Energy efficiency is an easy concept to explain. And you would think that producing more widgets for the same amount of energy would be an easy sell. Armory Lovins, CEO of the rocky mountain institute describes energy efficiency as “generally the largest, least expensive, most benign, most quickly deployable, least visible, least understood, and most neglected way to provide energy services” in his paper Energy End-Use Efficiency.
The American council for an energy efficient economy (ACEEE) Describes that investments in energy efficiency are highly cost-effective. At a cost of $0.03 per kilowatt-hour saved improvements (or nega-watt) in energy efficiency are significantly more profitable that creating new buildings are making new power plants.
I’m not writing to convince the reader that energy efficiency measures benefit both the wallet and the environment. Bu there is a serious disconnect in the practicality of energy efficiency measures and its viability. I believe there are two reasons why an institution would want to become more energy efficient. First and most obvious is monetary. The company wants to cut costs so it decides to change its lighting fixtures. The second is for marketing a PR reasons.
Fenway park has a bunch of green initiatives that has allowed the park to save money. But you have got to wonder if the cost savings are even a small percentage of the salary of their lowest paid player. In fact, during the winter months they keep the heat on in their uninsulated luxury boxes so the floor doesn’t warp. Man, the folks at fenway must believe they are doing a lot to save the environment.
Coca Cola recently announced that they are doing a sustainability makeover. They have purchased new electric trucks, started purging their bottles with air instead of water, and used dry lubrication on their assembly line instead of water. This is all great stuff. But what about the fact that Coca Cola cools all of their water before its injected into the bottles (since CO2 is more soluble in cold water, and then once it is capped, reheats it so water doesn’t condensate on the paper boxes after they are packaged. That has got to be their biggest waste of energy.
The purchase of a green “product” (in this case nega-watts) may have a positive effect on the profits of a firm if it is suited as a marketing argument which may be communicated to the customers. So what is the real benefit when it comes to energy efficiency, saving money or selling the idea to the customers?
Tweet