 | Green Buildings, Green Queens? Green LA? | The Oil Drum: Local | The State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread) |  |
21 comments on Can New York Replicate Water Success with Energy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
My guess, and it's only that, is that something happened in NYC similar to London in the same time.
A lot of water consuming industries (like printing, or brewing) moved out of London, and I am guessing NYC as well. The shift to residential/commercial from industrial saved a lot of water.
I am sure you are way ahead of us on metering (most still on flat rate) and leak control (we lose 30% of Thames Water's flow to leaks). We still have Victorian iron sewers which leak like heck.
The latest drought (dryest 18 months in over 80 years) has scared the heck out of the authorities, and the plan is for a new £1bn reservoir near Oxford. Of course the NIMBYs will fight it.
Another factor is that post privatisation, our utility is anxious to shed responsibility for pipeage. So if you have a leak inside your property line, they will tell you it is your problem. Obviously if you don't have metred water, or you rent, you are not motivated to do anything about it!
There is no question in the long run better building codes (*if* they are enforced) will reduce per capita energy demand. Also a programme to retire old air conditioners and fridges. It's incredible how much more efficient a modern fridge or air con is than its 1975 equivalent (in the case of fridges, one quarter as much energy).
(note you have to be careful how this is structured. What you want is people to retire old appliances, *not* buy new ones and keep the old inefficient ones as well!).
California shows how much has been accomplished. Since 1980 electricity consumption per capita has risen by something like 60%, but in California not at all. (rough figures, I'd have to check the true ones).
You are gaining by the urban heat island effect in winter (as much as 5 degrees centigrade warmer than the surrounding countryside). However you are losing by air con in the summer, and the effect is self reinforcing (positive feedback loop - more heat, more people use air con, which increases the effect). A programme of simply painting your rooftops white would save significant amounts of energy at peak demand-- the Berkeley lab has tackled this and says the summer savings would far outweigh the losses in winter (because roofs are often covered in snow in winter, and in any case the sunlight is of shorter duration, far less direct, and not on every day).
Another powerful energy saving tool would be demand control. My parents (Ontario) have a tariff that allows the utility to turn off their air conditioner or water heater for 30 minute periods at peak times.
In the case of NYC this would have the effect of reducing the distribution load at peak times, and also shifting power consumption onto periods when more of it is being met by CO2 free nuclear, hydro and potentially renewable (as and when those sources are built).
Interesting. It's analogous, then, to the increase in "efficiency" after the '70s oil crises, which was at least partly heavy manufacturing moving overseas, where energy was cheaper.
Which is a perfect excuse for naysayers to make it out like improvements are completely impossible. Let's try to at least have the semblance of optimism and make attempts to improve efficiency, rather than throwing up our hands and painting it as all being a cleverly disguised shell game.
It's called Jevons paradox.
Increases in efficiency have a (positive) income effect, which over time overcomes the (negative) substitution effect (away from the higher priced commodity). You have more money, you consume more.
You certainly see that in cars. When I was growing up, 2 cars per household was unusual. Now it is the norm. You also see it in Total Vehicle Miles travelled (VMT), which as has been shown well on this blog, rises with GDP, with very little fluctuation (only in the severe energy price rise of 1980/ recession, did it slip).
It's also called 'Systems Thinking' or 'Systems Dynamics'. See Jon Sterman's website at MIT, or anything by Jay Forrester. Or 'The Fifth Discipline' by Peter Senge. Every action, in a system, has feedback effects-- some negative, some positive.
A simple example. More global warming will lead to more use of air conditioning, which will accelerate global warming-- a positive feedback loop.
Elizabeth Kolbert also has a profile of Amory Lovins in this week's New Yorker, which raises that point, and which Lovins doesn't really deal with.
We need to see the problem systemically, not just point by point.
It is not just pessimism, it is an understanding that the problem is big and total. We cannot solve the challenge of global warming just by becoming more efficient (although that is undoubtedly part of the solution) we have to find ways of producing energy that do not release CO2 into the atmosphere.
I agree, politically, the supposition that carbon taxes will simply drive American manufacturing offshore to places where there are no carbon taxes, will be used to prevent the introduction of carbon taxes.
In reality, the problem has been studied in some detail. Certain industry groups (aluminium smelting) have a very strong exposure to carbon taxes and may displace. But the effect is much lower for other groups (vs. say, the advantages of being close to your customers).
In reality, the biggest burden on much of US industry, relative to its competitors, is healthcare costs. No one is proposing that the US have less healthcare, to make it less competitive.
Brooklyn Brewery ( http://www.brooklynbrewery.com/ ) was established in 1987. They do pay more for water, but they save even more because NYC's tap water is the best in the world. If a brewery want's consistantly good beer must spend a lot of time and money to balance changes in pH and hardness of the water. Brooklyn knows if they use the same recipie, they will get the same result. Normally, only breweries that have access to very pure springs have this luxury.
I assume NYC's excellent water processing was part of the same initive to reduce water consumption and would not be possible without it. This is an excellent example of how good public policy makes everyone healthier and happier. Bring on the beer!