To start, I will describe the current energy situation at Macalester College, where I am a first-year student. The college currently has electricity bills of approximately $1.5 million per annum, or about $770 per student. An estimated $250,000-$350,000 of that is expended in lighting; the college uses a mix of fluorescent tubes, CFLs, Halogen, and incandescent bulbs. According to an estimate started this October, approximately 40% of this electricity consumption could be eliminated, both through a relamping project and the installation of occupancy sensors. To narrow the focus, Dupre Hall, a freshman dorm, is capable, through its 5 floors of common area lighting, of drawing 17.5 kilowatts; on the average, the study found a draw of roughly 11 kilowatts. By my and my working group's estimation, if occupancy sensors were installed, as they will be during the next semester, the dorm could save, conservatively, 44.5 kwh of energy, daily. Extend these estimated savings out to the rest of campus, and hundreds of kilowatt/hours could be saved every day. The draw for for the college to these sensors comes not, though, from the reduced energy consumption directly, but the cost savings. The project in Dupre Hall has been estimated to cost approximately $4400, with a payback time of 4.37 years, again conservatively. This indicates a return on investment of 16%, much better than just about any other investment. Again, the numbers used were quite conservative; the payback would likely be much shorter.
This case provides just one example of how energy consumption can be reduced, without any change in the way we live, which of course would be just far too much to ask. This reduction has many benefits; the cost to run a business will decrease, as opposed to the projected increases that will (according to some estimates) arise from the widespread adoption of renewable energy. Now, this is not to say that there needn't be a major investment in renewables—quite the contrary. We do as a nation need to invest greatly in this technology. It has finally reached the point, both in solar and wind, that there is significant financial incentive to do so. It must be coupled, however, with a great reduction in overall power draw; without this reduction, old dirty power plants will not be decommissioned, and no true gain towards a cleaner society will have been realized.
Renewable technologies also do have great financial incentive behind them; one technology, geothermal heating and cooling, comes to mind particularly. This technology has the capability to save between 30 and 80 percent, by some estimates, on heating and cooling bills. While it is a rather expensive technology to install because of the drilling that it requires, the savings it generates are more than enough to make the investment worthwhile; by some estimates, even as a replacement to a regular air-driven heat pump, it can still pay for itself in 5 to 10 years, a rate of return between 7 and 14 percent. Installed into a new home, it can be even more worthwhile.
This technology alone is a significant saver of energy. Coupled with a change to a more sustainable way of living, however, it can become even more potent. The sustainable method I speak of here is a movement towards the city, into apartment complexes. To dispel any fears that I advocate a movement into low-quality, cramped housing, I do not. I support instead housing that can feed off the escaped heat from apartments below; when coupled with geothermal heating, a savings of 60 to 90 percent in heating and cooling costs can be realized, as opposed to living in a single-family, normally-heated home.
Though in this limited essay there is no way to go through and describe each method that must be implemented—wind, solar, hydrothermal, tidal, as well as more unconventional reduction technology such as a shift into cities and out of suburbs, occupancy sensors, and other methods—a clear, if incomplete, foundation has here been laid to explain what must be done. The overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be met by a variety of methods, both in terms of reduction as well as in shifting methods of production. Without these both, any effort in the remaining area will be doomed to have a much smaller impact than if both were implemented.
Now, to get to the heart of the matter, these two goals—reduction and production-shifting—are both economically feasible; they both have financial benefits which strongly outweigh the initial outlay. Specifically outlaid earlier is the benefit of occupancy sensors. Left unsaid due to limited space are the other methods of reduction which must be enacted; efficiency in all areas of the home and workplace, from lighting (LEDs and better fluorescents) to computers, to washing machines to cars. In addition, there must be a great undertaking to shift the methods of electrical production away from carbon-emitting sources to better, cleaner ones; wind and solar, these both have reached the point where it is almost financially irresponsible not to build. Change must be had.
Nicholas Matzke
Subscribe to