In the June issue of a prominent business magazine, there was an article hyping energy savings.
The article claimed savings for various applications around the home. For example, it claimed that CFL light bulbs could save a family $279 per year.
That’s a very significant savings for most families, but the magazine overstated the probable savings.
Yes, CFLs will save money, but they will only provide savings if the lamps are used for three or more hours each day. If they are located in a closet and burn 15 minutes a day, the extra cost of the CFL isn’t recovered for several years. (CFLs were discussed in my May 13, 2011 post.)
In its eagerness to sell magazines, it inflated the probable savings from CFLs.
In calculating the savings they assumed that 15 CFLs would be used for 6 hours each day in a home.
In reality, there are only about a half dozen lamps in the average home that will be used for more than three hours each day. Obviously CFLs will be used longer in the winter than in the summer, but if lamps are used for much longer than three hours each day, the way to save money is to turn the lamp off when there is no one in the room.
Other examples had similar flaws.
The magazine used 10 applications, including CFLs, thermostats, solar water heating, energy star furnaces, etc. to arrive at the conclusion that a family could save over $1,000 per year with energy savings.
In its example of savings from a programmable thermostat, the magazine assumed that temperatures in the home would be maintained at 65 degrees in the winter and 76 degrees in the summer.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I believe that these temperature assumptions are inappropriate. They do, however represent the current “politically correct” hype about where we should set our thermostats. It’s also where the government would set them if the thermostats were controlled using smart meters. But that’s another issue.
In fairness, the magazine also showed the payback periods for the various savings reported in the article.
In actuality, this is a key issue when examining the hype about energy savings.
An energy star furnace is a good example of why government pronouncements about energy savings are overly optimistic.
In the magazine’s example, an energy star furnace could save $158 per year, but would cost $1,350 and would take about 8.5 years to recover the investment.
Few people would replace a perfectly good furnace with a new energy star furnace that takes 8.5 years to recover a $1,350 investment.
The magazine also showed a similar payback period for installing a passive solar water heater.
The typical government cry is that, if only we reinsulated all our homes etc., we could save phenomenal amounts of energy.
The next time you see such a statement, do some quick calculations to see whether what is being said is realistic.
First, are the savings derived from a realistic evaluation of the application? For example, are temperatures set too low in the winter and too high in the summer when evaluating a programmable thermostat?
Second, is the payback period reasonable? Some people may want a two-year payback, while others may be willing to accept a payback period of five years.
Energy investments need to be based on a realistic economic assessment, and not on what happens to be politically correct at the moment.
* * * * * *
Additional TSAugust web sites:
* * * * * *
[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]
© Power For USA, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.