Energy efficiency can be difficult to conceptualize. There’s not a representative device like a solar panel or wind turbine. Rather, it’s a collection of technologies, strategies, and policies involving our houses, businesses, transportation, and behavior that improve the way we live. There are often misunderstandings or “myths” about how we verify that energy efficiency is working and measure what benefits it’s providing. Four measurement and verification (M&V) myths are debunked below.
MYTH 1: Energy efficiency is an idea, a call to action, not a tangible thing. There is no reliable standard for measuring or verifying energy savings resulting from efficiency measures.
The lack of a national standard for M&V of efficiency-driven energy savings has left states to develop their own protocols. These efforts have resulted in a well-developed and rich source of experience and information that can inform the development of a national standard. Currently more than half of all U.S. states have efficiency targets and are measuring their progress towards achieving those goals. In addition to states, utilities have been demonstrating energy savings resulting from efficiency measures for decades. In many cases, a utility’s authority to collect revenues is based on its ability to verify, with substantial certainty, the amount of savings that occurred. This has caused utilities to invest significant resources into solid M&V methods that stand up to the scrutiny of regulators and ratepayer advocates.
MYTH 2: Lots of factors affect energy use making it impossible to tell when a change in energy consumption is due to efficiency improvements or other factors.
There is an entire profession of highly experienced energy program evaluators that has developed over the last 30 years, and they utilize evaluation methodologies that have repeatedly been accepted in utility regulatory proceedings across the nation. When an old, inefficient piece of equipment (e.g., a furnace, motor, refrigerator, etc.) is replaced with a new, high-efficiency model, the energy savings that result can be measured quite reliably. While other factors (e.g., the weather, economic activity) may affect total energy use, statistical methods have been developed to separate out these effects. The evaluation methodologies that have been developed can measure and verify the energy savings from energy efficiency measures and programs with a great deal of confidence.
MYTH 3: I can’t rely on efficiency to meet energy demands because I can’t call on it when I need it and I don’t know how much I’m going to get when I do.
Efficiency is not a “demand response” approach or a peaking resource that is “called upon” when demand is high. Rather, it is a “baseload” resource that once put into practice continues to produce energy savings at all times the device is in operation. The lifetime of an efficiency resource will depend on the type of measure that is installed (e.g., CFL bulbs, a new air conditioner, adding insulation to a building, etc.), and energy savings can reliably last anywhere from 3 to 20 years or more. Furthermore, while many clean energy sources rely on external conditions that cannot be controlled, efficiency measures produce energy savings year-round regardless of the weather.
MYTH 4: Potential benefits from energy efficiency are small and aren’t worth measuring.
Energy efficiency is our nation’s greatest energy resource. Energy savings from efficiency are real and save Americans money. Since 1970, efficiency improvements have reduced U.S. energy costs by about $700 billion from what they would have otherwise been in 2005 alone. Those dollars are reinvested in the economy to support businesses and create jobs. Available cost-effective energy savings from all sectors is predicted to range from 16 to 30% of current consumption by 2025 (see here for more information).
To download the fact sheet, click here.
Leave a Reply
4 Comments on "Debunking Common Energy Efficiency Myths"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This post has been very well thought out.
What has puzzled me for some time however is why the US has taken so long before acting on this? The majority of europe has taken the same efficiency measures some 2 years before the US.
I feel that the current economic climate has led to the consumer making the first move, the government following suit because they now see that a buck or 2 can come their way.
Shame, but true
John
The comment by John Kennedy
The majority of europe has taken the same efficiency measures some 2 years before the US.
seems to me to overlook a number of things.
I work in advising on energy efficiency in buildings. Sometimes I get to see the very best, of the very best, this covers buildings as diverse as Head offices of Banks, Data centres, The Tower of London, The University of Zurich (ETHZ), London Guild Hall Offices and so on. The one obvious problem is that in both Europe and Asia, we have not taken reasonable efficiency measures.
Example areas which are poor in over 90% of buildings would include,
time-clock and schedule control (I recently used Fourier analysis on Smart meter data and found that under 1% of building load profiles account for Summer Daylight saving) ; ventilation controls (delivering the fresh air required and no more unless free cooling is required) ; enthalpy control, boielr sequencing, basic compensation, zone controls, PID loop tuning AND SO ON.
If Europe sits on its high-horse pointing fingers at the US (where efficiency is truly appauling) and as a result BRIC and CIVET countries use Europe as an example we will have a greater disaster on our hands,
We are lazy, unimaginative, have indadequate standards and education, and build and maintain buildings on a lowest common denominatior benchmark system that ensures complacency as an average.
One only has to look at the A+++ rating on household goods to realise that in ANY population (however poor) there will always be some “Best” performers. This says nothing for the qualiy of best performers which may still be dreadful. In energy in buildings it still is.
I recently wrote a blog post on exactly this issue should you care to read it http://kwiqly.blogspot.com/2011/11/auto-congratulatory-green-benchmarking.html
More effort is put into highlighting one or two “centres of excellence” as marketing PR fluffery, than is applied as cold hard engineering, where the quieter unsung heroes continue their work , poorly directed under resourced and inadequately trained.
Bit or a rant – You can follow me if you choose on https://twitter.com/kWIQly
The benefits of energy efficiency improvements, whether higher efficiency appliances and equipment, or higher r-value insulation, improved windows and doors, etc. can be easily and relatively accurately estimated. These benefits are durable for the useful lives of the appliances, equipment and components installed. The benefits of replacing an oversized, atmospherically vented gas furnace achieving a real AFUE of ~50% with a properly sized condensing gas furnace achieving an AFUE of ~96% are very significant and well worth measuring.
However, there are two significant issues which can adversely impact those benefits. One is poor installation. The other is Jevons’ Paradox. I am aware of many friends who installed higher efficiency equipment and then decided to adjust the thermostat up during the winter and/or down during the summer to increase their comfort.
Willem Post has written here extensively about Passivhaus construction, which addresses the efficiency of the entire building envelope and the equipment which functions within it. Typical US residential and commercial construction is a far cry from the Passivhaus ideal. Retrofitting of existing structures offers the potential to substantially increase the efficiiency of the structures, though they would still fall far short of the Passivhaus ideal.
Energy conservation, on the other hand, can be implemented at no cost but tends not to be durable. Demand response can also be implemented manually at no cost. However, each response must be separately implemented.
The author glosses over the fact that implementing higher efficiency equipment and structures requires incremental investment. The energy cost savings resulting from the implementation are typically applied to paying off the incremental investment before they are reinvested in other activities. Original design and construction for high efficiency is far more cost effective than retrofitting, which can only achieve lower overall efficiency at higher overall cost.
efficiency is about maximizing output for a given input.
but the actual output we want is: clean air and water, healthy food, snug shelter and plenty of sleep. these are the physical needs that are relevant to physical resources such as energy.
looking at the narrow energy efficiency of this or that gizmo or building design distracts us from the overall efficiency and our overall goals.