TURN OFF THE LIGHTS?: Installing better insulation saves more energy than flicking off the lights when you leave the room.
Image: © iStockphoto.com / Eric Hood
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Quick - what's the most effective for you to save energy? If you're like many Americans, you'd say turn out the lights or turn up the AC's thermostat. And, like many Americans, you'd miss the mark.
Turns out, when figuring what we can do to go green, most of us overstate. We think about curtailment—unplugging appliances, driving less, turning off lights—when improving the efficiency of our cars, appliances and home would take the biggest chunk out of our energy footprint.
That's not a surprise to scientists who surveyed 505 Americans on their perceptions of energy consumption and savings. After all, curtailment is pretty easy: Flip a switch. Improving efficiency, on the other hand, requires research, effort, out-of-pocket expense: Does anybody want to buy a new washing machine when what's downstairs works just fine?
The researchers started their survey with a simple open-ended question: What's the single most-effective thing you can do to conserve energy? More than 40 percent of the respondents said one of three things: Turn off lights, drive less or change the thermostat.
Less than 10 percent identified what experts generally agree are the most effective measures - insulate the house or use more efficient appliances or cars.
"When you think about your life, what's really easy to do is turn off the lights when you leave the room," said Shahzeen Attari, the study's lead author and a researcher at Columbia University's Earth Institute and Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.
Researchers note that for many of us, concerns about energy simply are not strong enough, compared to other daily worries, to warrant learning about energy conservation. But raise fuel prices or impose a tax on carbon that reflects its role in climate change and other environmental harm, and the public would have ample incentive to get educated in a hurry.
After all, it was the spike in gas prices in 2008 that brought the auto industry to its knees and triggered some of the nation's sharpest declines in vehicle-miles traveled since recordkeeping began in the 1940s. "With a carbon tax we would see changes," Attari noted. "People are pretty elastic when it comes to the consumption of energy."
What you can do
Let's face it: nobody's going to go out and replace a working hot-water heater or washing machine. And few of us have a few grand lying around to replace our drafty old windows. But there are some easy steps you can take that can effectively cut energy consumption.
Buy your beverages in aluminum cans, not glass bottles: Making a glass bottle requires 1.4 times the energy of an aluminum can when virgin materials are used. Toss recycled materials into the equation and the difference jumps to 20 times as much. In part that's because glass is so heavy.
Change your washer's settings: Most people assume line-drying clothes—a time-consuming process to be sure—saves more energy than using colder water and optimizing loads. In fact the reverse is true.
Cool the room, not the house: Many of us think, incorrectly, that central air uses marginally more energy than a room air conditioner. The reality is it uses 3.5 times as much.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
42 Comments
Add CommentIts a cost issue, both in terms of cash outlay and the time to get the information. Part one can be addressed by grants and tax breaks for suitable improvements, part two by education. Time to throw some money into growing the green economy as a jobs maker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Less than 10 percent identified what experts generally agree are the most effective measures - insulate the house or use more efficient appliances or cars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what of those of us who have insulation and energy efficient appliances already? What is the "proper" opinion?
Replacing my 95% efficiency furnace won't help anything. My newer home with lots of insulation and triple-pan energy-star windows doesn't need more insulation or new windows. My on-demand water heater can't really be improved upon by much. All I can do to improve energy efficiency is use less, turn out lights, drive less, and turn down the thermostat.
So the question is...in this survey did they control for people like me?
What, just one American's opinion? (Check out the title.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this like the "area man" that The Onion is always reporting on? (http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/)
Editors:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Quick - what's the most effective for you to save energy?"
way!
@kfreels,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere are huge numbers of options for increasing efficiency. If you're in any doubt about that I suggest you read some of Amory lovins work. by merely using efficiency tech (most of which is available to consumers like us) he was able to cut one corporations overhead by 70% without reductions in productivity. It's estimated the average american implementing just the off the shelf stuff he employed could cut energy use by fifty percent. Even if that's an overly optimistic projection and most folks could only wring, say, 20% more efficiency out of things that's still a huge improvement. Particularly if it went into wide spread use.
The biggest waste of energy is government and environmental "leaders" telling us to save energy as they and their aides jet around the world by the thousands on luxurious environmental junkets and a princely lifestyle. If everyone in a city of 50,000 people replaced all their appliances and cars it would probably not save enough energy or carbon footprint to replace Al Gore's annual consumption. I worked for 40 years on alternative "green (silly word)" energy projects. Mainly, I observed taxpayer money wasted on endless and useless projects and programs to employ incompetent people doing research, so politicians and bureaucrats could give the illusion that anyone cares. What these people care about is enriching themselves and perpetuating their overpaid jobs and perks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with this article for the most part, and boy would I love to add some insulation and storm windows to my house! But I have some doubts about their transportation perspective. Are you really implying that continuing to drive everywhere, just in a new car with better gas mileage, is more efficient than making your trips by bicycling or taking transit?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author also doesn't factor in the fact that replacing window may significantly improve efficiency but still not make economic sense to the homeowner. A 10 to 15 year or more simple payback doesn't cut it from a financial perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasher and dryer: we replaced an old but still working Maytag with a new front-load washer and matching dryer. Water bill decreased significantly, power bill way down because the washer spins the clothes so dry. Dryer gets done in half the washer cycle. Payout much better than the crummy interest we would get by leaving the money in the bank.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Shvegas... what? People don't live in there homes for 1o or 15 years any more? I think many do, but I agree that government finance programs to make the 10-15 year loans readily available wouldn't hurt! I know in my state there are pretty cheap options (gov subsidized) for adding insulation... so it doesn't all have to be about huge outlays paid back over decades!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoegene.... sure leaders will always be a bit hypocritcal and waste resources... but surely your math is way off... if you add the waste of all governement travel, it is still got to be a drop in the bucket compared to the savings if everyone with older cars/appliances and poor insulation upgraded. So what if Al Gore's house wastes some power... he's far offset that by his global efforts on environmental issues... if you erased him and his house from history, the savings in wasted energy from his house or plane trips wouldn't come close to our loss as a planet from the causes he's supported and awareness he's raised. Get some perspective!
mjmarcus9... I don't think that was the point... it isn't that conserving doesn't do anything, but the gains from expending our time and effort towards conserving are outweighed by the same time/effort expended towards higher efficiencies... since there is a lot of low hanging fruit in that arena... sure if you're like kfreels who apparently already has tapped the efficiency keg... then conservation may be the next hurdle to jump, but for the mass of others out there... efficiencies increase get the most bang for the buck.
tharriss ... unfortunately when you get close to these idols of the environmental movement you see con-men who will destroy the environment for their own personal business profit, while at the same time they are milking the environmental movement for even more cash. If Al Gore is a hero, because he pays lip service to the environment while living a lifestyle that damages the environment, then I would be a hero if I threw trash in my neighbor's yard while I suggested everyone else recycle. Look at how these environmental heroes live and you will find false prophets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the main point of the research that the big conservation efforts are expensive and not available to everyone and that the little conservation efforts, although fairly cheap and easy, don't mean a lot in the total national consumption of fossil fuel. But, now we get to the picking of the bones...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon tax? Sure get us addicted to the only economically viable transportation energy source available to the average working serf (until recently and the price of electric vehicles goes down) then tax us for polluting with the stuff. If we are to have a carbon tax, then the energy policy makers and members of Congress should pay all of our share, personally, from their own well lined pockets. And how are the policy makers going seperate out the very costly efficient homes in regions served primarily by coal and oil power plants from the old and inefficient homes served primarily by non-carbon producing nuclear plants? Carbon tax is a bad policy until alternatives are available.
Elastic with energy consumption? Try telling an over the road tractor trailer driver that. Then show us how that works. Everything we use spent time on a truck and engine efficiency for these rigs has made gains only equivalent to turning off the lights. Although, the newer engines are much cleaner. But I don't see any electric trucks on the horizon either.
Also, how is changing the settings on my carbon generating electric (washer or dryer?) more energy efficient than a solar clothes line, or did I misunderstand that paragraph?
Lastly, cool the room: if a home needs more than about four or five window air conditioners, as the average home probably would, then I can't figure how that conserves energy compared to a central unit. Mr. Attari is more than welcome to suffer the noise of such an installation if he believes strongly enough about energy conservation to test that hypothesis in his home. And let us know how the window unit idea works out at Columbia University and all the other non-residential spaces that account for about 40% of non-transportation energy use.
Mr. Attari, if he even reads this, would do well to reconsider his conclusions from this study.
This article is complete total and utter garbage. It was probably sponsored by GE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have a working appliance that is within its expected life cycle and you replace it for a more efficient newer unit you just threw away a huge quantity of energy.
With the exception of installing new insulaiton, the examples given are all very poor. It takes energy to manufacture my high efficicency appliance, more energy than it will consume over its natual life expectancy.
When the appliance is worn out fure it is better to replace it with the most efficient unit available but if there is still a reasonable life expectancy then premature replacement is a massive waste of energy and resource, unless of coure you work for GE.
Windows actually play a very small role in improving energy efficiency in a real world application due to the extremely long pay-back period. Upgrading your heading system, hot water heater, insulation, and air sealing/caulking of select areas of the home is by far the most effective way to immediately improve energy efficiency in a residential home by 20-30% on average.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out what the Town of Babylon on Long Island NY is doing with their Long Island Green Homes Program: www.ligreenhomes.com
Saving Babylon residents over $1000 per year off utility bills
Here's a real time demonstration of what a government leader can do with a "useless" efficiency program.
The problem here is the researchers, not the public. "Best" or "most effective" way to save energy? What does that mean? Why did they phrase the question with such vague words? If they wanted people to identify what change would save the most energy why didn't they ask that??? I think that the people's answers were pretty good considering how bad the question was. I tend to agree with Dorky, this sounded like it was funded by some manufacturer or consortium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe editing stunk too. "American's incorrect opinion"? Which American was that?
In the Town of Babylon on Long Island NY, 40% of all carbon emissions is created by inefficient residential homes. The best way that they've found to address that issue is through something called the Long Island Green Homes program (www.ligreenhomes.com) which focuses on upgrading the heating system (boiler, furnace, hot water heater), insulation, and air sealing of individual houses in that town. They even finance the work too. Of the 500 homes in the program so far, they're saving $1000 per year per home on average off of people's utility bills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust an example of a successful efficiency program implemented by an active and responsible local government...
"The biggest waste of energy is government and environmental "leaders" telling us to save energy as they and their aides jet around the world by the thousands on luxurious environmental junkets and a princely lifestyle." - GeoTard
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaaa... There are only a few of them and 350 million losers like you who have no sense of proportion.
"I agree with this article for the most part, and boy would I love to add some insulation and storm windows to my house! But I have some doubts about their transportation perspective. " - MimJimbo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor most Americans adding 3 to 4 bags of fiberglass insulation to their attic will reduce their heating bills by 10 percent or so, and their cooling by a few percent as well.
As for getting those 3 to 4 bags home, carry them on your head, rent a taxi, or have them delivered to your home by the store.
Your excuses are not only lame, but they illustrate the American detachment from reality even better than the article does.
" A 10 to 15 year or more simple payback doesn't cut it from a financial perspective." - Lilly pution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink of all them poor Americans for whom this year the decision will be between eating and heating. If only they hadn't adopted your economic philosoply, they wouldn't have had to make that difficult choice.
Improvements in the efficiency of energy consumption are an investment that lowers your daily cost of living the moment the investment is made.
In addition it is an essential part of the philosophy for any moral individual.
"If you have a working appliance that is within its expected life cycle and you replace it for a more efficient newer unit you just threw away a huge quantity of energy." - Flatch
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery true and a very damning statement about the American Economic system in which products are specifically designed to fail and be thrown away rather than designed to be serviced, For replacement provides the manufacturer a means of reaching ever deeper into the American Citizen's pocket.
That economic model can only be justified by consumers who have more money than brains.
America is now bankrupt of course, as is the American Consumer.
Is your intention to continue with the same failed American Economic model?
"Saving Babylon residents over $1000 per year off utility bills" - Whomever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it astonishing that anyone would have a utility bill big enough to cut over $1000 a year.
My yearly utility bills come in at $600 electric, $600 heating.
Total occupancy costs for me come in at around $3,800 per year including home maintainance.
How about you?
And I have a low efficiency furnace.
My weekly gasoline costs are $6 a week for a total commute distance of about 100 miles.
How about you?
"What does that mean? Why did they phrase the question with such vague words?" - ChaChaCha
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause they wanted to make it clear from the context of the question that they were interested in you answering as if you were a mythical average American who would have an average American energy consumption profile and for whom average energy consumption reductions can be grouped in order of priority.
Then again, they might have been testing the reading comprehension of the average American.
As we can see from the responses here - including yours - many Americans would fail the reading comprehension test.
"Best" or "most effective" way to save energy? What does that mean? " - Varmint
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI presume it means the best or most effective way to save energy.
I hope that clears things up for you.
I think we are witnessing here the failure of the American system of education in the area of reading comprehension and general language and thinking skills.
I find it very odd that these American comprehension and thinking skill failures seem to most commonly crop up in discussions of environmental matters.
Sometimes it is almost like you are talking to a barking dog or grunting chimp.
"Elastic with energy consumption? Try telling an over the road tractor trailer driver that. " - Tick Head
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, you see Tick Head... The truck drivers services are not utilized as often when consumption efficiency is improved.
So even his fuel consumption is in fact, elastic.
Most of the Americans have incorrect opinion on most of the issues. That is reflected in majority of the opinion polls. Majority of the americans (more than 50%) side with the wrong group, wrong leader, wrong policy .....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9 "I find it astonishing that anyone would have a utility bill big enough to cut over $1000 a year."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's true. Go to the long island green homes website and validate the data for yourself: www.ligreenhomes.com.
It costs 17 cents per kw hour (minimum) to turn on a light bulb on Long Island, so YES that's why people are seeing such a dramatic savings as a result of an efficiency retrofit.
I also don't think your seemingly arrogant tone will ever accomplish anything from an energy efficiency standpoint so you may consider rethinking that approach if you're actually looking to positively affect some change. :)
vendicar9: theoretically it isnt that big of a stretch for a long island family of 5 living in a moderate to large sized home to save $1,000 per year on their energy bills. Babylon is a town in long island. in long island, many homes were built with the intention of being used as summer vacation homes. as a result, they are poorly insulated; they were intended exclusively for summer use, and were not meant to insulate a family during the winter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you factor in the potential to: (i) make insulation upgrades; (ii) replace older inefficient heating systems; and (iii) to perform air sealing work, i believe $1,000 per year would be a fair and reasonable annual savings estimate as a result of about $8k to $10k of energy saving improvements.
vendicar9: you sound very efficient, and to think that the average person is half as efficient as you seems like a silly assumption to make. theoretically it isnt that big of a stretch for a long island family of 5 living in a moderate to large sized home to save $1,000 per year on their energy bills. Babylon is a town in long island. in long island, many homes were built with the intention of being used as summer vacation homes. as a result, they are poorly insulated; they were intended exclusively for summer use, and were not meant to insulate a family during the winter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you factor in the potential to: (i) make insulation upgrades; (ii) replace older inefficient heating systems; and (iii) to perform air sealing work, i believe $1,000 per year would be a reasonable annual savings estimate as a result of about $8k to $10k of energy saving improvements.
vendicar9: theoretically it isnt that big of a stretch for a long island family of 5 living in a moderate to large sized home to save $1,000 per year on their energy bills. Babylon is a town in long island. in long island, many homes were built with the intention of being used as summer vacation homes. as a result, they are poorly insulated; they were intended exclusively for summer use, and were not meant to insulate a family during the winter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you factor in the potential to: (i) make insulation upgrades; (ii) replace older inefficient heating systems; and (iii) to perform air sealing work, i believe $1,000 per year would be a fair and reasonable annual savings estimate as a result of about $8k to $10k of energy saving improvements.
When did you last see a GLASS bottle? Beverage companies stopped recycling glass and switched to plastic years ago. Aside from a few juices, beverages nowadays seem to be sold in plastic bottles, which is even nastier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an idea: Get stainless steel containers, draw tap water into them, cork up, refrigerate, and voila! Instant (well, almost) bottled water! Glass bottles will do nicely, too--if you're lucky enough to find any that seal up. I've been looking for a long time.
@geogene: So, do you have any documentation to backup the slander of Mr. Gore? I have no investment in him, he's merely a mouthpiece, but if you've got some documentation to show that he's lying when he says the electricity he buys comes from green sources, we'd love to see it. Since my electricity is also purchased 100% from green technology, I feel no compelling need to conserve. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"nobody's going to go out and replace a working hot-water heater"
Hot water heater? Well, there's your problem there. If the water's already hot, why are you heating it? :)
"It's true. Go to the long island green homes website and validate the data for yourself: www.ligreenhomes.com. " - Constructive Joe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't disagree with you. I just find it astonishing that anyone would be so mindless to waste such quantities of energy, and thereby drive their cost of living to such levels.
As I said. More money than brains.
But not anymore....
"Here's an idea: Get stainless steel containers, draw tap water into them, cork up, refrigerate, and voila! Instant (well, almost) bottled water! " - Bongobimbo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very telling that the citizens of the collapsing American state must be told what for everyone else is simple, common sense.
Perhaps there is a connection between such things as social/economic collapse and a detachment from reality.
"Babylon is a town in long island. in long island, many homes were built with the intention of being used as summer vacation homes. as a result, they are poorly insulated; they were intended exclusively for summer use, and were not meant to insulate a family during the winter. " - ol Jeff
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live near there, my home is 60 years old, and was not insulated.
I've made some effort to improve the efficiency of the building, with the money saved going toward - shock and awe - improving the efficiency of the building.
The results are as I have claimed. It's only rocket scientists to the ignorant.
We have fixed the typo in the headline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking a glass bottle requires 1.4 times the energy of an aluminum can when virgin materials are used. Toss recycled materials into the equation and the difference jumps to 20 times as much. In part that's because glass is so heavy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why is the deposit for both aluminum and glass the same?
Change your washer's settings: Most people assume line-drying clothes—a time-consuming process to be sure—saves more energy than using colder water and optimizing loads. In fact the reverse is true.
Then why does washing in hot water recommended to avoid MRSA?
Cool the room, not the house: Many of us think, incorrectly, that central air uses marginally more energy than a room air conditioner. The reality is it uses 3.5 times as much.
Then why am I using a 50 amp fuse for my central A/C but a 15 amp fuse for my window A/C?
Lots of individuals complain that the investment in greener technology is not worth the cost. That the time to recuperate is far to long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a living example of real world benefit and cost savings.
6 years ago I replaced my 17mpg Mitsubishi Montero that had 177,000 mile on it with a new 2005 Prius and I started to average 45mpg.
I did the math which included the cost of routine maintenance, any repairs I had to make to the vehicle, The Tax Credit I received and the amount that my auto insurance dropped after replacing a 7 year old car with a new one. Yes it dropped for my Prius compared to the older SUV. The I did an average of the cost of Gas over each year.
The Car cost me just over $26,000 fully loaded with 50,000 pre-paid maintenance and a 5 year windshield warranty.
I drive 84 Mile round trip to work each day.
I did the math one night about a year ago.
http://flic.kr/p/71ViDW
I have since paid off the car and continue to reap the saving which totals about 7 car payments per year.
The car paid for itself in roughly the same amount of time it took to pay off the loan. Now I continue the savings with no car payment.
The car has never had a serious problem. The only repairs I have had are from catching a piece of tire that flew off an 18 wheeler and hit the grill, which was a $20 plastic piece and a strut assembly that had a ruptured seal after hitting a massive pot hole in the rain. The Windshield insurance was awesome. I have received 3 new windshields under the warranty with $0 out of pocket which netted me an additional $650 in savings.
I plan to run this Prius into the ground. The condition is still good as new on the interior with barely any noticeable wear on the outside. This is the best quality of car I have ever had in 20+ years. The reliability is unbelievable and the quality of the manufacturing and components is unmatched.
Here is an energy saving idea that would help with "green" issues as well as save resources, money for the consumer and it would add weight to the research of technical solutions option. We need automobiles that use only renewable energy from sources that are available most anywhere to most everyone. If, for instance, your car could be charged from sunlight, powered with water or anything that simple, then we would all eventually own one. The impact on the environment would be substancial and conservation would never be an issue. Yes, it would change the economy and affect large money-making corporations and who knows to what effect? However, the entire planet's ecology would be the beneficiary for generations to come. We could actually leave a cleaner planet for our descendents and it would improve the health of every living thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet the oil industry and polititions out of the equation and do what really makes good sense. To justify an industry that does so much harm to so many things is not good sense and we all know it. Put the brightest minds to solving the issues that offer the most health to what is living and you will have achieved making good sense...
"Flipping off the lights is not the best way to save energy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this****************
This is so very true, and something I learned quite a few years ago when I first started off-grid living. Those of us producing all of our own power, and not relying upon someone else or power lines coming to the house, know all too well about using and abusing energy.
Without a doubt, it's all about the kind of lighting device you have, and not about the switch which controls that light. I've heard so many negative comments about green lighting and renewable energy, and I've learned it's all about the disconnect switch between their brains and mouths, since they appear to be more content spewing lip service through and ideology than reducing our energy needs through more efficiency.
Interesting results! I believe a major education effort is needed to help people conserve energy. Many of us conserve because we have educated ourselves!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphasered and PrescottSmall: Some of the most cogent thoughts here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy vote goes for sustainably produced hydrogen for transportation fuel. We know how to make it, most internal combustion engines can be converted to run on it, no new technology needs to be invented to start building engines designed to run on it, hybrid cars would be even more green if running on it, we know how to store it in metal hydride tanks, and it is safer in an accident than gasoline or diesel.
Sustainably and safely produced on site, by solar or wind during the day, it could be stored for home and business use in fuel cells when sun and/or wind aren't available.
This is not an endgame strategy, just a transitional tactic. The endgame strategy will come when cogeneration frees us serfs from domination by the lords of the hydrocarbon kingdom. We will always have a need for large scale power generation, but we have the technology now to reduce oil production to lubrication and material manufacturing purposes only, elimating their use for the major greenhouse gas producers: transportation and power.
I don't deny that initial costs will limit the potential for this tactic, or that established interests will fight the implimentation, and that our representatives will have difficulty agreeing on how to promote it. But a sustainably produced hydrogen powered cogeneration system is the only practical, viable, and technologically feasable way to a cleaner environment without sacrificing the life style to which we have become accustomed.
When I insulated my home in 1986, national standards required 4cm of polystyrene for the altitude, climate and wall thickness of our house. I repeated the thermal calculations done by the National Standards Institue and found them to be correct for all areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, in 2010, national satndards require 20cm outside and 30cm inside. Is this because of climate change?