"The United States can double energy productivity over the next 20 years by boosting investments in energy efficiency, reforming tax credits for energy savings and engaging state and local governments, a report released on Thursday said".
"Report says measures would increase GDP by up to 2 pct"
I am a professional in the energy efficency space and a noob to the PeakProsperity community. I would appreciate comments and thoughts on the statements in this article. - Jack
the fed really cant afford tax credits for individuals or local governments. and they can't afford another beaurocracy or government program either. they need all the money they can get right now and don't need anymore expenditures. that being said they'll probably do it if it's seen as bipartisan and for the sake of doing something.
In a free market capitalist economy, efficiency leads to more consumption as underutilized resources translate to opportunity costs.
Meanwhile, economic growth requuires increasing energy and resource demand.
If China and India increased energy efficiency, it would have a greater impact on the global energy picture.
The first thing the US should do is stop being stupid. Go to the nearest truck stop and count the number of trucks that are sitting in the parking lot with their motor running. This is just one example. Everywhere you look there are similarly ridiculous examples. The US government is restricting incandescent light bulbs, but you can buy a Hummer or super duty dual cab pickup for urban commuting with no sanctions. Walk around your house and count the number of power supplies you have plugged in for devices not in use.
I believe the energy review Chris posted last week indicated that private investment in oil exploration has already doubled, with no corresponding significant increase in production.
The US isn't making well considered investments currently. We're dinking with wind, ethanol and solar, while China is starting to look at thorium reactors.
As a country, we are idiots.
i don't know about modern rigs but in the past it was cheaper to let them run than to turn em off because of the amount of fuel required to get such a motor started. you act as though the government could properly regulate what people can and cant drive. they would mess it up and end up hurting people like me who have to drive such a truck to perform my work. an example of what i'm talking about would be the epa regulations that went into effect in 2003. prior to that ford was using the 7.3 turbo diesel in there superduty trucks. the motor had been manufactured since 1983. it was nothing to get 5or 6 hundred thousand miles out of this motor before a rebuild, then you could put other 5 or 6 hundred thousand on it. however, ford could not get the emissions low enough to meet regulation so they had to come up with another design. they have yet to come up with platform with the longevity of that motor. i argue that whatever emissions gained by the newer platforms is lost by its lack of longevity. if you're only looking at the emissions of the vehicles on the road as an indicator of carbon output, then you can paint a nice picture. but what's the carbon output of a vehicle that has half the life of it predecessor in terms of manufacturing? as a country we are not idiots. but the idealogy that has governed us for some time is ignorant to alot.
What I see in both our countries though is a huge number of people who drive half-ton trucks, 4 x 4 SUV's etc and they do not NEED these vehicles. We love our trucks!!! Sure there are tradespeople, perhaps like yourself, who do need a big truck for work purposes. But the vast majority that I see are using them as regular, everyday vehicles to go shopping and toot around the city. This is extremely wasteful. But it has happened largely because of increased efficiencies in fuel use. When things become more efficient we don't use less, we use more.
While I am no fan of government rules telling me what I can and can't own, the reality is that we don't seem to be able to (or want to) make the right choices (those which more accurately reflect our true needs and maximize fuel efficiency) on our own. It goes to reason then that because we won't do that willingly, then there may very well come a day when the government might step in and tell us what we can and cannot own in terms of vehicles. I can see a permit system for things like work trucks, with users having to justify the need in order to get one. The rest of us might very well be restricted to choices from a variety of much smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.
The era of cheap oil really did a dis-service to humanity, spoiling us with too much of a good thing. It is similar to having an open bar at a party - many over-indulge because it does not cost them anything, well, other than a good hangover. They would not likely be as over-indulgent if it were a pay bar. More so if it were a pay bar with extra high prices. Then we would seriously see who could afford to over-indulge.
If we don't start making some seriously intelligent choices on our own about how we live and use scarce resouces, then we will get mandated intervention to make those choices for us. The bar will be dry. So, if people are really adamant that the government butt out and not regulate our choices, then they need to get their brains in gear and start making the right choices on their own.
"Go to the nearest truck stop and count the number of trucks that are sitting in the parking lot with their motor running."
Shutting down the engines for a couple of minutes would not improve efficiency or reduce fuel consumption. Truck drivers are very aware of efficiency and aren't idling their engines because they are lazy or wasteful.
"If China and India increased energy efficiency,"
You obviously never been to either China or India. They are very efficient and frugal, its pollution is the problem since the are too cheap (frugal) to invest in systems to stop pollution. FWIW, an engine or plant without pollution controls is more efficient since it takes energy to run pollution control systems.
"China is starting to look at thorium reactors."
And thats a bad thing. A reactor failure will result in millions of people getting cancer or other diseases if exposed. Thorium Mining was practically a death sentence to miners before it was banned in the US. Thorium reactors the Tar sands of Nuclear power, U-232 gamma emissions make it the most deadly waste to handle, and you can build Nukes from the Thorium fuel cycle using U-233, despite what you read on the Internet. Thorium reactors are an act of desperation, not of technological advances.
"The US government is restricting incandescent light bulbs, but you can buy a Hummer or super duty dual cab pickup for urban commuting with no sanctions."
Not true, since Hummer is no longer selling trunks to US consumers (Closed operations during the GM collapse). The High cost of gasoline and diesel had made it cost prohibited to operate large vehicles. About 6 to 8 years ago, large vehiles (SUV) dominated the roads. Today, there are very few on the road. US Gasoline consumption is down to 1997 levels or about 20% from the peak in 2007-2008. But none of the consumption declines mattered since China is consuming the oil that we no longer consume. The Chinese Energy consumption Genie is out of the bottle and can never be put back. Only a collapse in the global economy or collapse in Global oil production will reverse the trend.
On the Light bulb issue, we are just substituting one problem with another. The majority of incandesent light bulbs are being replaced with CFL bulbs which have Mercury in them. CFLs and White LEDs also emit significant amounts of UV light which can lead to eye problems later in life such as cataracts. CFL and While LEDs operate the same way. The light emitted from CFL and LED is UV light. the majority of UV light is converted into visible white light using a phospher coating. FWIW: Most of the light bulb manufacturers lobbied Congress for a Ban on Incendense bulbs, because they could make more money selling them.
"As a country, we are idiots."
So is the rest of the world. The bottom line is that there are about 5 Billlion too many humans living on the planet. No matter what changes to efficiency, energy regulations, etc are applied we are still stuck with 5 Billion to many people, which need food, clean water, and a job. All these thinks take lots of energy.
FWIW: I wouldn't worry about energy problems, I would worry about global nuclear war and all those spent fuel pools near the 350+ nuclear reactors. The world is marching to a hot war as the US is working hard to destabilize the Middle east for poorly thought out decisions, China is on a resource grab in Africa and other parts of the world. The US is moveing troops out of Afganistan and reploying them to Africa in order to slow or stop the Chinese. All industrialize nations are now participating in currency wars, that always morph into trade wars, that lead into hot wars. Then there are 350+ spent fuel pools contain 100+ times more highly radioactive material then all of the worlds Nuke bombs. The SFP's are far far more dangerous the the Worlds supply of Nuke Weapons.
I saw this reported here in the UK. Thought you might be interested.
All is well with the world once again...although some of the comments to his piece of 'reporting' have another take on this love in.
Love the "This article is satire right?" comment
Emily's interests and research
For people in and around Austin, TX who are interested in working together to increase resiliency for ourselves and our communities
Group for people looking to connect in Alberta Canada
A community dedicated to the principles of sustainable living, self reliance and well being through education and collaboration