12
Study: We're clueless on saving energy
Bulbs are sintered at a light bulb factory.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
STEVE CHIOTAKIS: This isn't gonna sound very nice. But most of us have no clue when it comes to energy savings. That's the basic finding of a recent study out of Columbia University. Marketplace's sustainability reporter Adriene Hill is with us now in the studio to talk about where a lot of us are getting it wrong. Good morning, Adriene.
ADRIENE HILL: Good morning, Steve.
CHIOTAKIS: So what the study found is when it comes to energy savings, we're all idiots?
HILL: Yeah, pretty much. Basically researchers asked people what one thing they could do that would be the most effective thing to save energy and people said turning off the lights.
CHIOTAKIS: Well that makes sense, what's wrong with that?
HILL: Well, turning off the lights and other curtailment activities, as researchers like to call them, may not save as much energy as we think. A better choice might be making efficiency improvements, like installing energy-efficient light bulbs or driving non-gas guzzlers.
CHIOTAKIS: So what are the things, Adriene, we do that we think save more energy than they actually save?
HILL: Well, so there's turning off the lights. There's driving slower on the highway -- maybe stepping it down to 55, people think that saves more energy than it actually does. Unplugging your phone charger -- again, these things do save energy, but not as much as people guess.
CHIOTAKIS: And what do we under-rate? What saves more than most people think they save?
HILL: Driving cars that get better mileage, using room air conditioners instead of central air, and running more efficient appliances.
CHIOTAKIS: Are there any thoughts, Adriene, as to why the misconception is out there? Why people overestimate the energy savings of some choices and then they underestimate the savings of others?
HILL: One explanation that makes a lot of sense to me is that doing things like driving less, turning off the lights, changing the thermostat are all activities that are free or save money. On the other hand, new light bulbs cost money upfront. New appliances or a new car costs a lot of money, and they're just a bigger commitment. One of my favorite findings in the study is those of us who do do things like turn off the lights and unplug our chargers actually have less accurate perceptions of energy use and energy savings than people who don't.
CHIOTAKIS: Why is that?
HILL: Well one theory the researchers propose is those of us who do turn off the lights are unrealistic optimists about the impact of our choices on the environment.
CHIOTAKIS: All right, Marketplace's sustainability reporter Adriene Hill with us here in the studio. Adriene, thanks.
HILL: Thank you.
Pages
Our paper (open access, available here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054.full.pdf+html ) was written with the goal of understanding how people perceive (or misperceive) energy use in their day-to-day activities. To investigate public perceptions of energy, we compare people’s responses to questions about specific activities and behaviors with the best available data about actual energy use for those behaviors.
Some comments about bicycling compared with driving an energy efficient car: Of course riding a bicycle or walking uses less energy than driving any powered vehicle. It is great that people consider curtailing their energy use by turning off the lights and bicycling to work. However, these behaviors may be difficult to maintain over a long period of time to actually realize a decrease in energy use. Thus, we feel it is important for people to understand the impact of both curtailment AND increasing efficiency through new technologies.
A few comments pointed out that an improvement in energy efficiency in an appliance or a vehicle can result in the appliance being used more, or the vehicle being driven more. This “rebound†effect, as it is called, is indeed a potential problem that can erode some of the benefit of a higher efficiency. The severity of the rebound effect can vary, depending on the specific circumstances of each situation. However, this does not mean that higher efficiencies are to be avoided -- rather it is an indication that we should be aware of this potential problem and take steps such as providing education and incentives to reduce the effect. Investigating the accuracy of people’s perceptions of energy use and savings is critical to enable people to make better-informed decisions for their pocketbooks and the planet.
Finally, a few comments asked for suggestions on what to do to save energy. We did not include such a list in our paper because our purpose was focused on assessing people’s understanding of energy use. However, we can refer readers to an article by Thomas Dietz and others entitled “Household Action Can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce U.S. Carbon Emissions,†available online at: behavioralwedge.msu.edu.
We thank readers for their comments and hope this posting reduces any misunderstandings or confusion about our article.
Shahzeen Attari, Michael DeKay, Cliff Davidson, Wandi Bruine de
I have done about 250 residential energy audits over the past three years and I can't begin to tell you how porous most homes are and in many cases real simple fixes are all that is needed. The homes envelope is where its at. I don't even bother with looking at one's plug loads and power strips. Get an audit, its the smartest thing you can do
It's too bad the story did not mention it was a national survey of only 505 people with only responses of 471 of those that provided demographic information used to develop the statistics.
As stated by others, the energy to manufacture new appliances/cars was not included in determining the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of various actions.
Even small actions can create significant changes.
This is one of the worst pieces I've ever come across about saving energy. You're glibly and arrogantly dismissing people who are at least trying to do something to help save energy by condemning them as clueless idiots rather than encouraging folks to do whatever they are able to. The most likely result of your comments is that anyone who takes your advice seriously will become discouraged, disheartened, frustrated, angry and complacent.
Turning off unused lights does save energy, so it is helpful. It also saves light bulbs so they don't need to be replaced so often, which saves the resources and energy that goes into producing and marketing them. Multiply the energy saved by turning of a few lights in one home by several thousand or million homes and the savings quickly add up.
Replacing older less efficient appliances or cars with newer more efficient ones makes great sense IF the old model needs replacing because it no longer functions well enough to serve one's needs, and IF the person can afford to buy the most efficient model. Dumping a clunker makes no sense if one can't afford a new model, and makes little sense if a unit that is working well is simply thrown out in order to get the latest, greatest model because, again, this entails trashing resources and energy and filling landfills in order to replace the old with even more resources and energy, primarily to save a little energy. There are a lot of us who simply cannot afford to buy any new appliances or cars, but we can afford to use what we have more wisely. And we can afford to buy used items that are still functioning well and that will fill our needs rather than those items simply being tossed. Think of this as one form of recycling which results in a huge savings of material and energy resources (extraction-transportation-manufacturing-marketing) even though it perpetuates a slightly higher level of operating energy.
One way to use our cars more wisely is to drive them on the highways at the highway speed that maximizes the mileage - a speed that varies according to the vehicle. Some vehicles have computerized readouts that make this very easy for some drivers, while the rest of us need to use common sense and maybe a little experimentation to determine an appropriate speed. So it's not always going to be 55, but it's unlikely to be 75 or higher for most vehicles.
Should central air be abandoned or thrown out and room air conditioners be purchased and used instead? Perhaps changing the thermostat settings and control damper adjustments of already installed central air would make more sense - again considering such factors as resources, manufacturing and shipping costs, available funds, etc.
This isn't gonna sound very nice to you, but Marketplace should have saved some energy by skipping this unhelpful and even hurtful interview.
The paper discussed is available at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf+html
A variety of other papers on the potential of energy efficiency and some press coverage can be found at:
behavioralwedge.msu.edu
You said it Nick. Most people do not realize how poorly insulated their homes are. A tight, well-insualted home also helps keep the cool air in in warmer climates.
Getting a home energy audit is one of the best ways to figure out real ways to reduce your energy use.
Some nerd on the news of the hour
Professed to know aught about power.
But she got it all wrong with her cynical song
And came off not informative but sour.
Your piece on energy conservation was really disappointing. Your glib female guest obscured the issue. She provided no facts or numbers, just incomplete information and undocumented opinion. In fact, we CAN reduce energy use 60-70% and enjoy the same lighting levels if we replace incandescent lightbulbs with compact fluorescents. Once having improved the efficiency of our lighting, if we then turn off the unnecessary lights we WILL save even more money and energy. A “negawatt†is always cheaper than a megawatt, or even a watt.
If one can’t afford new energy star appliances or a Toyota Prius, one can still help reduce our carbon footprint by doing the things the commentator makes fun of.
When a majority of law abiding and conscientious drivers drive 55 mph rather than the conventional 68-72 mph on the highway, we can cut foreign oil imports a whopping 50%, as we did during President Carter’s term. Carter's conservation initiatives translated to an enormous reduction in global warming gases, and a significant reduction in highway fatalities as well.
I can think of no reason why your guest would call conscientious people “unrealistic optimists†except that she wishes to discourage those of us who feel that we must stop abusing this earth and her atmosphere NOW, and are determined to make both the lifestyle changes and efficiency improvements that will help to leave a healthier, safer and more peaceful world for our children.
Pages
