This post is slightly off-topic for this blog, but I think that it’s important. The issue is whether the Presidential candidates have a good enough grasp of the scientific issues, or have good enough science advisors, to make effective policy. Today I’ll be focusing on Barack Obama and his plans for energy efficiency. All position statements are taken directly off of his website.

While Obama has many sub-issues related to energy and the environment on that page, the one I’ll be focusing on is this idea:

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

First off, energy efficiency is important. Remember the 3 R’s? Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order. By improving energy efficiency we are reducing the amount of energy consume, and that’s a good thing. But what does a reduction of 50% mean? If we look at the Wikipedia entry for energy efficiency, it gives an example of a computer power supply. It says that a typical power supply is about 70-75% efficient. This mean that for every 100 units of energy flowing into the power supply from the wall socket, about 75 units are actually usefully used, and the other 25 units are lost as heat.

But if this unit is already 75% efficient, how do we increase its efficiency by 50%? Since nothing can have an efficiency above 100%, perhaps we can’t improve this particular device. The power supply is probably not a good example. The same Wikipedia article states that “[i]n general, up to 75% of the electricity used in the U.S. today could be saved with efficiency measures that cost less than the electricity itself.” So overall, we could probably increase efficiency by up to 75% - but not for each specific device.

Saying we’re going to increase energy efficiency by X% sounds good, but it has to be on a device-dependent basis. Because when you say you want to increase the efficiency by 50% of something that already has an efficiency of greater than 50% it just makes you look silly. This is not to say that Obama has said this, and I recognize the need for broad ideas in a national campaign, but I hope his science/energy advisor(s) are aware of this.

Now let’s look at the sub-issues of energy efficiency.

• Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

First, I think National building codes are a bad idea. The California area around the San Andreas Fault is very susceptible to earthquakes, and as such has building codes that make the building more likely to stand in the event of a large quake. The codes require engineering techniques that cost more money, and in areas that are not earthquake prone, such as Florida, the additional safety added is outweighed by the extra cost.

Obama does say he wants National building codes, but instead he wants building efficiency goals. A goal is a nice thing, but in terms of government, it means nothing. Goals are words sprinkled about so that the population thinks you’re doing something. Or in the case of political candidates, think you’re going to do something when elected. Even if Obama is elected, and he establishes these new goals, and we somehow are on track to meet them, he can be in office a maximum of 8 years. That means there will be another President before his goals can be met. Another President means another set of goals - perhaps counterproductive to the ones set by Obama. We don’t need more goals of what we want to get done, we need laws (codes) that set forth rules of what needs to get done.

Secondly, buildings cannot be carbon neutral. It’s impossible, unless you use “carbon credits”, of which I am not a fan. But I’ll save my carbon credits rant for another day. Let’s say you build a building that requires very little energy. In fact, it requires so little energy that it can be fully powered by photovoltaic solar cells on the roof, and that it’s excess energy can somehow be stored to use at night. In essence, once this building is constructed it is carbon neutral. However, it’s construction and eventual demolition will not be carbon neutral.

There are several ways that a building can be framed. Two of the more common are using steel and wood. The production of steel requires vast amounts of energy, and emits a large amount of carbon. So if you are going to make a steel-framed building, there is no way that it will be carbon neutral. (This ignores any electricity “trading” that could occur from the roof PV cells to others.) The other option, wood, is a little better. By cutting down trees to make the lumber used in a wood-framed building, carbon is emitted into the atmosphere (or equivalently less carbon is absorbed). This makes the building of wood-framed buildings a carbon source. The solution to this problem is simple though. It requires the loggers to practice good logging techniques that replace the trees that they cut down. Whether the planting of trees that were logged actually reduces the net carbon emissions to zero is unknown by me.

• Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.

This is a good idea. I know that the city of Tucson has been giving awards to citizens that put solar panels on their properties. However, these grants are not enough to economically justify the installation of the solar cells by the homeowner. If the Federal government was able to increase the amount of the award, it may stimulate homeowners to install most PV cells. For more on my thoughts on solar power see: Tom Hansen (TEP): Watt Choices for the Future, and Blog Action Day: Solar Power for the World.

• Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

I don’t know what a “Digital Smart Grid” is, but I know that “digital” and “smart” poll well. This doesn’t really give me a good idea of what exactly it’s going to do. Therefore, I conclude that this is included only for political reasons.

(1 votes, average: 1 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Related Posts:

Trackback URI |