1) People are resistant to change, even if it is positive change.

2) People do not think long term.

#2 is especially apparent; we see it everywhere... from people getting buried in credit card debt, to the wild swings in the stock market, to the US government spending money as if it will never have to be paid back.

I wish I knew how to stop it.

Edit: Due to continued uncertainty, both people and companies, are thinking in smaller increments of time.

In your particular situation, I think if you were to trim your presentation to the benefits that could be gained in a quarter, rather than over the life of the company, (or even a year), you might have better luck.

US government spending money as if it will never have to be paid back.
We need to just stop paying taxes.

True! Any money saved or realized from any government driven efficiency initiatives will just be another revenue source for them to draw from! It is the public that always carry the load and therefore suffers!

Fuels costs - like gasoline prices that supposed to go down and stabilize when diluted with 10% ethanol, its energy content went down but the prices continuously soars!

'....Any money saved or realized from any government driven efficiency initiatives...'

.

Ha! That's a good one.

We tried not paying taxes on money we didn't earn or receive. The IRS sent us a nasty notice for unpaid taxes to the tune of $20,000 plus another $5,000 in penalties and interest. Turns out, a company my wife was working for accidentally put her social security number on someone else's 1099-MISC.

Of course with the IRS, you are guilty until proven innocent. No other government agency is as motivated and dedicated as the IRS.

Why Is Energy Efficiency Such A Hard Sell?

Well because when its efficient or that its conserves and is green, especially if the government mandates it, no one trusts its true efficiency.

Does the low flush toilet ring a bell.

I think the name of this article should have been,

.

'What are we trying so hard to sell?'

.

If the costs and benefits were close to what is being claimed, wind energy would sell itself.

.

.

'...Given that energy efficiency was the best deal of all, the question becomes why is energy efficiency such a hard sell? Why are we not seeing electrical energy consumers lining up to implement savings?....'

.

The answer is obvious. The premise is wrong. Wind energy is not clearly the outright best deal.

They aren't 'lining up to implement savings' because the savings are not available for implementation.

Wind energy is heavily subsidized. I can see having government intervention to develop new energy sources. But how it is selling it, such as wind energy has a smaller carbon foot print, is BS. And the ones saying that usually is putting money in the bank from it.

Huge inefficiencies and waste are created via the market distortions of subsidies. Those distortions make things far more expensive for everyone.

Subsidies are layered so deeply, removing subsidies to put all tech on an even field would be huge complicated undertaking.....and would likely yield such huge benefits as to put up back into a golden age....

Well the point I was getting at, technology has to be developed. Government is the best way for this to happen if it weren't so poiticalized or profit taking by the political insiderrs.

But the actually carbon footprint wind energy has is currently quite large, and this surprises allot of people, but as it develops it may come down....... if we can get the middle man hands out of the government subsidies.

Subsidy is a complicated issues.........

Agriculture may suffer,..... for a while, but it would weed out the inefficient farms and the corporate farms that farms the government.

As for as you first response, it's no different than the rural electrification program. The government pick up the tab to create the infrastructure and or development heavy r&d and have private industry take it over or least it from the government.

As far as your second response, when I wrote that I had Al gore in mind. And with this current administration imo that believes that government can do better than the private sector, I believe we are inline with this.......

I will agree that some projects and processes are more conveniently managed via government.

.

Electrical distribution, roadways, potable water distribution, sewer, and garbage collection candidates that might lend themselves easily to being government managed/involvement.

.

Power generation is not as strong of a candidate for government management/involvement.

Technical Development?

Examples abound of technical development resulting from government efforts.

.

In itself, that is insufficient to conclude 'Government is the best way to make it (technical development) happen'.

.

Determining which 'way' would be 'the best to make it happen' requires the comparison of evaluations for qualities deemed vital for 'best-ness' ^(sorry)of Government and other competing 'ways'.

.

I have never seen any compelling comparison suggesting 'Government is the best way to make' technical development happen. Which is not proof that some don't exist. I am being completely straight-forward when I say that I am very interested on any good research or even well developed conjecture to that end.

.

I think decent studies would be difficult to perform in this area. Even determining what is and isn't included as 'technical development is no small task and fraught with possibilities of introducing significant bias.

.

That the idea of 'technology' often shares characteristics commonly attributed to the more inclusive idea of 'culture', such as being dynamic, cumulative, passed through language, evolving to adapt to selective pressures (though usually not in a genetic way) and being learned and integral to social structure but not inherited;..... along with the reality that technology often does not obey territorial boundaries; make it incredibly difficult to evaluate the causes in changes in technical development.

.

It is incredibly difficult to know to any useful degree of certainty what actual opportunity costs were incurred. The Apollo program certainly developed technology, and I thought Tang was great when I was very young, but it is difficult to know what technical development would have taken place had those funds been left with the people....i.e. had people invested the funds in other ways.

Ding! You win the prize!

The OP comments also overlook the huge difference between baseline generation that HAS to be there, and peak / flexible generation.
Last I knew, the wind is unreliable, but people always want the lights on.

The OP uses the 1st paragraph to introduce his question by telling us what he read that prompted his question and you have interpreted his entire premise to be about wind energy.

He stated the article's comparison of conservation vs. wind vs. coal and, states that conservation is the best of the 3, then asks why conservation is a hard sell. I think you are missing his point and inserting your own.

I don't think your point is wrong, just not the right question.

Hey its a big topic......... nothing wrong with breaking into smaller more manageable topics instead of using a bigger paint brush

I did kind of trigger on the slanted wind power cost comparison and not the energy efficiency statement. Regardless of his claim that the purpose of the article is 'energy efficiency' the claims about wind power still deserve addressing.

.

My response doesn't really change for 'energy efficiency' as opposed to 'wind power'. I looked back and you can simple replace 'wind power' in each place I wrote it, with 'power efficiency', and it still hold true.

I do appreciate the feedback.

The reason (I perceive) that the low cost/no cost programs are not taken up is the very reason that you can see them so obviously.

That is, what is obvious to you may not be so obvious to them. I've seen some "no cost" programs that (from an engineering standpoint) were perfectly justified but the routines that people had developed, the "learned redundancy" and behaviour patterns would return and the effort invested was quickly lost.

I've see A/C units turned on at 6am in spring "just in case" it was a warm day. I've seen production lines "lit up" at start of shift and even though not used that week, left on until closing time and then dilligently turned off. (Even when the lights were switched off on that line at lunchtime by an energy conscious observer, the staff would turn them back on when they returned from lunch.) I've seen workshop lights turned on early morning and left burning all, even when the work crews are in the field. The benefits, while able to be quantified, in a business sense are difficult to guarantee.

I have also though seen some success stories, like A/C units that were on timers and needed to "push the button" outside office hours to activate and office systems with motion sensors linked to lighting.

For instance, today, I was the first to enter this office and my "swipe" card de-activated the security system, turned on the foyer lights, activated the air circulation fans (but not the A/C) and essentially "opened the building for business". Tonight, the last person out will swipe three times to reverse all those steps, including turing all interior lighting off, A/C systems and so on.

On the other matter of alternate energy, I would suggest that it's moved past "novelty" stage and into infancy. The take-up of opportunities is accelerating and like the automobile or the VCR did in the past, the social affordability is reaching deeper into the social strata and in a few years it will be the norm for most families to be directly involved in these alternate sources. (And I think a little like the GM/Ford/Toyota/Nissan rivalry there may very well be solar/wind/tidal/hydro rivalry in that market.)

Energy efficiency is a hard sell because one must give up something to achieve it. And, no matter how efficient we get, we'll eventually use up the nonrenewable resources because the population is continually increasing. Recycling is probably more important than efficiency. And, it's got to be cost effective or very few will recycle. As the population grows and the available material for making products declines, then recycling will be the norm. And, as the population grows, energy use per capita will decrease because of economics.

I believe a new, economical; source of energy will evolve due to demand. I hope it happens within my lifetime. However, it better happen pretty quick cause I don't have a lot of time left.

Have some fun today,

PAPADOC

RMFR

All projects should be analyzed from the time the project materials come from the earth to when they go back to the earth - PAPADOC

'... And, as the population grows, energy use per capita will decrease because of economics....'

.

Although this seems like the logical conclusion, it is not a foregone conclusion.

.

In recent history we haven't seen a meaningful decrease in world per capita energy use over any significant period.

.

The possibility exists that we may never see that.

Levelizing the costs of alternative or intermittent energy with conventional or dispatched energy costs will somewhat skew the conservation projection. Dispatched energy refers to energy that can be turned off or tuned by an operator to meet demand. Intermittent energy of wind may be producing energy during the night when low demand periods are in place. The same for solar which is only available during daylight hours but at least they are peak hours. Where I live there are three rates that show up on my bill; off peak would be the lowest rate, peak hours are the highest rate, and a grey zone that is in between. Day hours 9-5 are peak, night hours are off peak.

The second factor is that when wind energy is generating power, that generation is done so at the sacrifice of a cheaper convention dispatched source. The wind energy cannot be shut done.

Now as far as conservation, money talks. If someone wants to charge me more for power during daytime, I will try to use what I need in the evening hours. I will shut off lights and other HVAC system when not required in my home. Many industries need the reliable energy during peak hours and that may affect decisions of production. Smelters for example may close down if energy costs or reliability suffer. Wind for the most part is only competitive because of the politics and subsidization provided. Read my referred article link from MIT for more detail.

To cut down the electric bill, management brought in an electrician to remove half of the florescent lighting. The energy bill did not go down. Next thermostat settings were raised during the summer and the electric bill went up.

It turns out that there were electric heaters in the ducting system to adjust temperatures in local zones and that the air conditioner could not be throttled back.

Bottom line: Management spent a great deal of money and all they got was increased energy bills and lower productivity due to low lighting.

Renewables May Cause Net Increase in Emissions

Energy efficiency, conservation, and load management seems a hard sell because it has no glamour. It can be invisible to the majority of workers because it blends in to the background of regular activity. There's usually no monument to point to and name "energy efficiency and conservation". It is hard to justify and sell big efforts or expenditures for something that fades from view so quickly unless the resulting payback is very noticeable by bean counting upper management.

I do think companies are phasing in more efficiency with new capital expenditures, but they won't replace expensive equipment just to conserve energy. Likewise, companies won't spend big on facility upgrades just to conserve energy, but may implement more efficient hardware as it is naturally replaced. These things also fade into the background of normal operations.

So, was the sell so hard, or is it just that the purchase is not so noticeable?

Energy efficiency, conservation, and load management seems a hard sell because it has no glamour.

I am designing a expansion at one of our plants and using high effienct motors as well as effective design applications.

Savings, are about $500,000.00/ year and being more productive on top of it.

Saving $ sounds pretty good to me.

Which supports my point that New stuff gets energy efficiency built in. I would bet that the energy efficiency factor becomes background noise after a few years or less.

Replacing old, but working equipment and facilities just for more energy efficiency is much more rare. I'll also bet that as motors in the older areas of your plant need replacement the new ones are more efficient models as well.

Yes, $500,000/ year is a good return. Would your company spend that this year on upgrades to existing "adequate" equipment to see the savings next year?

Replacing old, but working equipment and facilities just for more energy efficiency is much more rare. I'll also bet that as motors in the older areas of your plant need replacement the new ones are more efficient models as well.

I did an analysis on upgrading our existing cooling water, thought it would be a good idea to establish a reference point with the existing pumps.

about 2400 GPM, and increasing it to 9000 GPM

Pumps where putting out 115 PSI, my systems curve only required about 70PSI, tried to determine the pumps out put, that are hooked into parallel, and came to the conclusions that they each had a different impeller diameter. We were throwing away about $100,000.00 /year just on this single ineffiecency........ yet, we were still very profitable.

It's like trying to sell food as a medicine. Popping pills is so much easier than changing lifestyle. The current coal-driven "grid" is there. No need to bother with any changes -- as kramarat said. These forces aren't benign. Protecting business interests is innate in capitalism/free enterprise. Are we really so naive that we think that energy companies for the current paradigm aren't on the other side, arguing how difficult and impractical "green" is? And they, likely, do so under a pseudonym, while touting their support for "green" in PR commercials.

On a somewhat cynical side, I think about marketing of other products and wonder if some existing models might be tried. First you need some "character" to promote it, like an Australian lizard, for instance, or a clown with a large ping-pong ball head. You also need people who can give emotional and believable "testimonials," even if the fine print below it says, "paid actor." And the product delivered needs to be viable at $19.95. Double the order if they call in the next 20 minutes.

When it comes to wind power, most people don't know enough about it. Why? Plans need to be clarified and demonstrated. Most don't know if the biggest push is behind generators for individual homes, neighborhoods, or municipalities, etc. And as part of the marketing, one would want to show the actual steps in the implementation and how it really isn't such a big deal at all -- if that is the case. Based on the size I've seen in pictures for some wind farms, it isn't trivial against the horizon. But, there again, why people will tolerate billboards and other "messy" objects against a skyline is inconsistent. Noise has also been a complaint by some who live near wind generators.

The presentation has to address all of the negative points that can be raised against it and still have it come out a plus argument. Reverse mortgages are marketed by personalities and the presentation made via a free DVD. I just don't think there's been enough of an effort to do the same for alternative energy sources. And it might be that a good case can't be made yet. Cost would seem like the only reason one would need to make a switch, but the "how" is huge. People have to be led through the process so they can see how it would be done in their situation, a la "This Old House."

If there are good cases with very happy "customers" (could be a neighborhood or small town, etc.) with testimonials to present, then a good presentation should be relatively easy. Exposure and/or distribution is then the final issue to address -- and who foots the bill for the marketing campaign.

The debate is still ongoing about wind power. Business interests need to be considered in the presentation. After all, they are the ones ponying up money (aside from subsidies) to promote and offer support. Support is something all consumers ask themselves on any product. Will the company/industry be there in 10, 20, or more years from now? Who will service the product? I just found an article in Forbes that is doomsday about the industry. It may or may not be true, but it is published where it will be seen by those very business interests that can make or break a product.

The case made needs to be closer to a "no brainer" decision after viewing a good presentation. I haven't seen one yet -- especially attempting broad coverage. If T. Boone Pickens wasn't so successful at making the case for natural gas, which is an accepted source of energy, you can believe that wind is going be harder because of the need to make the kind of presentation that "WOWS." I'd love to see that for any viable alternative energy source. It's hard to believe no one has a good case to present. So how does a Pickens get a hearing on national TV and yet proponents of other, practical sources, such as passive solar design, don't? Is there a bias? Again, I don't know, but it begs the question.

Another model to consider is how Germany convinced so many of their citizens that solar was the way to go. I don't know how they did it, but they are a leader in that regard. Maybe there is, also, truth to a "European" mentality that happens to more easily see the long-term benefit of decreasing dependence on non-renewable resources.

Any number of readers/posters here on CR4 could probably think of doable passive energy home designs. (There have been numerous books about it for decades.) I've asked the question before, why isn't there much effort to build structures like that in the home-building industry? If we are really serious about energy efficiency, that is the first and most basic place to start. Again, presentation matters and there must be forces against it, too. If people had "model" homes that demonstrated how much less the energy costs could be with proper design, who in their right mind wouldn't want to save on energy costs, as long as the home was similar to other, less efficient, designs? (And a good presentation on DVD or other media, would include such a "visit.) It's no different than car gas mileage. If a home can be demonstrated to be self-sufficient in that regard, who doesn't dream of being "off the grid" and independent? Sign me up for one. Show me one and/or a good presentation of how to get there. I don't recall seeing such a "model" among any builder's models I've visited. But my memory and observational skills haven't always been optimal. I just might have missed it. Others here might have had a different experience.

I would argue (and have) that the whole paradigm of "community" should be revisited. Just like passive energy design in homes, there is certainly a better model of the idea, making transportation (as in commuting and shopping) an integral part of the design for efficiency. Talk about big change! Implementing it as a "retrofit" might be a very tough sell. Again, how do you make the case and walk people through the process? We are pretty much creatures of lethargy/status quo. If what we have is working for us, most of us resist change, even if it can be show to be much better in the long run. The problem with those ideas is we always see them as "some day." In the U.S. we also have to struggle against individual thinking vs. collective, communal thinking. It's why commuter lanes on freeways aren't used as much as they could be. People here like their independence. Too often it is in a selfish way. But self-reliance for energy needs should appeal to that mentality.

I'd love to see a good case presented on any nationally televised prime-time program. I don't know if it would gain any traction. People have become skeptical of almost all "green" energy. Not in a vacuum. Whatever the motives by critics, the ideas do get attacked. Most of the public is convinced alternative energy is still a "some day" thing.

I guess the implied question behind the post I made was, "What's wrong with this picture?" Government/Corporate collusion, wherein it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends, is a major factor in systemic failure. (I saw one part of the solution last night on The Colbert Report - Bitcoin. video is at bottom of page. As a bonus, -- depending on your sense of humor -- here's another segment from the same show. It's actually a bit gross, but I love the satire of the insanity behind many TV products. A friend from my youth would say, "Millions of years of evolution and THIS is what we get??")

You're probably right about price decreases. It is possible that if we all got the bug and somehow decreased our usage by half, the price/kWh might increase to make up for the lower demand. (Hey, isn't that economics turned upside down?!)

We keep hearing about the dangers of European style socialism, and we keep hearing about runaway capitalism...as if those are our choices.

What it boils down to, is that when the leaders of any system have been taken by self serving corruption, both will fail.

When leaders have a moral compass, and genuinely seek to serve the people that voted for them, both can succeed.

The US constitution stands apart, because it addresses the darkness of human nature, and the ugliness that comes with power.

In the words of one of our great musical statesmen, "I'll second that emotion."

'...When leaders have a moral compass, and genuinely seek to serve the people....'

.

^{snicker snicker snicker...}

No, I get it. I catch myself doing it sometimes too.

It's fun to pretend.

If it weren't for pretending, my optimism might get so out of shape from disuse, it might fail me should a real situation arise in which optimism were warranted.

It is not so much addiction but you can use that word. I call governments and all the civil servants the new Mafia. The only people rewarded for collecting more money are the civil servants, the new gangsters along with the new Dons, their political leaders.

I read an article somewhere that power company's don't want their customers to reduce consumption. This directly controls their profits, up to the point where they can supply the demand. They have no incentive to want the consumer to reduce the consumption. Only in markets where the supply is limited would it be beneficial to the power company to reduce the demand to just within their capabilities.

For several years now, I've been threatening to start a thread about how to reduce US residential electricity consumption by 20% or more.

I haven't bothered, because I know it would never be adopted. I'll just put the basic idea here. I came up with it while thinking about the money that evaporated into Solyndra.

It's a simple concept...

A government sponsored lottery. Each year, 1000 households would receive a check for $10,000, tax free. The winners would be chosen along the lines of total reduction in consumption, based on established usage. There would have to be some rules to prevent cheating, but it would be easy to implement, easy to track, and we would have an entire nation competing for the prize every year. If it ran for 5 years only, attitudes would be changed.

If successful, something similar could be adopted for businesses.

It would literally change the way Americans look at electricity and our habits, and it would cost a fraction of what we have wasted on failed "green energy" projects.

But alas, it would never happen.

But if you did it that way, all you would get is lower energy consumption.

Where would the kick backs into political campaigns come from?

There's not much interest in conservation, only changing out the source.

The money's gotta keep on flowing.

'...Where would the kick backs into political campaigns come from?...'

.

Don't fret. The money come in the same way....kickbacks from the recipients rigged to receive to the various giveaways.

The same thing happened in the Bay area of Ca. many years ago. They rationed water, gave fines to those using more water and raised the cost to the public. I was always a water conservationist, but they cut my usage even further to the point where I was getting less water than someone who did not conserve and I had to pay more. Usage was based on the previous consumption rate.

I personally am not "lining up to conserve " for a couple of reasons. The biggest being the fact that it does not make any sense (or if you like puns 'cents')

I happen to have my electric bill in hand - I used $70.10 worth of electricity. However my electric bill is $105.23. You are right that I can sacrifice my comfortable sleeping conditions, or perhaps hang more laundry and use the dishwasher less, and if I suffer enough I may save $14 but still owe $95!

My elec bill itemizes the following: 1.Customer Usage, 2.Customer Charge, 3.Distribution, 4.Consumer Education Charge, 5.Solar requirements Charge, 6.Default service support charge, 7.Non utility generation charge, 8.Smart meter charge, 9.state tax surcharge

Of these 9 charges I can control the cost of 1... Seems to me there are a lot of pensions counting on me to use as much electricity as I can afford.

You could bet that if I could find a way to make my whole city uber- efficient there would be a mandatory 'minimum service charge' imposed.

Kind of like the water bill...Don't get me started.

GA! So if you were to sacrifice 20% of your comfort you will net a savings of 13% off your bill.

One could make the argument that electricity in the home is used solely for convenience and creature comforts (lighting, appliances, HVAC, etc.) of which human kind survived for thousands of years without. I personally do not want to go back to the days before electricity or even move in that direction.

My son is looking to buy a house on the eastern shore of Maryland. In Denton, MD, if you have city water, the base charge is 12,000 gallons per month whether you use it or not. You just go up from there. Not much incentive to conserve now is it?

Like you say, when the fixed charges become a significant percentage of the cost, there is a discentive to conserve because you generally have to sacrifice something, whether it is convenience, comfort, or capital costs ($$).

'corporatocracy' oil and the 'fed' run our government....conspiracy theory...politicians are paid off by the banking moguls to pass crap that further restricts our rights...Wikepedia took it's page offline, Google says it's foilhat stuff... WATCH the video at 'thrivemovement.com', watch the whole damn thing, watch it even though you don't believe SOME of the things presented, or even if you don't believe ALL of the things presented. Interviews with people whose names you will recognise and whose positions you may not agree with. I guarantee you will be better informed. You may even change your views. You may realize how much smoke has been blown up your ass....locally....nationally. You may even choose to join the movement.

informative, but who cares? Our politicians voted to bail them out in 2008, we must be willing to be milked.

Yeah! Way to tell it like it is! Way to stand up and be heard! Way to make people realize someone is not afraid to speak out for what is right.

Way to go ANONYMOUS POSTER. Way to demonstrate you aren't afraid to stand behind your ideas!

is that an oxymoron sarcasm.