Physicists urge U.S. to prioritize energy efficiency

[bananas]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/689091.html

Physicists urge U.S. to prioritize energy efficiency
Posted on Tue, Sep. 16, 2008
By RENEE SCHOOF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. can reduce its dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions by making cars and buildings much more energy efficient, according to a study released Tuesday by a large national association of physicists.

The 46,000-member American Physical Society argues the need for action is urgent because the energy crisis is the worst in U.S. history. It also says that the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change - such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels - is "well understood and beyond dispute."

The report argues that the country can still go a long way to reduce energy use in cost-effective ways that allow for continued comfort and convenience. Although efficient energy technologies can save money, the U.S. has been slow to catch on, the report says. It recommends that the federal government adopt policies and make investments.

<snip>

"The bottom line is that the quickest way to do something about America's use of energy is through energy efficiency," said Burton Richter, the chairman of the study panel and a 1976 Nobel Prize winner in physics. "Energy that you don't use is free. It's not imported and it doesn't emit any greenhouse gases. Most of the things we recommend don't cost anything to the economy. The economy will save money."

<snip>

The complete APA energy efficiency report: http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm

[kristopher]

1. You know the what the best mechanism is for increasing energy efficiency?

Higher energy prices.

That's how everyone else does it.

[Nihil]

2. Good grief ...

I agree with you!
:hi:

[OneBlueSky]

3. part of increasing energy efficiency would be weaning the nation off of meat . . .

at the primary source of protein in our diets . . . the amount of energy needed to produce one pound of beef or pork is, in realtive terms, astronomical . . .

[kristopher]

4. You are inappropriately linking two different energy systems

As a percentage of the US energy budget, I suspect that the amount of energy involved is extremely small.

Within the context of maximization of food resources, there are probably much greater gains possible just by localizing agricultural production and reduction of wasted food.

[Terry in Austin]

5. Kris, suspicion isn't good enough

As a percentage of the US energy budget, I suspect that the amount of energy involved is extremely small.

When we're talking "amount," we need some numbers. Go get 'em, make the case. Google is your friend.

FWIW, speaking here as a carnivore and advocate of localized agriculture.

[kristopher]

6. Informed suspicion

A couple of numbers I have in my head: Ag sector represents approximately 1% of total US energy consumption. Livestock energy expense is over 50% of total (includes upstream energy for feed crops) while overall average for crops is a little above 20%. Now I can't relate that to delivery of nutrition, but the difference (judged by the percent of money) isn't going to be in even one order of magnitude. Since that is within a subset amounting to less than 1% of our overall energy budget, and I think the original statement was on target.

PS I eat very little meat myself.

[Terry in Austin]

7. Nicely done, sir

nt

[cprise]

10. Also a meat eater...

I'd say that analysis holds only if you don't consider the solar input to agriculture as "US energy consumption". Otherwise, producing a meat-heavy diet is bound to be grossly inefficient.

[kristopher]

11. Well, the numbers I used were based on $$ not calories so they do not capture solar

You say that if we evaluate meat production by total energy input then it is not 'grossly inefficient'?

Just to clarify, is it:
1) if we evaluate meat production by total energy input then it is "still inefficient, but less so"?
or
2) if we evaluate meat production by total energy input then it is "efficient"?

And finally, what do you mean by "efficient"?

[GliderGuider]

12. Confirmation that it's a very small number

From http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/agene05.pdf I found out that the total amount of primary energy used in agriculture globally is between 12 and maybe 20 EJ per year (according to Vaclav Smil). Since our total global primary energy consumption is around 500 EJ, this amounts to between 2.5% and 4% of the total.

Switching some of our meat consumption to grains will help in other ways, but it wouldn't do diddly for the world's energy picture.

[Terry in Austin]

8. Reduction of meat

I think kristopher argues convincingly that the energy savings probably wouldn't be that great; however, Bill McKibben and others make the argument -- a good one, I believe -- that the worthwhile savings come from the differences in arable land. You can feed a lot more people directly with an acre of grain than using the grain to feed animals for people to eat.

Either way, though, it points to the same future: less burger, more pasta.

[kristopher]

9. Now for a complete picture

Factor in the number of man/years, from healthier people living longer, added to our ecological footprint.

<pure snark>

[GliderGuider]

13. If you're implying that meat eaters are less healthy than grain eaters,

There's a LOT of evidence that runs counter to that carefully crafted and zealously defended "intuition".

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

[kristopher]

14. I'm not implying

I'm stating categorically that generally speaking our consumption of meat is too high for good health. I don't recall any population being studied that are notable for owing their longevity to diets high in meat products, but I could be wrong.

All that I have seen are high in various vegetables and are moderately to very low in animal protein & fat.

[GliderGuider]

15. You should read Taubes.