I have to admit, I was originally confused by some of the attitudes or opinions given about those in the Energy Efficiency fields. I grant you that there are quite a few individuals in the green community that are five cans shy of a six pack, but the following quotes come from some of the “respected” experts. One of my favorite quotes is, “What an awesome presentation! I called Energy Efficiency fanatics “the Sith Lords of Green building”!” Another one is, “The Future of Energy is Conservation.”Last but definitely not least is one that went along the lines of; Builders need to concentrate on Conservation instead of Efficiency. Really??? You are kidding, right?
One of my first thoughts after I heard that was – while a builder or remodeler can talk about, show, and educate homeowners about turning off lights, turning thermostats down during the winter, up during the summer, etc… we cannot control what the occupants do with the property after we leave. Do you really want us to concentrate on this aspect solely, instead of selling or installing items that will give them those energy or water savings results without them having to do anything? I can guarantee you that I could do more for “the planet” in one year, by helping numerous homeowners, than you could do in one year concentrating on “conservation” in one or two major renovations.
While I was trying to find the exact last quote on Conservation versus Efficiency, I stumbled upon an interesting article that seems to back up a theory I have been working on for awhile. It appears that this issue closely follows another issue we discussed earlier; namely, “what exactly is green building?” Yes folks, it appears to be an issue on how one defines what conservation is and what efficiency means. Fortunately, this problem seems to be centered around the great white north and the State of Minnesota. Quite possibly, there is an apparent shortage of dictionaries up there. I am just surmising here, but they might have burnt them during a cold winter snap and have just never got around to replacing them…
Ok, all joking aside, let’s first take a look at the actual definitions, and then an excerpt from the article on “The Future of Energy is Conservation” located on Do It Green! Minnesota’s web site that seems to highlight the issue.
- Conservation; The act or process of conserving / The protection of natural resources
- Conserve; To protect from loss or harm; preserve / To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste
- Efficiency;
- Competence: the ability to do something well or achieve a desired result without wasted energy or effort
- Productive use of resources: the degree to which something is done well or without wasted energy
Web Site Article: There are two ways to conserve: lifestyle changes and technology. Lifestyle changes are easy to make, and include such strategies as walking rather than driving, building smaller homes that are easier to heat and cool, turning off unused appliances, and traveling via air less often. Technological innovation conserves by delivering the same product performance more efficiently.
Technology = Conservation?
Sorry folks, but this does not fly. Efficiency is the ability of a physical item to use less energy, water or other resource to perform the same function. Conservation on the other hand is a behavior that results in the use of less energy, water or gas. For example – Turning the lights off when you leave the room, turning the water off while brushing your teeth, turning down the thermostat during winter, turning your car off when you run into the store for just a minute, etc… is conserving a resource.
A mechanical object cannot conserve; it is simply built to use energy or other resource required more efficiently. For example – A light bulb cannot conserve electricity; it is either on or it is off, it is up to a human being to turn it off when it is not in use. A toilet does not conserve water; they have just been designed to remove waste more efficiently with less water. A CFL or LED bulb that uses less energy than an incandescent bulb is an example of an energy efficient item. Adding insulation, air sealing, duct sealing work, etc… is simply increasing the efficiency of a structure to help reduce the cooling and heating loads, it does not conserve anything.
In closing, I would like to leave you with the following simple chart; in it, I used a simple example of the lights in a Living Room. I based the example on a family that starts getting home at 3 PM and goes to bed around 11 PM. Normally the first person that comes in, turns on the lights & the last person to bed turns them off so they are generally on for 8 hours (Base). The second line shows this same family started conserving electricity by turning them on only when they were needed – so we will say they are now on only for 3 hours. The third line goes back to our base example, but someone changed out the incandescent bulbs with slightly smaller CFL’s. The last line shows what happens when you combine the best of both examples and I will let you draw your own conclusions.
| Item | Description | Watts Used | Difference |
| Base | 8 hours – 4 x 100 | 3200 | 0 |
| Conserve | 3 hour – 4 x 100 | 1200 | -2000 |
| Efficient | 8 hours – 4 x 18 | 576 | -2624 |
| BOTH | 3 hour – 4 x 18 | 216 | -2984 |
Sean,
Great post.
I find that the terms efficiency and conservation are often used interchangeably in conversation and around the web. This leads to confusion as people pursue more sustainable choices. Mincing words is always tedious but in the case the distinction is important.
In my view, “efficiency” speaks to a system that has been designed or engineered to use less of something (for this argument, energy) when compared to a similar device or a standard. So, by choosing to use the “efficient” device, energy is conserved relative to other methods. Another way to look at it is that “efficient” devices are simply tools we use in conservation.
Conservation, I believe, is the result of deliberate and thoughtful choice. We can conserve energy by choosing to change how we use the tools we have…or, as your post points out clearly, choosing to add “efficient” tools and then choosing to use them in a way that achieves substantially greater conservation.
The difficult part seems to be making the choice.
Is this consistent with your idea of “efficiency” and “conservation”?
For a future post on The Homeowners Resource Center, would you consider discussing “sustainable”? It may be interesting for your readership as it encompasses “efficiency” and “conservation” plus the ideas of “embodied” energy and toxicity (among many others). This topic will surely be a challenge but if more people comprehend it they will continue to improve the choices they make.
Thanks again for taking on some challenging ideas. It's very helpful.
Good Evening Mike & thanks for the comment
First it seems like we are on the same page. As for the article idea, feel free to shoot me any ideas you have – I am always looking for good ideas and items that others would find helpful. Currently I was planning on an article on Sustainability & Durability, but it was a ways off – I will try to bump it up to sometime in the next few weeks. I still have some RRP articles I have been meaning to knock out, and time is running out on them.
Thanks again
@GreenCurmudgeon and I held a Congress, and agreed that this post entitles you to membership in the brotherhood of the Sith. Welcome Darth Sean.
On a more serious note, this is a great post for pointing out the importance of the language we use and especially for the clarity of your simple chart. Information design at its best!
Despite the provocative approach of a certain Minnesotan on this topic, I do think the overall discussion of values hierarchy within Green Building is a worthy discussion. I got my Sith stripes as a result of my personal belief in energy efficiency as the highest order of those values (as your post so well demonstrates) but the fact is that consumers approach it from multiple angles. And many, as we're all sadly discovering, want “green” without really digging in to what the elements of green are. I endorse Mike's nudge to have you take on the term sustainable as I believe that is possibly the most misunderstood at the consumer level.
Thanks for another thoughtful contribution to this discussion.
Peter Troast
Energy Efficiency v. Conservation is an important distinction, and you've done an excellent job of explaining why the former is important. I like that you included both energy efficiency and conservation in your chart — it's the best of both worlds. Thanks for this important post, Sean!
Interesting post, Sean, but I have to disagree with your claim that,
“Conservation on the other hand is a behavior that results in the use of less energy, water or gas.”
Conservation means that something is conserved. That's all.
Everything in the human world has to do with behavior, of course, so I'm not saying that behavior is irrelevant. What I AM saying is that efficiency does NOT save energy. In fact, there's something called Jevons's Paradox which says that just the opposite happens. Jevons noticed that when engineers and inventors made more efficient pumps for the coal mines, more coal ended up being used. You can look at just about any technology or fuel over the past couple hundred years and see the same thing.
You can also see it with homes. We have more efficient heating & cooling equipment, more efficient light bulbs, more efficient refrigerators… When you look at how much energy homes use now, though, compared to 1980, it's gone up. We've spent our 'energy efficiency dividend' on bigger homes and more gadgets.
I wrote about this very issue in my blog a few weeks ago and documented the above claim with statistics from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). You can read it at:
http://hub.am/b8ocnN
As one of the other Sith Lords of Green Building, I have come to appreciate both sides of this argument. I am a big fan of energy efficiency, and on occasion give it more importance than other aspects of green building, much to the dismay of that certain Minnesotan. I do realize, however, that conservation, via change in behavior, is as or more important than anything we do technologically. As Allison pointed out, efficiency does not guarantee less energy use, it just allows us to use more without paying extra. Until and unless we change behavior alongside making things more efficient, we will not reduce energy use. Depending on the particulars of a building or a car, you may be able to save more energy through behavior change than any technology, although a combination of both works best, as you noted in your chart. Recently I dramatically reduced my AC use (unusual in the muggy south) and often go days at a time without turning it on by managing when windows and doors are open, when shades are drawn, use of fans, and dressing appropriately. My house is not perfectly comfortable all the time, but it's never terribly uncomfortable, and I really enjoying the smug feeling when I hear my neighbors AC units running all day and night through those very same open windows.
As one of the other Sith Lords of Green Building, I have come to appreciate both sides of this argument. I am a big fan of energy efficiency, and on occasion give it more importance than other aspects of green building, much to the dismay of that certain Minnesotan. I do realize, however, that conservation, via change in behavior, is as or more important than anything we do technologically. As Allison pointed out, efficiency does not guarantee less energy use, it just allows us to use more without paying extra. Until and unless we change behavior alongside making things more efficient, we will not reduce energy use. Depending on the particulars of a building or a car, you may be able to save more energy through behavior change than any technology, although a combination of both works best, as you noted in your chart. Recently I dramatically reduced my AC use (unusual in the muggy south) and often go days at a time without turning it on by managing when windows and doors are open, when shades are drawn, use of fans, and dressing appropriately. My house is not perfectly comfortable all the time, but it's never terribly uncomfortable, and I really enjoying the smug feeling when I hear my neighbors AC units running all day and night through those very same open windows.
First, I am honored by the new title – Thanks Carl, Allison, Ginny & Peter for all the comments.
Carl, your the man, I think I would die without my AC.
Allison, first that was a great article, and thanks for the link. I think if you look at the definition of conserve, you will see that it take a thoughtful effort / behavior to “To protect from loss or harm; preserve / To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste”. I fully agree that just changing out CFL's automatically equates to savings as most people leave them on longer, or as you say, use up those savings on more gadgets.
Onto conservation by itself – yes it is a wonderful item & very important – but the problem is as a builder, remodeler, or even as an auditor / consultant, we can only advise or educate – not change their behaviors. While we can practice conservation on how we do things, as part of Green Building it really is a non issue during the “building” portion
I see your point, Sean, and I agree that builders and contractors shouldn't pass the energy saving buck to the homeowners, absolving themselves of responsibility. Conservation and efficiency don't break so neatly across the behavior line, however. Choosing efficient light bulbs, appliances, and homes is a behavior, too.
The main point of my blog article is that we need to keep an eye on the big picture, too, and see if we're really reducing energy use when we choose CFLs and 18 SEER air conditioners, for example. Or are we saving energy on those individual uses while our energy footprint stays the same or even grows because we moved to a bigger house and use more electronic gadgets.
As you showed in your table, behavior and technology are both important for saving energy when you look at an individual device like a lamp. I'm saying let's step back and look at more than one load at a time. Let's look at the whole house. Let's look at a whole community. Peak oil is going to force conservation on us whether we like it or not, so let's understand how best to reduce energy use.
Ok Michael is having problems posting with his I-Pad – so he sent me his reply to be posted…
Thoughts on conservation from that Minnesotan.
So I figure it is about time I chime in here given you have invoked, in almost beetlejuice form, me three times.
We in the great hot & humid and cold & snowy north have a long history with conservation. In his 1949 “A Sand County Almanac” Aldo Leopold helped to redefine what had become an abused and bastardized term. He affirmed our connection with nature saying, “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land”
To cheapen the marvelous work of he and his predecessors (Muir, Roosevelt) by tying it to something as base and trivial as energy use in our homes demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the term and the issues before us.
I called out the energy efficiency fanatics and their perversion of the term and the idea behind Green Building, at a recent energy conference. The narrow and single minded focus on this issue of energy efficiency in homes and buildings ignores the larger and more important issues. Obsession, singular focus, fanaticism; these are all qualities that should send up Texas sized red flags.
Energy efficiency in our buildings is important. Those who know my firms work, know that we designing and build our structures to be as efficient as possible while simultaneously designing in efficient use systems to ensure that behavior does not undo our efforts. That said, energy is the no-brainer side of our industry. It takes no effort to specify R-23 walls and an R-60 lid. A 98% efficient water heater or boiler and a 96% efficient furnace are our baseline.
What is far more important is understanding the displaced impact of our actions on humanity. After that we must take every precaution to create the healthiest environment for our clients that we can. What is the point of preserving this ecosystem that allows humans to survive if we kill them in our mines and our factories, and steal away their land and their living for our fancy ironwood decks and our Outback steaks? What is the point of showing a client the ROI on their heating system if you are going to fill their home with ground level ozone, formaldehyde, dioxins, and endocrine disruptors that will strip years of their lives?
The reason I push energy efficiency to the bottom of the pile isn't because i don't recognize it's value, it is because between Social Justice, Environmental Quality, Water, and LCA ( embodied energy and environmental impact of production, installation, and disposal of materials), we have far more important work ahead of us.
Oh, and then there is the idea that the earth is nothing but a giant battery with more energy potential than we can imagine, and we should suck it dry. After all, the earth will die one way or the other. Why waste all that energy?
Sent from my iPad – M
So Michael, why is it that you have suddenly lost your sense of humor?
Michael, first off, I apologize for taking so long to reply, but as I mentioned on twitter – just focusing on the big picture issues, tends to make one overlook all the good that could be done now, which also includes the cumulative effect that would happen over time. In that regard, I am a little confused on part of your comment as it relates to other comments made “Energy efficiency in our buildings is important. Those who know my firms work, know that we designing and build our structures to be as efficient as possible while simultaneously designing in efficient use systems to ensure that behavior does not undo our efforts. That said, energy is the no-brainer side of our industry. It takes no effort to specify…” then why disregard it? As for that second sentence, that is one reason I was wondering if there was a shortage of dictionaries in the great State of Minnesota.
Why not congratulate them for creating a “good baseline for all green buildings,” and start pushing the next issue. Now while you might have felt you have already done this; you have to remember that not everyone is as current or caught up on all the different issues. Do you recall the conversation you took part on at Remodel Crazy? What many builders and remodelers are looking for is a clear-cut set of standards or best practices, items to work towards or from, items to help them improve what they offer, etc… Seeing fights and arguments over such a “no-brainer issue” simply frustrates them, leaves them confused, and they simply do what they have always done.
Now is energy – the end-all or be-all answer? Of course not, but it is a good baseline to start from, along with Indoor Air Quality and water-efficiency measures, or as I like to call it “Common Sense Building.” Let’s take these baselines, work on improving them as needed and keep working on the other issues, hopefully leading to a greener future for all.
I see your point, Michael, but energy use is neither base nor trivial. I agree with Joe Lstiburek that green building should be about 80% energy and 20% materials & water.
*It's because of energy use that we've been able to gobble up so much land for development.
*It's because of energy use that we've become a consumer society.
*It's because of energy use that the Earth is overpopulated with humans.
And that last point really is the killer. We cannot have “a state of harmony between men and land” with nearly 7 billion people on the planet. There can be small pockets of harmony, yes, but not for the planet as a whole because to sustain that population, we have to keep pumping as much oil out of the ground as we can. We must keep scraping the tops off of mountains and dousing our agricultural land with chemicals.
When you look at the big picture, it's really all about population and energy use.
@GreenCurmudgeon and I held a Congress, and agreed that this post entitles you to membership in the brotherhood of the Sith. Welcome Darth Sean. On a more serious note, this is a great post for pointing out the importance of the language we use and especially for the clarity of your simple chart. Information design at its best!Despite the provocative approach of a certain Minnesotan on this topic, I do think the overall discussion of values hierarchy within Green Building is a worthy discussion. I got my Sith stripes as a result of my personal belief in energy efficiency as the highest order of those values (as your post so well demonstrates) but the fact is that consumers approach it from multiple angles. And many, as we're all sadly discovering, want “green” without really digging in to what the elements of green are. I endorse Mike's nudge to have you take on the term sustainable as I believe that is possibly the most misunderstood at the consumer level. Thanks for another thoughtful contribution to this discussion.Peter Troast
Energy Efficiency v. Conservation is an important distinction, and you've done an excellent job of explaining why the former is important. I like that you included both energy efficiency and conservation in your chart — it's the best of both worlds. Thanks for this important post, Sean!
As one of the other Sith Lords of Green Building, I have come to appreciate both sides of this argument. I am a big fan of energy efficiency, and on occasion give it more importance than other aspects of green building, much to the dismay of that certain Minnesotan. I do realize, however, that conservation, via change in behavior, is as or more important than anything we do technologically. As Allison pointed out, efficiency does not guarantee less energy use, it just allows us to use more without paying extra. Until and unless we change behavior alongside making things more efficient, we will not reduce energy use. Depending on the particulars of a building or a car, you may be able to save more energy through behavior change than any technology, although a combination of both works best, as you noted in your chart. Recently I dramatically reduced my AC use (unusual in the muggy south) and often go days at a time without turning it on by managing when windows and doors are open, when shades are drawn, use of fans, and dressing appropriately. My house is not perfectly comfortable all the time, but it's never terribly uncomfortable, and I really enjoying the smug feeling when I hear my neighbors AC units running all day and night through those very same open windows.
First, I am honored by the new title – Thanks Carl, Allison, Ginny & Peter for all the comments.Carl, your the man, I think I would die without my AC. Allison, first that was a great article, and thanks for the link. I think if you look at the definition of conserve, you will see that it take a thoughtful effort / behavior to “To protect from loss or harm preserve / To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste”. I fully agree that just changing out CFL's automatically equates to savings as most people leave them on longer, or as you say, use up those savings on more gadgets. Onto conservation by itself – yes it is a wonderful item & very important – but the problem is as a builder, remodeler, or even as an auditor / consultant, we can only advise or educate – not change their behaviors. While we can practice conservation on how we do things, as part of Green Building it really is a non issue during the “building” portion
I see your point, Sean, and I agree that builders and contractors shouldn't pass the energy saving buck to the homeowners, absolving themselves of responsibility. Conservation and efficiency don't break so neatly across the behavior line, however. Choosing efficient light bulbs, appliances, and homes is a behavior, too. The main point of my blog article is that we need to keep an eye on the big picture, too, and see if we're really reducing energy use when we choose CFLs and 18 SEER air conditioners, for example. Or are we saving energy on those individual uses while our energy footprint stays the same or even grows because we moved to a bigger house and use more electronic gadgets.As you showed in your table, behavior and technology are both important for saving energy when you look at an individual device like a lamp. I'm saying let's step back and look at more than one load at a time. Let's look at the whole house. Let's look at a whole community. Peak oil is going to force conservation on us whether we like it or not, so let's understand how best to reduce energy use.
Ok Michael is having problems posting with his I-Pad – so he sent me his reply to be posted…Thoughts on conservation from that Minnesotan.So I figure it is about time I chime in here given you have invoked, in almost beetlejuice form, me three times.We in the great hot & humid and cold & snowy north have a long history with conservation. In his 1949 “A Sand County Almanac” Aldo Leopold helped to redefine what had become an abused and bastardized term. He affirmed our connection with nature saying, “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land” To cheapen the marvelous work of he and his predecessors (Muir, Roosevelt) by tying it to something as base and trivial as energy use in our homes demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the term and the issues before us. I called out the energy efficiency fanatics and their perversion of the term and the idea behind Green Building, at a recent energy conference. The narrow and single minded focus on this issue of energy efficiency in homes and buildings ignores the larger and more important issues. Obsession, singular focus, fanaticism these are all qualities that should send up Texas sized red flags. Energy efficiency in our buildings is important. Those who know my firms work, know that we designing and build our structures to be as efficient as possible while simultaneously designing in efficient use systems to ensure that behavior does not undo our efforts. That said, energy is the no-brainer side of our industry. It takes no effort to specify R-23 walls and an R-60 lid. A 98% efficient water heater or boiler and a 96% efficient furnace are our baseline. What is far more important is understanding the displaced impact of our actions on humanity. After that we must take every precaution to create the healthiest environment for our clients that we can. What is the point of preserving this ecosystem that allows humans to survive if we kill them in our mines and our factories, and steal away their land and their living for our fancy ironwood decks and our Outback steaks? What is the point of showing a client the ROI on their heating system if you are going to fill their home with ground level ozone, formaldehyde, dioxins, and endocrine disruptors that will strip years of their lives?The reason I push energy efficiency to the bottom of the pile isn't because i don't recognize it's value, it is because between Social Justice, Environmental Quality, Water, and LCA ( embodied energy and environmental impact of production, installation, and disposal of materials), we have far more important work ahead of us.Oh, and then there is the idea that the earth is nothing but a giant battery with more energy potential than we can imagine, and we should suck it dry. After all, the earth will die one way or the other. Why waste all that energy? Sent from my iPad – M
Michael, first off, I apologize for taking so long to reply, but as I mentioned on twitter – just focusing on the big picture issues, tends to make one overlook all the good that could be done now, which also includes the cumulative effect that would happen over time. In that regard, I am a little confused on part of your comment as it relates to other comments made “Energy efficiency in our buildings is important. Those who know my firms work, know that we designing and build our structures to be as efficient as possible while simultaneously designing in efficient use systems to ensure that behavior does not undo our efforts. That said, energy is the no-brainer side of our industry. It takes no effort to specify…” then why disregard it? As for that second sentence, that is one reason I was wondering if there was a shortage of dictionaries in the great State of Minnesota. Why not congratulate them for creating a “good baseline for all green buildings,” and start pushing the next issue. Now while you might have felt you have already done this; you have to remember that not everyone is as current or caught up on all the different issues. Do you recall the conversation you took part on at Remodel Crazy? What many builders and remodelers are looking for is a clear-cut set of standards or best practices, items to work towards or from, items to help them improve what they offer, etc… Seeing fights and arguments over such a “no-brainer issue” simply frustrates them, leaves them confused, and they simply do what they have always done. Now is energy – the end-all or be-all answer? Of course not, but it is a good baseline to start from, along with Indoor Air Quality and water-efficiency measures, or as I like to call it “Common Sense Building.” Let’s take these baselines, work on improving them as needed and keep working on the other issues, hopefully leading to a greener future for all.
So Michael, why is it that you have suddenly lost your sense of humor?
I see your point, Michael, but energy use is neither base nor trivial. I agree with Joe Lstiburek that green building should be about 80% energy and 20% materials & water.*It's because of energy use that we've been able to gobble up so much land for development.*It's because of energy use that we've become a consumer society.*It's because of energy use that the Earth is overpopulated with humans.And that last point really is the killer. We cannot have “a state of harmony between men and land” with nearly 7 billion people on the planet. There can be small pockets of harmony, yes, but not for the planet as a whole because to sustain that population, we have to keep pumping as much oil out of the ground as we can. We must keep scraping the tops off of mountains and dousing our agricultural land with chemicals.When you look at the big picture, it's really all about population and energy use.
As one of the other Sith Lords of Green Building, I have come to appreciate both sides of this argument. I am a big fan of energy efficiency, and on occasion give it more importance than other aspects of green building, much to the dismay of that certain Minnesotan. I do realize, however, that conservation, via change in behavior, is as or more important than anything we do technologically. As Allison pointed out, efficiency does not guarantee less energy use, it just allows us to use more without paying extra. Until and unless we change behavior alongside making things more efficient, we will not reduce energy use. Depending on the particulars of a building or a car, you may be able to save more energy through behavior change than any technology, although a combination of both works best, as you noted in your chart. Recently I dramatically reduced my AC use (unusual in the muggy south) and often go days at a time without turning it on by managing when windows and doors are open, when shades are drawn, use of fans, and dressing appropriately. My house is not perfectly comfortable all the time, but it's never terribly uncomfortable, and I really enjoying the smug feeling when I hear my neighbors AC units running all day and night through those very same open windows.
Interesting post, Sean, but I have to disagree with your claim that,”Conservation on the other hand is a behavior that results in the use of less energy, water or gas.”Conservation means that something is conserved. That's all. Everything in the human world has to do with behavior, of course, so I'm not saying that behavior is irrelevant. What I AM saying is that efficiency does NOT save energy. In fact, there's something called Jevons's Paradox which says that just the opposite happens. Jevons noticed that when engineers and inventors made more efficient pumps for the coal mines, more coal ended up being used. You can look at just about any technology or fuel over the past couple hundred years and see the same thing.You can also see it with homes. We have more efficient heating & cooling equipment, more efficient light bulbs, more efficient refrigerators… When you look at how much energy homes use now, though, compared to 1980, it's gone up. We've spent our 'energy efficiency dividend' on bigger homes and more gadgets.I wrote about this very issue in my blog a few weeks ago and documented the above claim with statistics from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). You can read it at:http://hub.am/b8ocnN
Sean,Great post.I find that the terms efficiency and conservation are often used interchangeably in conversation and around the web. This leads to confusion as people pursue more sustainable choices. Mincing words is always tedious but in the case the distinction is important.In my view, “efficiency” speaks to a system that has been designed or engineered to use less of something (for this argument, energy) when compared to a similar device or a standard. So, by choosing to use the “efficient” device, energy is conserved relative to other methods. Another way to look at it is that “efficient” devices are simply tools we use in conservation.Conservation, I believe, is the result of deliberate and thoughtful choice. We can conserve energy by choosing to change how we use the tools we have…or, as your post points out clearly, choosing to add “efficient” tools and then choosing to use them in a way that achieves substantially greater conservation.The difficult part seems to be making the choice.Is this consistent with your idea of “efficiency” and “conservation”?For a future post on The Homeowners Resource Center, would you consider discussing “sustainable”? It may be interesting for your readership as it encompasses “efficiency” and “conservation” plus the ideas of “embodied” energy and toxicity (among many others). This topic will surely be a challenge but if more people comprehend it they will continue to improve the choices they make.Thanks again for taking on some challenging ideas. It's very helpful.
Good Evening Mike & thanks for the commentFirst it seems like we are on the same page. As for the article idea, feel free to shoot me any ideas you have – I am always looking for good ideas and items that others would find helpful. Currently I was planning on an article on Sustainability & Durability, but it was a ways off – I will try to bump it up to sometime in the next few weeks. I still have some RRP articles I have been meaning to knock out, and time is running out on them. Thanks again