5 ms·

> Energy efficiency is a bad substitute for clean energy. We desperately need vast amounts of clean, emission free energy We need both.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
And in the long run, energy efficiency is the thing we need. In a more distant future, we'll be able to use energy to clean up the damage from using a dirty energy source. When that's possible, when you'll be able to wrap full cleanup costs into EROI, then "clean energy" will only mean "more efficient energy source".
kortilla 6y ago
Not really. Once we’re on renewables we can just let market pricing wipe out things that aren’t efficient enough to be worth it. Efficiency gains affect only tiny slices that are outpaced just by growth. They serve to be nothing more than a distraction for intelligent people to sink their time on and feel helpful when they are not. Clean energy works and the solutions are simple but difficult to implement because it has to be replicated all over in the face of politics and NIMBYs. Efficiency gains are a waste of time but they are attractive to engineers in various industries because they are intellectually challenging and narrow enough to be easily implemented.
- tgv 6y ago
  > Once we’re on renewables we can just let market pricing wipe out things that aren’t efficient enough to be worth it. Only if there is something that can compete on efficiency and price. And transitioning to renewable/sustainable energy becomes easier if consumption is lower.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Some from column A, some from column B. The important thing is to apply the efficiency counterpart of Amdahl's law and target the efficiency improvements first at elements which make up a large part of consumption. Turning off mobile chargers? Optimising PNGs? They're not a large part of consumption in the first place, so it makes no difference. Switching all lightbulbs away from incandescent has made a huge difference.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  The less energy we use, the faster we can be on renewables.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

And in the long run, energy efficiency is the thing we need. In a more distant future, we'll be able to use energy to clean up the damage from using a dirty energy source. When that's possible, when you'll be able to wrap full cleanup costs into EROI, then "clean energy" will only mean "more efficient energy source".

kortilla 6y ago

Not really. Once we’re on renewables we can just let market pricing wipe out things that aren’t efficient enough to be worth it. Efficiency gains affect only tiny slices that are outpaced just by growth. They serve to be nothing more than a distraction for intelligent people to sink their time on and feel helpful when they are not. Clean energy works and the solutions are simple but difficult to implement because it has to be replicated all over in the face of politics and NIMBYs. Efficiency gains are a waste of time but they are attractive to engineers in various industries because they are intellectually challenging and narrow enough to be easily implemented.

tgv 6y ago
> Once we’re on renewables we can just let market pricing wipe out things that aren’t efficient enough to be worth it. Only if there is something that can compete on efficiency and price. And transitioning to renewable/sustainable energy becomes easier if consumption is lower.
pjc50 6y ago
Some from column A, some from column B. The important thing is to apply the efficiency counterpart of Amdahl's law and target the efficiency improvements first at elements which make up a large part of consumption. Turning off mobile chargers? Optimising PNGs? They're not a large part of consumption in the first place, so it makes no difference. Switching all lightbulbs away from incandescent has made a huge difference.
boomlinde 6y ago
The less energy we use, the faster we can be on renewables.