No leader in energy efficiency, Department of Energy fails energy audit

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Employees at the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) appear to be ignoring their own energy-saving advice. The agency, which is authorized to spend $16.8 billion of the federal stimulus within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy alone, failed a recent inspector general energy efficienty audit, notes The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog today.

The audit, which surveyed seven of the agency's major sites, detailed the DoE's "efforts to manage information technology resources in an energy-efficient and environmentally responsible manner." It found that the agency was squandering enough energy on unnecessary IT to power 2,400 homes for a year, at a cost of more than $1.5 million. 

Simple steps such as turning off computer monitors when they're not in use, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests, weren't being followed at any of the National Energy Technology Laboratory computers, and about half of the computer monitors at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee were set to stay on for 48 hours when not in use—144 times longer than EPA recommendations.

As the WSJ notes, the audit "highlights one of the toughest challenges in curbing energy usage:" changing peoples' habits. A study earlier this year estimates that nationwide, workers waste $2.8 billion in energy costs just by leaving their computers on when they leave work.

Department of Energy seal courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe