that energy is a larger proportion of monthly expenditures, giving shorter payback periods and more incenctive to cut back.

For time of use metering, here in Ontario there is much talk about the cost of implementing these meters would be. Our current government talks about $1B province wide. But I have been telling everyone who would listen that it need not cost the taxpayers a dime if we made them mandatory for every new house and every house that changes hands, and then set pricing such that everyone else would voluntarily change their meters. The government could then provide free conversions to low income people who could not afford the hit. Really, if you are getting a $250,000 mortgage, what’s an extra $300 for a time-of-use meter?

(I was part of the team that did http:/SmallIsProfitable.org/ that discusses the kinds of technology you’re talking about, and I have some questions about applications.)

Small is Profitable is amazing and a good bit of it is online. The subsequent book, http://OilEndGame.org/ is freely available in its entirety.

Sounds like an intersting book.

But the market penetration at least in America is neglibible.

However, Lithium rechargables – embedded in devices like ipods and phones – are doing very, very well indeed.

What’s interesting here is that the only real difference between the two technologies is the step of taking the AA cells out of the device, charging them, and putting them back vs. just dropping the device in it’s cradle. That one difference makes rechargable technology acceptable.

So I think that we may need a similar “user interface” revolution in energy efficiency. I think, obviously, it starts with building codes – compare the State of California’s energy use per capita with that of other states.

But it also needs an overhaul at a deeper level. I don’t know quite what that is, but we’re looking for it.

http://SmallIsProfitable.org/ is a book on energy economics which covers some territory you’re approaching – things like feedback loops between company AC systems and the grid, and dynamic pricing of power. I helped edit this and it’s well worth the read.

But the assumption that energy cost savings in one area will naturally lead to the same amount of energy spending elsewhere is not likely. Ask yourself, if you found $100 on the street, how much of it would you spend on energy? My guess is that it would be less than 20%… I think the same is true for dollars “found” in the course of energy efficiency.

And some energy efficiency measures have positive spill-over effects, that is, saving energy in one place will actually lead to energy savings elsewhere as well. When you’re air conditioner is running, a CFL not only saves 75% of the energy that an incandescent bulb would put out, but it also means that you are generating less heat inside your home, and so the air conditioner will run less. Or, if you have a cold, drafty house, you may actually set the thermostat higher in the winter to make up for the chill you feel because of air leaks than you would if you lived in a comfortable efficient house, because the house will be much more uniform in temperature, and have few uncomfortable cold spots making you want to turn up the heat.

In looking at radiant heat loss, the biggie is definitely windows. Double pane windows have an R-Value of about 1.8 Install those fabric waffle shades, the R-value goes up to 4.5. Get the kind of shades with the side tracks, you increase r-value 18%, and so it goes.

Every small or large piece contributes to energy efficiency and brings down the electric bill- and many of these efforts can be done by any normal person. Almost-old-lady that I am, I spent time several days crawling around the house with a screwdriver installing little foam insulating covers under all the electric sockets and switches last summer. Remaking thermal curtains (bought at a thrift store for $5) has made two rooms full of windows much much warmer. My son cut plexiglass sheets and put them in two skylights and now the snow doesn’t melt quickly on them, meaning we are saving heat.

Maybe this idea could be illustrated with a multicolored fan shape, with each different kind of energy efficient action on a separate color and wedge of the fan.

It might also pave the way for more widespread understanding of the Princeton “wedge” model for addressing climate change on the state, province and national scale.

Great post, thanks!

One thing I tell my readers endlessly is that I don’t care why they use CFL’s or drive more efficiently, etc. They could be worried about use of natural resources or air pollution or the US trade deficit (largely influenced by oil imports) or their monthly bills. All those legitimate concerns lead us to the same bottom line: Find out how to use less energy and take the (often very small) steps needed to put that knowledge to work to achieve whatever goal motivates you.