In 40 Years of Energy Efficiency Improvements, No Change in Household Energy Consumption
Turns out that decades of energy efficient lightbulbs and Energy Star appliances haven't led to reductions in energy consumption in the average household, but they have given the average American relatively more disposable income to devote to new (energy-guzzling) gadgetry.
As David Fahrenthold reports in the Washington Post:
The amount of energy that the average American requires at home has changed little since the early 1970s -- despite advances in technology that have made many home appliances far more energy efficient...
But on a per-capita basis, Americans still require about 70 million British thermal units a year to heat, cool and power their homes, just as they did in 1971...
A key reason, experts say, is that American homes are getting bigger, which means more space to heat and cool. And consumers are buying more and more power-sucking gadgets -- meaning that kilowatts saved by dishwashers and refrigerators are often used up by flat-screen televisions, computers and digital video recorders.
These trends "have balanced each other out. It's been a wash, basically," said Lowell Ungar of the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
Such trends in American households energy use appear to be consistent with the economic phenomenon known as the "rebound effect," described in a recent Breakthrough guest post by leading energy economist, Dr. Harry Saunders. As the history for both lighting and residential energy use seems to indicate, improvements in energy efficiency may be critical to improving economic welfare, allowing American consumers -- and more importantly, those in the developing world flipping on a light switch for the first time -- to do much more with roughly the same amount of energy. But it may be much harder to use energy efficiency to truly drive energy consumption trends downward, an implication that would require a rethink of efficiency's role in mitigating climate change...
What is the implication?
"... decades of energy efficient lightbulbs and Energy Star appliances haven't led to reductions in energy consumption in the average household ..."
The implication seems to be that efforts to increase energy efficiency have failed to significantly impact energy use, and are an exercise in futility.
By contrast, the cited WP article said:
"The flatlining of at-home energy use 'has been a success story,' ... because without increased appliance efficiency, use of power in homes would have shot up. Still, ... 'it's not enough.'"
The implication is that energy efficiency has significantly impacted energy use, and that efforts to improve efficiency should be redoubled.
"But it may be much harder to use energy efficiency to truly drive energy consumption trends downward, an implication that would require a rethink of efficiency's role in mitigating climate change..."
Posted by: Ken Johnson at October 2, 2010 8:26 AMOf course energy efficiency cannot be relied on as a primary strategy for eliminating carbon emissions, but it can go a long way toward making decarbonization affordable. An equally important issue is efficiency's role in mitigating energy security risks.