By Doug Peeples

SGN News Editor

 

If the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) was Santa Claus, the U.S. would be getting a lump of coal for Christmas.

 

A new energy efficiency ranking published by the advocacy group is certainly good news for the UK – it's ranked first among 12 of the world's major economies. Although the U.S. isn't dead last, ninth place isn't anything to brag about.

 

The  International Energy Efficiency Scorecard published Thursday said the U.S. has made "limited or little progress toward greater efficiency at the national level."

 

The rankings are based on ACEEE's methods used to rate energy efficiency in U.S. states. Countries are ranked on a scale of a possible 100 points in 27 categories. Based on those criteria, the rankings look like this: 1-UK; 2-Germany; 3-Japan; 4-Italy; 5-France; 6-the European Union, Australia, and China in a three-way tie; 9-U.S.; 10-Brazil; 11-Canada, and 12-Russia.

 

Those 12 countries represent more than 78% of global gross domestic product and 63% of global energy consumption. The rankings involved a variety of metrics (including policy and performance) on energy use and the three sectors primarily responsible for the most energy consumption in a developed country: buildings, industry, and transportation.

 

"The UK and the leading economies of Europe are now well ahead of the United States when it comes to energy efficiency. This is significant because countries that use energy more efficiently require fewer resources to achieve the same goals, thus reducing costs, preserving valuable natural resources and creating jobs. Unfortunately, our results show that nowhere is the vast potential for improvements in energy efficiency being completely realized," said Steven Nadel, ACEEE executive director.

Nadel noted that  while the U.S. scored fairly high in buildings, it was last in transportation.

 

ACEEE raises a potent question in its report: "How can the United States compete in a global economy if it continues to waste money and energy that other industrialized nations save and can reinvest?" The report answers its own question with a series of recommendations to bring American energy efficiency up to par, among them:

 

·         Adopt a national energy savings target, as most countries have.

·         Commit to efficiency in manufacturing. Manufacturers should commit to continuous energy efficiency improvement by using Superior Energy Performance ISO 50001 (ISO 2011) and other voluntary platforms.

·         Improve financial incentives from states and the federal government, such as tax credits and loans.

·         Invest more in R&D.

·         Retire old, inefficient power plants and ensure that new ones are very efficient.

·         Implement and enforce existing appliance standards.

·         Governments and regulators should adopt policies that permit combined heat and power to get reasonable electricity buyback and backup power rates.

·         Re-consider transportation pricing options with policies based on vehicle miles traveled (pay as you drive).

 

Other recommendations included suggestions for public transit, vehicle fuel economy and power distribution efficiency.

1

You might also be interested in ...

Report touts explosive growth (and value) for energy efficiency programs

Talk Back to the Author

Current Comments (7)

Leave a Comment

---

Some fixes to energy efficiency

There are several fixes to energy efficiency that could go a long way. 1) Change new source review. If the improvement in plant efficiency exceeds the improvement that would come from new pollution control equipment - then let the efficiency work proceed without new pollution control equipment. In many plants this is economically possible and good for the environment. 2) Re-think fuel taxes for transportation - if you want people to buy fuel efficient cars they need a reason to. It would fix the roads and create jobs doing that as well 3) Create a sale inspection requirement on homes and buildings - rate the energy efficiency of the homes and buildings each time they are sold. It will cause home owners to keep their property up (or at least fix it before sale). Set up a tax on inefficient property sales starting in 2020 - so people have time to fix or sell before the tax starts. 4) Redo the Energy Star program - require improvements every 5 years in standard. there is more, much more that can be done.

Doug Houseman - 07/13/2012 - 06:48

USA energy use comparisons

A few items of note when making comparisons between ourselves and other countries: a) Many of the European countries and Japan have their populations more densely packed and have utilized CHP to a larger extent than we have in the US. b) This same dense packing of population makes public transportation and rail transportation more attractive to the population. Even people who own cars tend to take the train or public transport to work because of a dearth of parking space and the cost of gasoline. c) When one looks at the level of innovation and entrepeneurship in the US vs other countries, one has to wonder if perhaps there is a relationship between energy consumption, innovation, and the freedom to pursue one's dreams. Granted, I am not fond of having a 5,000 square foot house for a family of 3 or 4 people but, at the same time, it is difficult to invent something or start a business in your garage if you do not have a garage. d) American vehicle manufacturers have not done a good job of utilizing the torque of our generally larger engines to good advantage because their intent was to make vehicles that people traded in frequently so they needed to keep the price down. The attendant lack of quality in the vehicles is probably one of the reasons Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, and Infinity do so well in addition to the less luxurious imports.

Mark Byron Wooldridge - 07/13/2012 - 06:53

Efficiency in the US

The ACEEE report is disappointing but hardly surprising. Given the political climate in the US, I would focus on industrial efficiency where the business case is clear (i.e., money talks). Electric motors used in industry, for example, account for around 1/4 of all electricity consumed and many of them run flat-out all the time when they don't have to.

Bob Fesmire - 07/13/2012 - 06:53

Green energy incentive impacts

Forgot to put in my previous post that the impact of green energy incentives in competitive electricity markets has also had a disincentive impact on building newer, more efficient, and cleaner power plants. Tax credits for wind and solar have led to a proliferation of these highly unpredictable energy sources. The unpredictability means a firm contemplating construction of a new thermal generating facility cannot make a reliable economic model to present to investors to get money to build the facility. Instead, the older, inefficient plants are kept in service and/or the new facility ends up being a simple cycle gas turbine thereby wasting precious fuel.

Mark Byron Wooldridge - 07/13/2012 - 06:59

RE:US a leader in energy efficiency

If only it twas as simple as suggested by the ACEEE report. Most of the countries that are listed in the comparisons of the US are geographically smaller and generally resource constrained. That makes it a necessity for the countries reviewed to adopt national policies. A better strategy would be to encourage each state to adopt an energy policy - combine it upward with a regional policy that combines it with their regional electric grid, (west coast, ercot, east, midwest, etc). I believe manufacturers have committed to as energy efficient manufacturing as they can. Those that don't have been closing! Improve financial incentives - sure! However it doesn't match realit! At some point -- tax credits for the improvements become another pork barrel program and loose the effectiveness. If you want to improve efficiency - add additional surcharges to the electric and gas bills, raise the wholesale & bulk rates. Use that money to finance conservation programs that can show measured improvement. (Note - ths is actually being done now in many states). Retire old, inefficient power plants. That is happening. I would like to see some of those hold power plants converted to test beds for new technologies. Take old coal fired plants and adapt them for pilots of "cofired" plants (coal/biomass/industrial wastes as fuel). If they work - modernize the hole plant. If not - then tear them down. Likewise try the "Schwartz Pumpe" model (oxygen fired) on a few old retiring coal plants. If the Schwartz Pumpe plant works - and the CO2 is captured - you would have a model that could be used to upgrade other plants - meet national goals. District energy zones could work across the nation if allowed and considered. You need to have the users and producers within about 10 miles of each other. The producers do not have to be huge generators. Small 20MW - 100MW plants could provide significant thermal energy for SHW and heating needs in small towns and citities. The waste heat needs to be considered as a commodity that can be sold! Yes, regulations need to be reviewed - make it easier for utilities to commit to R&D and take some risk. But that will take another 20 years for the changes. Pay as you drive??? That works if you live in an urban area with public transportation. Try doing the same in remote areas of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah -- anywhere that isn't near of town of > 5,000 people. Pay as you drive would be a bust for many!

Dennis Heidner - 07/13/2012 - 10:09

Energy Efficiency

Let the market work. Oh that's what we do in America.

Michael Watson - 07/13/2012 - 13:44

Premise not always true

("This is significant because countries that use energy more efficiently require fewer resources to achieve the same goals, thus reducing costs, preserving valuable natural resources and creating jobs.") This statement, which is the premise of the article, is an opinion and is often not true unless you are a socialist. Using energy more efficiently does not reduce cost if the cost / unit of energy is at a low point on the curve. For example, if I buy a new more efficient furnace, I may use less energy, but my cost will go up. If I die or move out of the house before the break even point, my costs have not been reduced neither have natural resources been reduced because the material to build a new furnace was required. Another example: No form of mass transit can compete with the progress of technology. Mass transit systems are not as efficient in moving people as a new Prius. Twenty years from now, when private automobile transportation is 3 times as efficient as it currently is, our mass transit systems will be great wasters of energy. But they may be less costly...

Jerry Zoellner - 07/16/2012 - 08:16

Leave a Comment

New to this Blog? Need some help?

Email: [?] We will send you an email with an appproval link you must click for your comment to appear.
Full Real Name:	[?] Real comments need a real name.
Subject:	[?] Please provide a short subject for your comment.
Comment:[?] Do not post commercial/sales messages here. They will be deleted. Try: pr@smartgridnews.com PLEASE NOTE:  All HTML codes will be removed from your comment.
CAPTCHA Security Code The numbers (0) and (1) are not used. [?] Please type the characters you see into the box above.
Remember my name? (Uncheck to forget.)
You can not edit or delete your comment once it is posted. Please check for spelling now. Your IP Address is: 107.20.7.65