Let's Turn Down the Heat
continued
from page 21
  While CFLs are expensive when you buy them,
think of it as an investment. They're like an investment that returns 25-40
percent a year, risk-free. For example, a CFL might cost $15 to $20 initially,
but over its lifetime, you could avoid buying ten incandescent bulbs and
avoid paying about $45 in electricity. Try to beat that in the stock market.
Compact flourescent
lamps, including the popular torchier, are available for most fixtures.
CFL torchiers (above and left) are more efficient and safer than the halogen
torchiers, some of which give off enough waste heat to fry an egg.
CFLs have improved considerably since they were first developed, and
now produce a "warm" light similar to an incandescent, without
the hum and flicker of ordinary flourescents. CFLs fit a variety of light
fixtures and some can now replace halogen torchieres, the inexpensive and
popular floor lamps which in actuality are no more efficient than incandescent
lighting and are a fire hazard. Some light fixtures are specifically designed
for CFLs, and many of these can be identified by the "Energy Star"
label, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department
of Energy.
Heating Systems
Space heating is responsible for over one-third of the total energy used
in a home, costing the average household about $500 each year. Six out of
ten American homes are heated with gas or oil furnaces and most of the rest
use electricity. Unfortunately most gas and oil furnaces waste about 30-40
percent of the oil and gas they burn. That's about $175 per year up in smoke,
so to speak. And electric systems are even worse. For each unit of heat
from an electric resistance heating system three or four units of fuel have
to be burned at a power plant.
Next time you're replacing your gas or oil heating system, look for
a high-efficiency Energy Star furnace. It will probably cost about $800
more than a basic furnace, but it will save you about $100 each year. That's
a return on investment of 12 percent without any risk. Upgrading from your
old system will avoid about 3,800 pounds of CO2 per year if you burn gas
and about 6,200 if you burn oil. Nationwide this would translate into 50
billion pounds of reductions a year.
High-efficiency Energy Star heat pumps or ground-source ("geothermal")
heat pumps are also a great option. In a home now using electric resistance
heating, these options can cut an electric bill and the related carbon emissions
by two-thirds or more. Nationwide, upgrading the 25 million electrically
heated homes would save consumers $5 billion each year and reduce CO2 emissions
by 11 billion pounds per year.
Clothes Washers
The re-emergence of horizontal-axis (usually front-loading) washers on the
American market is an exciting development for consumers interested in saving
energy and protecting the environment. Horizontal-axis ("H-axis")
machines use 30-60 percent less water to clean clothes which saves water
and reduces water heating bills. In addition these machines spin clothes
faster leaving them dryer and saving energy normally used in the dryer.
Most consumers will save $40 to $80 per year using an H-axis washer,
depending on local energy and water prices and the amount of washer use.
Considering an H-axis washer costs $200-500 more than a conventional washer,
the return on this investment will be between 8 percent and 40 percent-more
upside than most mutual funds and no downside.
[TOP] |
Front loading washing
machines are being reintroduced in America. They use less water, save energy,
and do a better job cleaning clothes than top loading models.
The environmental benefits from using an H-axis washer are also impressive.
Over the estimated 14-year life of the washer, it would use nearly 100,000
gallons of water less than a top-loading washer and the carbon dioxide emissions
would be reduced by 4,000 to 13,000 pounds (more if you have an electric
water heater and clothes dryer, less if you have gas equipment). If all
U.S. homes switched to H-axis washers, annual water use would be cut by
over 500 billion gallons and carbon dioxide emissions would fall by nearly
50 billion pounds each year, equivalent to removing over 3 million vehicles
from our roads.
Windows
Windows account for around 25 percent of heating and cooling bills in a
typical home due to heat transfer out during the winter and in during the
summer. This means that homeowners may be paying $200 per year to heat and
cool the outdoors, thanks to windows. High performance windows are now available
that can dramatically cut this energy bill. These windows feature double
or triple glazing, special transparent coatings, insulating gas between
the glass panels, and improved frames.
Full disclosure: Labels like this from
the National Fenestration Rating Council can help you choose the most energy
efficient windows for your house, an investment that will save you money
in the long-run.
In colder climates consumers should choose windows that prevent heat
loss to the outside. For this you want the special coatings (known as "low-e")
and/or insulating gas fill. Look for a window "U-factor" rating
of no more than 0.35. For hotter climates, you want to reduce "solar
heat gain" especially through southern-facing windows. Look for a "solar
heat gain" rating of no more than 0.40. The ratings can be found on
labels issued by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC). Consumers
should also look for the Energy Star label on windows
Upgrading to the "best technology" when you are replacing
your windows anyway will cost a typical household about $600, but it should
save you about $150 each year in lower energy bills. That's a 20-40 percent
return on your investment, and it would cut CO2 emissions by over 4,000
pounds per year.
The bottom line is that consumers can do good by the environment and
by their own pocketbooks by investing in energy efficiency. Using energy
more wisely is not just money in the bank, it's a healthier and safer planet
for our children.
Howard Geller is the Executive Director and John Morrill
is the Director of Operations of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE). For more tips on saving money and protecting the environment,
refer to ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings. See the USCAN information
box (page 13) to find out how to reach ACEEE. |
A report released in September, 1997 by the US Department
of Energy concludes that the United States can reduce its carbon emissions
to 1990 levels by 2010 using existing technology. The study, which was conducted
jointly by the DOE's five national laboratories, also determined that such
reductions would reduce the nation's energy bill by as much or more than
the cost of implementing these technologies.
The authors caution, however, that such
reductions will require a "vigorous national commitment to develop
and deploy energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies."
The study, entitled "Scenarios of
U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010
and Beyond," documents in detail how four key sectors of the US economy-transportation,
buildings, industry, and electric utilities-could reduce carbon emissions.
The laboratories forecasted the technologies that companies would adopt
and the amount of carbon reduced under each of three strategies.
The first scenario is a policy of targeted
efficiency programs only. These include increased pollution prevention,
advanced end-use |
efficiencies for use in residential and commercial buildings
and industrial processes, and greater mileage efficiency and cleaner automotive
technology in the transportation sector. The second and third scenarios
add a cap-and-trade program for carbon with permit prices of $25 and $50
per metric ton, respectively. The results of this evaluation indicate that
reducing carbon emissions is cost-effective in every case. In other words,
all three strategies save more money than they cost, before giving consideration
to external benefits to the environment and public health.
Although all three strategies will spur
the use and development of cleaner and more efficient technologies, the
study determines that only a carbon cap will make it cost-effective to replace
coal with cleaner generation resources and only when carbon permit prices
rise to $50 per metric ton will companies be likely to make the changes
necessary to reduce US emissions of carbon dioxide to the 1990 level by
2010.
The study concludes that a next generation
of energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies promises to enable the continuation
of an aggressive pace of carbon reductions over the next quarter century
as long as the United States begins a sustained investment in these technologies
now. |
