http://www.csmonitor.com:80/durable/2001/05/29/p2s1.htm
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2001
USA
ENERGY
Saving energy by the "negawatt"
* Efficient products would offset need for new plants. But will
Americans buy them?
By Brad Knickerbocker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ASHLAND, ORE.
Although he wears Birkenstocks now and then, Carl Oates doesn't
appear to be your typical eco-warrior. A member of the "Greatest
Generation," he flew bombers during the Allied invasion of Europe and
then was an executive with Pan Am.
But today, Mr. Oates is way out there in doing his part to fight the
"energy crisis." He drives a Toyota Prius with a gas-electric hybrid
engine, getting twice the mileage of the typical American car. He
takes pride in the fact that when he pulls up to a stop light, his
tailpipe adds nothing to pollution or global warming.
The national debate over energy policy brings renewed focus on
conservation. Does it mean "freezing in the dark," huddled in a Jimmy
Carter-model sweater while watching your computer monitor flicker and
fade? Or does it constitute relatively painless measures that could
negate the need for hundreds of new power plants?
Recent history shows that Americans - often criticized for being
wasteful of energy - have made great strides. Since the first "oil
shock" of 1973, the US economy has grown nearly five times faster
than energy use, according to the federal Department of Energy. While
gross domestic product (GDP) more than doubled over the past 20
years, energy use rose just 26 percent.
Most of this improvement has come through the use of more
energy-efficient appliances, buildings, manufacturing processes, and
transportation. Much of this was prompted by a stick-and-carrot
government approach of new standards and incentives.
MAKING A STATEMENT: Carl Oates, of Ashland, Ore., displays his Toyota
Prius, a gas-electric hybrid that gets twice the mileage of a typical
car.
PHOTO BY BRAD KNICKERBOCKER
The key here, say energy experts, is understanding the distinction -
psychological as well as actual - between "conservation" and
"efficiency."
"There is a stark difference," says Amory Lovins, founder and
research director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colo.
"Conservation is a change in behavior based on the attitude, 'Do less
to use less.' Efficiency is the application of technologies and best
practices to eliminate waste based on the attitude, 'Do the same or
more with less.' "
The big question now is, can the US sustain the recent trend in
energy efficiency - producing more "negawatts," as Mr. Lovins calls
it? It's a question that drives the political debate in Washington,
particularly now that Democrats - whose rhetoric, at least, tends
more toward renewable energy and conservation - have control of the
Senate.
And it's an issue that apparently leaves American families
conflicted. By a large margin (60 percent to 26 percent, according to
a recent CBS poll), they prefer conservation over the increased
energy production - coal, oil, and nuclear power plants - favored by
the Bush administration.
But Americans also continue to demand bigger homes and more
electronic gadgets, not to mention those ubiquitous gas-guzzling
SUVs. And for all its efficiency, as Nobel physicist Burton Richter
pointed out in the Los Angeles Times last week, the US still uses
1-1/2 times as much energy per dollar of economic output as Western
Europe and twice as much as Japan.
"Energy conservation and efficiency improvements are not only
economically sound, they also have a huge potential to reduce the
United States' long-term energy needs," writes Dr. Richter.
After first seeming to downplay energy conservation and renewables,
President Bush declared that "our new energy plan begins with a
21st-century focus on conservation."
Still, Mr. Bush's energy plan calls for at least 1,300 additional
power plants - averaging a new one every six days - over the next 20
years. Whether those plants are built depends mostly on state and
local politics, as well as public attitudes.
Meanwhile, many analysts say there are ways to reduce the number of
new power plants, using existing technology and requiring only modest
personal efforts.
The Alliance to Save Energy (a private research group formed after
the Arab oil embargo of 1977) states that "a combination of
standards, building codes, and voluntary programs in the buildings
sector can avoid the need for about 580 power plants."
For example, according to the alliance, if each American household
were to replace four 100-watt light bulbs with compact fluorescents,
the equivalent of 30 new 300-megawatt power plants could be saved.
Going ahead with the new 30 percent increase in air-conditioner
efficiency standards (recently rejected by the Bush administration)
would prevent the need for another 138 power plants. Investing in
already-proven designs to make buildings more efficient could cancel
the construction of another 100 plants.
The biggest hurdle to a new breakthrough on saving energy remains
personal transportation. After marked improvement since 1975, when
federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were
implemented, the popularity of light trucks, vans, and SUVs (which
aren't required to meet those standards) has reversed that trend.
Bush's energy plan suggests that "the fuel economy of a typical
automobile could be enhanced by 60 percent by increasing engine and
transmission efficiency and reducing vehicle mass by about 15
percent." The administration is waiting for a National Academy of
Sciences study on the subject before outlining specifics.
In the end, it may take millions more Americans like Carl Oates
seeing the benefits of their choices. "It's not a car, it's an
environmental statement," says Mr. Oates, of his gas-miserly Toyota.
"I want other people to know it can be done - including Detroit."
Copyright 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
