Here in NYC there are about 20 underwater train tunnels part of subway systems where train cars (only) are cooled by electricity produced by fossil fuels. Apparently, water cooling is only good for automobiles! Even though, there is virtually an unlimited amount of cold dense water at 39 degress beyond the continental shelf and just a few miles off Montauk and the beginning of Long Island Sound. Water starts to expand at 39 degrees which is why ice floats. Cooling the Sound by inducing some kind of convection system generated currents toward New York City might not only greatly reduce the need for air conditioning in the New York Metropolitan region during summer, but provide a measure of immunity during Hurricane season when storms gravitate towards the higher sea surface temperatures. There have to be some aliens up there looking down on us laughing their fool heads off that we have to heat stuff to cool stuff!

I think it is completely rational to invest now for efficiency later.

The price of the refrigerator has the cost of the energy built into it (undervalued or not). If the energy savings of a new Energy Star refrigerator pay for the replacement of your ten year old refrigerator (which they do) you are consuming less energy despite the production of a new appliance.

The equation will become even more pronouced as the cost of energy rises because it is only one component of many in the manufacture of a refrigerator while it is the entire cost of the operation of a refrigerator.

Komanoff and P, the whole point I am trying to make is that describing energy in terms of economics is irrelevant to energy conservation even if it is great for money conservation. Energy happens to be artificially cheap at this particular point in history because a huge amount of civilization’s efforts are going into finding and exploiting it. Fossil fuels, by far the most used form of energy, are like a piggy bank of energy saved over millions of years. This means that there is abundant and available energy for mining raw materials, moving them from point a to b, producing finished goods, delivering them thousands of miles to a retailer, allowing the consumer to pick up the product, and feeding everyone involved in this process (calories). These factors are not all calculated into the 60 cents to make each bulb because the metaphorical piggy bank is cashing out in our favor, energy is abundant. If all of this ancillary energy was factored in, it would actually take a huge amount of energy to make a light bulb, regardless of if it was 60 cents, 2 cents, or a C note. My point is that if someone has a crappy inefficient fridge and wants to save energy, the best thing to do is just keep it. If you want to save money, go ahead and throw it away and buy one that Best Buy has deemed “EnergyStar”.

In NY I think you can get a 17-25% rebate...anybody know the specifics on this?

Seriously, as Komanoff suggests, your numbers are off. While sitting in the cold and dark might make you feel more righteous it isn't the best course for conservation, first of all, because no one will do it.

It does, of course, take petroleum to make, for instance, foam insulation. However, the amount of petroleum saved from that addition to your building is staggering. As it happens foam has better insulating qualities than a sweater.

All that energy has to come from somewhere.

And hello Brent -- sorry, but your blanket indictment of energy efficiency (won't save enough btu's to offset the energy to mfg) just ain't so.

Consider compact fluorescent light bulbs. They cost around 3 bucks wholesale. If 20% of that cost is for energy (and that's generous), then the energy cost to make each bulb is 60 cents, which would have paid for around 10 kilowatt-hours. Yet over its life the bulb -- if it replaces incandescent bulbs -- will save around 400 kilowatt-hours, or 40 times the energy need to make it.
(Math supplied upon request.)

Get my point? Meanwhile, did you see I put a quote from you (anonymously) in my piece about Eric Ng's death, in the Downtown Express (see link on Sblog). Thanks for that.

ok, if you can do without lightbulbs. but when a lightbulb in your house goes out, you need a new one. same for a lot of other things (though proper fixing rather than dumping can do a lot). installing better insulation can offset the environmental cost of the insulation itself, provided it's done right and not just more.

reducing demand has to be paired with responsible use. responsible replacement can be responsible use. i don't think there's anything wrong with the "when you're in the market, buy green" mentality, so long as it's paired with a consumption consciousness.

-v

Changing your light bulbs to compact fluorescents pays itself back in 6 months to a year. Better insulation and a better heating system are also much better values for your money if you want to reduce the amount of fossil fuel you use."

A good point. The unfortunate truth is that replacing consumer products- air conditioners, refridgerators, cars, light bulbs- with "more efficient" products is a scam. There is no such thing as green consumerism because through the entire use of the product, it will never, ever save more energy than was required to manufacture it.

Just one: a cop on a bike responding to an emergency will get through midtown on a bike much faster than in a car.

Oh, heck, here's another: maintenance and fuel costs.

Changing your light bulbs to compact fluorescents pays itself back in 6 months to a year. Better insulation and a better heating system are also much better values for your money if you want to reduce the amount of fossil fuel you use.

I'm all for the bike proposal though.