Energy efficiency is far more complicated than Americans understand. It is an entire field of economics. Increasing the efficiency in which a product is used lowers its cost - thereby it tends to increase our consumption rate of that product. I do not feel like repeating my previous comments but The Jevons Paradox is a concept that continues to be ignored. Energy efficiency is not a standalone solution to our problems. It is not the panacea and common sensical idea it has been made out to be.

When people advocate energy effiency - what are they basing their beliefs on? It surely is not the history of our economy and CAFE standards. We have become more efficient on both, yet we consume more energy. Where is the proof (not a study) in our history telling us energy efficiency lowers energy consumption? Certain efficiency standards will work - but some will not. That is my point, this is a subject that has been far too oversimplified. In fact, a recent study showed CAFE standards jump 60% to 44 mpg - we will still need 4 million more barrels a day of oil.

The paradox was in effect with, for example, coal and the steam engine, but when it comes up against production limits, then it may not be in effect.

Let's reverse your logic for a minute. During a period of limited oil production, one shouldn't be more efficient in its use? That doesn't make sense, and wouldn't occur.

I'm all for learning from and examining history's lessons, but I think these lessons also need to be examined critically. Paradox or no paradox, Jevons cannot make more oil come out of the ground.

The point is these are issues way to oversimplified. Another example is how natural gas is becoming a global commodity with Iran, Russia, and Qatar holding 60% of the reserves in the world. Yet, Pickens and others want our cars to run on natural gas. Shale development and horizontal drilling is tough with the economic times. These are concepts that need more thought.

The ubiquitous mini flourescent light bulb is a good case in point. On the face of it a great idea. Consumes less electrical energy than a normal incandescent bulb when it is operating and (according to the advertising hype) lasts 10 times longer.

So how many jobs in North America do these light bulbs create. Answer is NONE. I looked extensively for a mini floursecent made in North America. ALL are made in China. That means we must be shipping millions and millions of these from the manufacturing plants in container ships burning diesel fuels from China where they are made to North America where they are consumed. Does not appear to me to be energy efficient. As far as jobs are concerned it probabl;y resulted in a net LOSS of jobs since all the tungesten filament bulb factories are now closed or on the brink of closing. So not many green collar jobs there my firend.

So how much electrical energy do they save. Not much. To evaluate this one has to look at the total amount of energy that goes into both the manufacture AND the operation of the device. It is true that when operating mini flourescents use significantly less electrical energy (15 watts vs 60 watts). However the manufacture of all the electronics inside these devices consumes alot of energy therefore it is very likely that the energy required to make a mini flourescent bulb is significantly higher than that used to make a filament bulb. So what you win on the roundabouts you lose on the swings.

So how much good do they do the environment. Not much. Each bulb contains a small amount of mercury which as we all know is quite toxic to humans and animals. Indeed mercury is a controlled substance in most North American jurisdictions.

There will be a small portion of mini flourescents that do not make it back to the recyclers...ie they will get broken therefore releasing their toxic contents to the environment. So not much good for the environment either. Note that tungsten filament bulbs are not toxic to animals or humans.

And finally the claim that they last up to 10 times longer. They don't. They do if you leave them on all day and all night (defeats the whole object of saving energy don;t you think) but if they are switched on and off frequently as one can do with a filament bulb without problem then their life span is far far less. Based on my usage of them now for 8 years their actual life span when used in the same mode as a filament bulb is about 3-4000 hours...definitely not 10 times longer.

Initial cost is one dollar for a pack of 4 filament bulbs (25 cents each). A pack of 4 mini flourescents cost around $10 or $2.50 each. The cost is 10 times higher for an "energy saving" device that does not last 10 times longer.

So please be careful whjen you assert that energy efficiency equals good things for the envoronment (it does not in this case), green collar jobs (in China only - none in North America) and lower costs (much higher in this case).

And one final nail in the coffin of these particular "energy saving" devices. When they get old they make the most infuriating buzzing noise for months until they finally give up the ghost and expire. Noise pollution in the home - not an environmentally friendly product at all.

The Chinese of course - being the smart people that they are know all this - and are laughing (or ought to be) all the way to the bank while we are trudging down to the recycling centre to recycle our toxic light bulbs.

Malcolm

And while a new fridge or freezer may be more energy efficient what about all the energy that went into making it. Throwing it away prematurely is an appalling waste and I would wager that if you added up the waste of energy occurring by throwing out older appliances before the end of their useful life actually COSTS more than you save. A much more sensible approach would be to force manufacturers including the Chinese to make appliances that LAST. A new appliance will last much less time than an older one....the Chinese learned built in obsolescence from us and they are much better at it than we ever were.

As for me...I am getting rid of all my flourescent "energy efficient" light bulbs and keeping all of my old appliances. The money I save will go into my electricity bill to keep my colleagues in business. Note that our electricity is NOT made in China. All 100% of it is North American made.

Malcolm

Malcolm

Since only about 1% of electrical energy is derived from the burning of oil (mostly waste heavy oil that cannot be used for much else) then I fail to see what this has to do with peak oil.

Indeed most of the "energy saving" ideas above actually increase the consumption of oil since most of the products originate from China and they don't have electric ships yet.

So if you are worried about peak oil. Keep your tungesten filament bulbs, keep your old fridge and freezer and don not do any of the things Rick suggests. What he recommends will consume more oil at the expense of electricity mostly made with nuclear energy and coal. Under his scheme oil use goes up - not down.

Malcolm

The error in your assumptions is that if we all reverted to tungsten filament bulbs, any of those would still be manufactured in N. America. You know they wouldn't, and we'd simply be shipping 10x the bulk volume of bulbs across the Pacific.