Category Archives: economics

Jevons’ Paradox – Save Energy To Save Money

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZxz0YZzrFs

The problem with this Economist Mentality is that it is ungoverned. Any income issue that constantly rises, crashes under its own weight. Another issue is the dramatic increase in population in the last 100 years. Over all America’s consumption is down in the last 20 years and that is a fact jack. But environmentalists waffle…

http://www.greens.org/s-r/47/47-05.html

The Specter of Jevons’ Paradox

by Jeff Dardozzi

It is an article of faith within the sustainability movement that resource efficiency improvement must be the main response to Peak Oil and Climate Change. The recurring mantra in our culture is that technological silver bullets will save the day. It is widely believed that increased resource efficiencies coupled with widely deployed renewable energy technologies will rescue the earth from catastrophe and salvage Western civilization from ecological and societal collapse. Furthermore, such a strategy will usher in a new relationship with nature that secures her for generations to come. As with most articles of faith, belief in them is a difficult thing to shake even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

In the early eighties, an old debate within economics resurfaced surrounding something called Jevons’ Paradox, or the more descriptive term rebound effect. Many well-known minds, such as Amory Lovins, piped in on the new meaning of this old, obscure argument buried in 19th century classical economics. First coined by the economist W. Stanley Jevons in The Coal Question (1865), the paradox he noted was in regards to coal consumption and efficiency improvements in steam engines: “It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”

As with most articles of faith, belief in them is a difficult thing to shake even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.

In the 1980s, Jevons’ observation was revisited by the economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes. In their analysis, they looked beyond the relationship between energy resources and the machines that convert them to useful work to consider the overall effect of technological improvements in resource efficiencies on the energy use of a society as a whole. They argued that increased efficiency paradoxically leads to increased overall energy consumption. In 1992, the economist Harry Saunders dubbed this hypothesis the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate and showed that it was true under neo-classical growth theory over a wide range of assumptions. Since the appearance of the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, numerous studies have weighed in on the debate arguing a range of impacts of the rebound effect.

…increased efficiency paradoxically leads to increased overall energy consumption.

In January 2008, Earthscan released Jevons Paradox: The Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements as the latest and most comprehensive review of the paradox in economics literature. Prefaced by anthropologist Joseph Tainter (The Collapse of Complex Societies, 1988), the book reviews the history of the debate, current findings and includes the latest multi-disciplinary studies regarding the existence of the rebound effect. The book clearly supports the proposition that the rebound effect is present in the US, Europe and most other economies and that strategies to increase energy efficiency in themselves will do little to improve the energy or the ecological situation. In fact, they may well worsen it as the historical impact of resource efficiency improvements shows that increasing the efficiency in the use of a resource in turn increases the consumption of that resource.

The devil is in the details

The crux of the argument lies in the fact that when you save money through improvements in efficiencies, such as with gas mileage or heating costs, invariably that savings has two effects. First, it decreases demand for an energy resource, which reduces the price of the resource. This then reveals a new layer of demand that, in turn, increases consumption of that resource. Such behavior can be found most everywhere in the economy. In analyzing homes over the last 50 years we see their energy efficiency improved dramatically but the square footage more than doubled and the number of occupants more than halved. Even though the heat load of today’s homes may be less than that of 50 years ago, the total embodied energy and operational requirements per occupant home is far greater due to size, composition, occupancy and lifestyle – all predicated on resource efficiency improvements.

Word processing is another example of the Paradox at work. Before the advent of personal computers, producing a professional typewritten document was quite arduous, time consuming and expensive. Once computers, printers and networks came onto the scene, there was widespread hype that we would no longer need paper and the “paperless office” was bandied about as one of the great resource conserving aspects of technology. Everyone knows what happened – paper consumption skyrocketed because the cost per word to print plummeted.

The same thing happens with highway improvements. Every increase and improvement made to the carrying capacity of highways invariably leads to an increase in traffic congestion, housing development and maintenance regimes. Efficiency improvements in battery storage technology and the energy efficiency of micro-circuits along with efficiency improvements in production and infrastructure have fueled the explosion in digital technologies, all of which increase demand for energy and resources. The paradox is everywhere.

The second effect resulting from efficiency improvements is that when you save money you usually spend it somewhere else in the system of production, and that translates into increased energy and resource consumption. The worst thing you could do is save it in the fractional reserve banking system where the multiplier effect can compound your savings to recycle it into the economy at 10 times what it would have been if you had just spent the money yourself.

Even those who argue for the “sackcloth and ashes” approach to sustainability through lower consumption, simplicity, and reduced reliance on fossil energy are haunted by Jevons ghost. As the ecological economist Blake Alcott notes in The Sufficiency Strategy: Would Rich-world Frugality Lower Environmental Impact?

However, given global markets and marginal consumers, one person’s doing without enables another to “do with.” In the near run the former consumption of a newly sufficient person can get fully replaced. And given the extent of poverty and the temptations of luxury and prestige consumption, this near run is likely to be longer than the time horizon required for a relevant strategy to stem climate change and the loss of vital species and natural resources.

The claim of reducing material standards voluntarily as a means to reduce environmental impact may be sound at the local or regional level, but in the global marketplace such claims are demonstrably false. As countries like China and India work their way through the late stages of primitive capital accumulation, they are stepping into the consumptive paradigm full force with over two billion consumers anxious to take up any slack. India’s boast of the Tata, the world’s cheapest automobile, and the prospect of a billion new cars on the road by the middle of the century haunt the Western world as the ghosts of Prometheus and Pandora reappear before our eyes.

…China and India…are stepping into the consumptive paradigm full force…

:}

If they are not saying it is inevitable then they are saying the only way around it is to unplug.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuLaWgbu24M&feature=related

:}

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/jevons-paradox.php

Household appliances provide the best example that efficiency gains really do stick. Take refrigerators (which can use as much as 14 percent of a household’s total energy). Until the late 1970s, the average size of our refrigerators increased steadily and then began leveling off. But, during the same period, the energy those refrigerators used started to decline rapidly. Today’s Energy Star refrigerators are 40 percent more efficient than those sold even seven years ago. After all, there is a maximum size to the refrigerator you can easily put in a kitchen and a limit to the number of refrigerators you need in your house. In short, improvements in efficiency have greatly outpaced our need for more and larger storage spaces.

One problem in applying Jevons’ Paradox to today is the fact that back in 1885, coal was getting cheaper every day. The authors

“suggest that taxes could make up for any savings introduced by efficiency improvements, thereby avoiding the paradox. In the United States, at least, this approach is politically infeasible, but the general principle is sound.”

Holladay suggests an alternative: voluntary simplicity.

I’m calling instead for the voluntary adoption of a simpler lifestyle: one with less work, fewer possessions, and more leisure time. A graceful transition to such a lifestyle would be the greatest possible gift to our children and grandchildren.

Certainly TreeHugger territory, but not an easy sell. However we are in a very temporary bubble of reduced consumption; many are living lives of involuntary simplicity now and when oil prices come back, will have an even harder time. It is a smackdown between Adam Smith and William Jevons; when stuff is expensive, people use less of it. And prices are going to rise, whether we tax them or not.

More at Green Building Advisor

More on Jevons Paradox in TreeHugger:

Beating the Energy Efficiency Paradox (Part I)
Beating the Energy Efficiency Paradox (Part II)
Survey Indicates Americans Deluded On Energy Conservation. Are They Really?

:}

So it goes..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yERTIErjTE4&feature=related

Have a great weekend

:}

Jevons’ Paradox – Or should it be called Jevons’ Justification

Posted on by
Reply

Or maybe even Jevons’ Excuse. See if the Industrialists and the Elite can say, “Look it doesn’t matter whether we save energy or not. Someone else will just use it”. Kind of like Marx’s army of the unemployed. The is the army of the underenergized. As we pointed out last time this is called a rebound theory because after the efficiencies are introduced the consumption never quite makes it back to the same level. That is because once people see that they can save a lot of money by paying less, their ways stay changed so to speak. Much of that rebound can also be explained by human kinds relentless population growth. But he also assumes the total fluidity of the market. Not everyone can access a nuke in Savannah like if they are in Nigeria.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Jevons_paradox

Jevons paradox

Contributing Author: Richard York (other articles)
Article Topic: Energy
This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Cutler J. Cleveland (other articles)
Last Updated: October 8, 2006

Jevons paradox (also known as the rebound effect) is the observation that greater energy efficiency, while in the short-run producing energy savings, may in the long-run result in higher energy use. It was first noted by the British economist W. Stanley Jevons, in his book The Coal Question published in 1865, where he argued that “it is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” The Jevons paradox is an observation based on economic theory and long-term historical studies, and its magnitude is a matter of considerable dispute: if it is small (i.e., the expansion of fuel using activities is less than 100% of the improvement in efficiency) then energy efficiency improvements will lead to lower energy consumption, if it is large (i.e., the expansion of fuel using activities is greater than 100% of the improvement in efficiency) then energy consumption will be higher. A key problem in resolving the two positions is that it is not possible to run ‘control’ experiments to see whether energy use is higher or lower than if there had been no efficiency improvements—there is, after all, only one future. A further problem is that the rebound effect has differing impacts at all levels of the economy, from the micro-economic (the consumer) to the macro-economic (the national economy), and its magnitude at all levels of the economy has not yet been determined. Nonetheless, there is mounting evidence that at the national level it is not uncommon for total resource consumption to grow even while efficiency improves, suggesting at least that improvements in efficiency are not necessarily sufficient for curtailing consumption (although, once again, this does not necessarily demonstrate that resource consumption grows because of improvements in efficiency).

:}

Then there is this:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2499

Efficiency Policy, Jevon’s Paradox, and the “Shadow” Rebound Effect

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 26, 2007 – 10:36am
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: efficiency, jevons paradox, rebound effect [list all tags]

This is a guest post by Jeff Vail.

Is the push for greater energy efficiency a good policy choice to address energy scarcity after Peak Oil? Here’s a bold answer: NO, at least not in a vacuum. Efficiency is not a standalone solution, but part of the much more complex problem of reducing total energy consumption that must address Jevon’s Paradox and the Rebound Effect.

Jevon’s Paradox tells us that when we increase the efficiency of the use of a resource, we initially decrease the demand for that resource, but that ultimately this lower demand reduces price, which causes a “rebound” of increasing demand. When applied specifically to energy efficiency, this is commonly referred to as the “Rebound Effect.”

Here’s a real-world example. Let’s magically double the average fuel economy of America’s cars and trucks. Gasoline demand would drop immediately by 50%. This would affect the supply-demand equilibrium of gasoline, reducing its price significantly. However, with dramatically lower gas prices, many people would choose to drive more than they had in the past—this is the “rebound,” where some of the energy savings provided by gains in efficiency are negated by the corresponding effect on energy prices. Clearly, a 50% drop in gas prices won’t result in the average American doubling their driving, as would be required to completely negate the efficiency gains in this scenario. Even if gas was free, there would be some limit to how much we would drive. So this “rebound effect” doesn’t negate the entirety of energy savings due to efficiency. Studies suggest that it erases perhaps 10%-30% of the gains.

:}

Please read more of this highly informative article and find out about PEAK OIL too.

:}

Jevons’ Paradox – Truth or intellectual masterbation

Posted on by
Reply

I vote for intellectual masterbation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation

Energy conservation refers to efforts made to reduce energy consumption in order to preserve resources for the future and reduce environmental pollution. It can be achieved through efficient energy use (when energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome), or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.

Electrical energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita and thus offsets some of the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production. Another method is switchingto the user friendly SM energy. This is produced at Swan Energy Savers, envirmental helpers.[1]

dot dot dot as they say…

Issues with energy conservation

Critics and advocates of some forms of energy conservation make the following arguments:

  • Standard economic theory suggests that technological improvements increase energy efficiency, rather than reduce energy use. This is called the Jevons Paradox and it is said to occur in two ways. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy. This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless, increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of life. However, in order to reduce energy consumption, efficiency gains must be paired with a government intervention that reduces demand (a green tax, cap and trade).[6][7]

:}

Just the shear arrogance of this guy makes me vote for the truth side.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/12/180-jevons-paradox-refuted.html

Well… the doomers love Jevons Paradox. For them it is, above all, a reason not to conserve (or a reason why conservation “won’t help”). After all, why should anybody conserve gasoline? If they do so, it will (by Jevons Paradox) just cause consumption of gasoline to increase.

Now, we may not be able to refute Jevons Paradox as an empirical fact, but we certainly can refute the way doomers are using it. We can do it with a single example:
In a vast parking lot ruled by cars and low-slung superstores, Stacey Harper delivers the unlikeliest of travel alternatives: mass transit.

The 41-year-old nurse wheels a white minivan into a rain-dappled parking spot to pick up a couple more co-workers. It is 6 a.m. on a Wednesday in South Hill, and Harper is driving a van pool to work at Western State Hospital.

A year ago, Harper thought nothing of driving 36 miles from home to work alone. That was before the price of a gallon of gasoline began its steady march upward, ultimately costing her $180 to $200 per month.

:}

Please see the rest of the blog AND comments, but his point is that people that conserve energy make money. Once they do that they will rarely ever go back to wasting money. That is Jevons failed to take true consumer behavior into account.

:}

My Dad Owned 3 Dodge Desotos – In the early and mids 60s

Posted on by
1

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdMDexoMSlc

What a difference 50 years make. My dad loved these cars. They weighed a ton, had huge engines and got 10 miles to the gallon when gas was 15 cents a gallon. Now we are switching to electricity. What a world we live in.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmEpXnjJj0 )


1958 Dodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSoto_%28automobile%29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

1952 DeSoto DeLuxe hood ornament.

The DeSoto (sometimes De Soto) was a brand of automobile based in the United States, manufactured and marketed by the Chrysler Corporation from 1928 to 1961. The DeSoto logo featured a stylized image of Hernando de Soto. The De Soto marque was officially dropped 30 November 1960, with a bit over two million built since 1928.[1]

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sN-srcAgH8 )

The DeSoto make was founded by Walter Chrysler on August 4, 1928, and introduced for the 1929 model year. It was named after the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. Chrysler wanted to enter the brand in competition with its arch-rivals General Motors, Studebaker, and Willys-Knight, in the mid-price class.

Shortly after DeSoto was introduced, however, Chrysler completed its purchase of the Dodge Brothers, giving the company two mid-priced makes. Had the transaction been completed sooner, DeSoto never would have been introduced.

Initially, the two-make strategy was relatively successful, with DeSoto priced below Dodge models. Despite the economic times, DeSoto sales were relatively healthy, pacing Dodge at around 25,000 units in 1932. However, in 1933, Chrysler reversed the market positions of the two marques in hopes of boosting Dodge sales. By elevating DeSoto, it received Chrysler’s streamlined 1934 Airflow bodies. But, on the shorter DeSoto wheelbase, the design was a disaster and was unpopular with consumers. Unlike Chrysler, which still had more traditional models to fall back on, DeSoto was hobbled by the Airflow design until the 1935 Airstream arrived.

Aside from its Airflow models, DeSoto’s 1942 model is probably its second most memorable model from the pre-war years, when the cars were fitted with powered pop-up headlights, a first for a North American mass-production vehicle. DeSoto marketed the feature as “Air-Foil” lights “Out of Sight Except at Night”.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGBKy5iMRBw )

After wartime restrictions on automotive production were ended, DeSoto returned to civilian car production when it reissued its 1942 models as 1946 models, but without the hidden-headlight feature, and with fender lines extending into the doors, like other Chrysler products of the immediate postwar period.

Until 1952, DeSoto used the Deluxe and Custom model designations. However, in 1953, DeSoto dropped the Deluxe and Custom names and designated its six-cylinder cars the Powermaster and its V8 car the Firedome.

At its height, DeSoto’s more popular models included the Firedome, Firesweep, and Fireflite. The DeSoto Adventurer, introduced for 1956 as a high-performance hard-top coupe (similar to Chrysler’s 300), became a full-range model in 1960.

DeSotos sold well through the 1956 model year. That year, for the first, and only, time in the marque’s history, it served as Pace Car at the Indianapolis 500.[2] In 1955,[3] along with all Chrysler models, De Sotos were redesigned with Virgil Exner‘s “Forward Look”. Exner gave the DeSoto soaring tailfins fitted with triple taillights, and consumers responded by buying record numbers. The 1957 had a well integrated design, with two variations: the smaller Firesweep, based on the concurrent Dodge; and the Firedome and Fireflite (and its halo model Adventurer sub-series), based on the larger Chrysler body. As was conventional in the era, subsequent years within the typical three year model block were distinguished by trim, bumper, and other low cost modifications, typically by adding bulk to bumpers and grilles, taillight changes, color choices, instrumentation and interior design changes and often additional external trim.

The 1958 economic downturn hurt sales of mid-priced makes across the board, and DeSoto sales were 60 percent lower than those of 1957 in what would be DeSoto’s worst year since 1938. The sales slide continued for 1959 and 1960 (down 40 percent from the already low 1959 figures), and rumors began to circulate DeSoto was going to be discontinued

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6vxrs_S_o )

By the time the 1961 DeSoto was introduced in the fall of 1960, rumors were widespread that Chrysler was moving towards terminating the brand, fueled by a reduction in model offerings for the 1960 model year.

For 1961, DeSoto lost its series designations entirely, in a move reminiscent of Packard’s final lineup. And, like the final Packards, the final DeSoto was of questionable design merit. Again, based on the shorter Chrysler Windsor wheelbase, the DeSoto featured a two-tiered grille (each tier with a different texture) and revised taillights. Only a two-door hardtop and a four-door hardtop were offered. The cars were trimmed similarly to the 1960 Fireflite.

The final decision to discontinue DeSoto was announced on November 30, 1960, just forty-seven days after the 1961 models were introduced. At the time, Chrysler warehouses contained several million dollars in 1961 DeSoto parts, so the company ramped up production in order to use up the stock. Chrysler and Plymouth dealers, which had been forced to take possession of DeSotos under the terms of their franchise agreements, received no compensation from Chrysler for their unsold DeSotos at the time of the formal announcement. Making matters worse, Chrysler kept shipping the cars through December, many of which were sold at a loss by dealers eager to be rid of them. After the parts stock was exhausted, a few outstanding customer orders were filled with Chrysler Windsors.

:}

Have a good weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abtsjWiiDoY

:}

City Water Light And Power – Energy Efficiency in Springfield Illinois

Posted on by
1

I forget to give them the credit they deserve. We have a local utility that has invested in wind power and early Energy Conservation Programs. And it was created by a socialist.

http://www.cwlp.com/

Welcome to the home page of City Water, Light & Power (CWLP), the municipal electric and water utility for Springfield, Illinois. CWLP also owns and manages Lake Springfield, the primary source of drinking water for Springfield and one of Central Illinois’ premier recreational resources.

City Water, Light & Power’s general offices are located on the fourth floor of Municipal Center East, 800 East Monroe, Springfield, IL 62757. Contact information for the General Office and other utility offices can be found on the Contact Information page in the About CWLP section.

For more information about the utility or its various divisions, select one of the main topics or subtopics in the left-hand column of this page.

Top l CWLP Home l CWLP Contact Info l Search l City of Springfield

:}

These guys are the best.

http://www.cwlp.com/energy_services/energy_services.htm

The CWLP Energy Services Office offers a variety of services designed to help our residential and commercial customers increase personal comfort and convenience while reducing energy and water costs. The office is staffed by a team of  Energy Experts who work diligently to keep abreast of the latest developments in energy-related technologies. They share their knowledge with CWLP’s residential and business customers via several avenues, including advertising; free publications produced specifically with our customers’ needs in mind; bill inserts; informational videos; home energy audits; and Low-Cost/No-Cost Efficiency Workshops and other community involvement programs. The Energy Services Office also administers CWLP’s efficiency rebate programs.

The  Energy Services Office is in downtown Springfield on the northwest corner of Monroe and S. 6th Streets. We invite customers to stop in and visit us, view our energy-efficient lighting displays and water conservation exhibit, pick up free efficiency literature, or talk with the Energy Experts. We also welcome questions or requests for information that come through the mail, by phone or FAX, or via email.

Reach us at: 2nd Floor
231 S. 6th St.
Springfield, IL 62701
Phone: (217) 789-2070
FAX: (217) 789-2210
email: nrgxprts@cwlp.com

For more information about CWLP’s Energy Services Office or about how you can make your home or business more energy efficient, select any of the topics or subtopics listed in the left-hand column of this page.

:}

See you at jam band friday…

:}

How Much Do You Lose To The Utility Company While You Work Or Are Asleep

Posted on by
1

The phenomenon is called Vampires. These are devices that suck power to maintain function. The Clock on your alarm clock, the chip in your sound system that saves your “functions” setting, the clock on you microwave. This may not appear to be a local issue like I have been posting this week but it is very personal to me. The State of Illinois has a huge office building that houses many members of our local legislature and their staffs. It was built when power was cheap and the cleaning goes on at night. There are no light switches what so ever and SO THE LIGHTS STAY ON ALL NIGHT. This is the Count Dracula of all vampires and I have sworn for the last 30 years that I would get them turned off and I have failed. Yet I persist.

http://www.vampirepowersucks.com/Default.aspx

US total
See it happen - Augmented Reality Calculate your energy loss Get the iPhone app

Vampire Power / Vampire Energy Awareness

Standby Power Wastes $10 Billion of Electricity Annually in US Alone

Just as Count Dracula preys upon the innocent, Vampire Power or Vampire Energy, or the energy drawn from items like electronic devices that are plugged in but not in use, drains “blood” from the energy grid wasting 10 billion dollars annually in the U.S. alone. This Web site is your single source for helping you to take a bite out of Vampire Power or Vampire Energy, to save both energy and money.

Put a stake through Vampire Power and check out the About Us page for more information on how to combat this blood sucker once and for all. Go to the Spread The Word section to show your support and stay up to date on the latest news about Vampire Power prevention. Bring the fang marks of Vampire Power to life and see just how much you’re “bleeding” by visiting the Vampire Power Experience. Consider us your newest garlic supplier — you’ve been warned, Dracula.

:}

Please write Governor Quinn and tell him to TURN OFF THE LIGHTS IN THE STRATTON BUILDING.

Drive a Stake Through
Vampire Power

As a developer of eco-friendly chargers and power management systems, iGo lives and breathes power, but one thing that always bugged us is how much Vampire Power sucks. Even when your electronic device or appliance is completely turned off, Vampire Power is sucking energy.

Some devices simply take power to run internal circuits or memory while others waste energy by continuously trying to recharge devices that have already been fully charged. Just about everything plugged into your home and office draws power from the wall. Think about it, even if you always turn off your gadgets when you’re not using them, most electronics don’t actually turn all the way off! The typical American home has 40* products that are constantly drawing power and 10% of all electricity is wasted on Vampire Power. Vampire Power sucks away 10 billion dollars** annually in the U.S. alone.

The good news is that there are ways to reduce Vampire Power by changing our behavior and through products such as chargers and surge protectors with iGo Green™ Technology. That’s why, in conjunction with Vampire Power Awareness Month, iGo has created this site to provide information about how to stop sucking Vampire Power.

:}

Then I can rest in peace.

:}

Energy Consumption And Healthcare – What does treatment really cost.

Posted on by
Reply

The basic problem in the beginning of the conservation movement (energy) was no one knew how much energy was being used and thus how much could be saved. The same is true in spades for medicine. Think about it, how much does an xray cost? No one knows. So how much energy does an xray take? When you ask you get answers like this…

http://greenanswers.com/q/72578/science-technology/how-much-energy-does-it-take-make-x-ray

seanm (881) 3/10/10 10:37am

This is a good question and the answer varies depending on the type of X-ray machines you’re talking about. Traditionally X-rays have only been possible with a high voltage generation, which takes a lot of energy, anywhere from 30 to 150 kV. By comparison, high-voltage electric transmission lines operate at about 110 kV, so we’re talking about a lot of power. However, X-rays can be exposed in tiny fractions of seconds and since the 1980s technology has advanced to make X-rays even faster so as to reduce the exposure of operators and patients to radiation. I could not find specific energy consumption ratings on various X-ray machines, but there are efforts afoot to replace traditional X-ray machines with digital ones, which in addition to eliminating the need to keep film and developer on hand will reduce energy consumption by up to 78%.

Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://www.gereports.com/picturing-the-benefits-of-digital-x-rays/

:}

say what…

:}

or an mri (they routinely charge 2 to 3 thousand $$$)???

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908210925AA26KhC

How electricity does an Xray or MRI machine use per scan? How much does it cost the Hospital?

My brother insists that it takes a LOT of electricity in order to power and Xray or MRI machine just for one scan. He thinks it uses more than a normal household uses per month. I doubt that. Does anyone know how much is used or how much it costs? No guesses please…my other brother loves to answer questions with guess-answers because he thinks he’s probably always right…conveniently nobody ever has a computer when he gives these questionable answers and nobody remembers what he said

answer1

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

The amount of energy used will always be constant on the machines the only way to solve this problem is to determine where the machines are used to get kilowatt costs as they are more expensive in some areas of the country. Once you determine that factor it will be easy to solve the equation.

answer2

Here is a listing of a typical “open” MRI Model describing the power consumption:
Manufactured by Esaote S.p.A.; a low field open MRI scanner with permanent magnet for orthopedic use. The outstanding feature of this MRI system is a patient friendly design with 24 cm diameter, which allows the imaging of extremities and small body parts like shoulder MRI. The power consumption is around 1.3 kW and the needed minimum floor space is an area of 16 sq m.

So it uses about 1.3kW to run. The usual power outlet is 480 volts/3 phase/125 amps. It uses more power (up to 2kW) when the magnet is on. Keep in mind that this is considered a ‘small’ MRI machine. Larger units weigh up to 12 tons and are assembled on site in phases.

Typical US 3-prong outlet is 125 volts/15 amps.

A typical US household uses approximately 8900 kW per year. So one MRI scanner consumes approximately several dozen households worth per year depending on how often it’s used.

Source(s):

RN

answer3

X ray machines draw a lot of power for a very short time, a few seconds. So overall power consumption is low. MRI is no different.
Overall, the consumption would depend on how much it is used. If the X ray machine is being used for 1000 films, the consumption would be equal to a household consumption.

:}

The point being that we have no idea what our healthcare costs and doctors want to keep it that way.

:}

Energy Concerns And Healthcare

Posted on by
Reply

The medical and healthcare industries use energy like there was no tomorrow. I estimate that the US could save at least 20% on its healthcare bills. For those of you in small towns…how much do you waste on driving to your doctor? Why don’t the hospitals put a telecommunications computer in your city or town hall? That way you can call in, get an appointment, walk down to City Hall and talk to your doctor. Even show him where you hurt. To say the medical community is stodgy is wrong…it is too smart for its own britches.

http://www.matmanmag.com/matmanmag_app/jsp/articledisplay.jsp?dcrpath=MATMANMAG/Article/data/11NOV2008/0811MMH_FEA_Purchasing&domain=MATMANMAG

The bright side of energy conservation
Using renewable sources saves money, reduces emissions

By Gina Pugliese and Nick DeDominicis

QUICK TAKE>>>
Hospitals are behind other industries in employing energy conservation initiatives, including the use of renewable energy sources. But times are changing as they realize that wasted energy drains their bottom lines and that they have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint for the health of the environment and surrounding communities. Energy-saving initiatives require multidepartmental collaboration within a hospital; and materials managers need to ensure they are a part of that because their expertise can make a difference.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), every dollar a not-for-profit health care organization saves on energy is equivalent to generating $20 in new revenue for hospitals or $10 for medical offices. So why aren’t all hospitals jumping into energy conservation with both feet? There are many reasons. But this is certain: Most hospitals recognize that energy conservation is a priority and are gradually realizing the benefits, both to their bottom line and the environment.

On impact

Energy issues have an impact on virtually every aspect of health care. Demands for energy and the costs for providing it, are escalating rapidly. And those costs are not confined to higher utility, transportation and supply bills, but also the gradual destruction of the environment. Our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels has led to a documented rise in global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as well as potentially negative health consequences for patients and workers.

Demand for energy is soaring across all sectors of the American economy. In fact, a recent Department of Energy survey of 20 major companies concluded that global demand for energy resources will rise dramatically—nearly 60 percent—throughout the next 25 years.

Senior executives from 20 major companies attending a 2007 workshop hosted by the EPA and Global Business Network estimated that  electricity demand in the United States alone will grow by at least 40 percent throughout the next 25 years, requiring at least 300 power plants to be built over that time. Such demands have led to an unprecedented rise in energy costs, which have surged dramatically and put a significant financial strain on hospitals. In some areas of the United States, energy costs have grown by more than 60 percent in the past few years.

The Energy Information Administration’s data show that the health care industry spends an estimated $7.4 billion on energy ($5.3 billion for inpatient and $2.1 billion for outpatient facilities). More than 90 percent of hospitals surveyed recently by Healthcare Financial Management magazine reported higher energy costs over the previous year, and more than half cited double-digit increases.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from our nation’s reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy—fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas—that accelerate global warming and climate change; and there is much debate about how to curb such trends. GHG emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, also are increasingly linked to a host of serious public health consequences such as depletion of our planet’s fresh water supply and respiratory ailments.

Conservation now

Health care is a veritable energy hog. Whether from heating and cooling air and water, lighting spaces or transporting goods and services, the industry is heavily reliant on energy from mostly conventional nonrenewable sources.

According to the EPA, inpatient health care is the second most energy intensive industry in the United States (second only to the food service industry), gobbling up more than twice as much energy per square foot as nonhealth care office buildings. Buildings alone are responsible for almost half of the energy consumed in the United States and 48 percent of all GHG emissions. Hospitals alone use 836 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy annually, have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings and are consistently within the top 10 water users in their communities.

Second, the calls for change are based on economic survival. Energy costs are soaring in the health care industry. A recent Department of Energy report found that rising energy prices and hospitals’ increasing energy demands have escalated costs so much that hospitals’ energy bills consume up to 3 percent of their total operating budgets, and up to at least 15 percent of their annual profits. Such phenomena are exacerbated by the added cost of running outdated and energy inefficient building systems.

Third, calls for energy conservation in health care are becoming louder because of hospitals’ ethical duty to protect public health. Many observers believe that the health care industry contributes disproportionately to the detrimental public health consequences of climate change. To keep true to its mandate—first, do no harm—hospitals today increasingly are turning their attention to change practices that can potentially jeopardize patient and worker safety. Increasing public concerns about climate change and its potential health, economic and security consequences are helping to shape the industry’s attitude toward climate change.

:}

dot dot dot…as they say…the headlines say it all:

:}

Behind the times

Although hospitals lag behind other industries in implementing energy-efficient strategies, there are numerous national initiatives focusing on health care, including a two-year-old initiative called E2C (Energy Efficient Challenge) that was launched by the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE) to support the goals of EPA’s Energy Star Challenge Program, says Dale Woodin, ASHE executive director. Woodin explains that this lag is often due to the lack of available capital, expertise and resources, and a need for greater awareness and support from senior health care leaders.

Health care companies in general also spend a smaller portion of their total expenses on energy, meaning fewer dollars are available to make far-reaching improvements. Rising energy costs are squeezing operating margins and diverting money needed for critical health care quality and safety improvements.

In essence, the primary driver is saving money. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, 67 percent of health care CEOs list financial challenges as their No. 1 concern. However, operating costs and competition for investment and capital improvement funds often restrict available funding for energy improvements.

In addition, alternative energy sources have traditionally been scarce and expensive. For example, only 7 percent of the entire U.S. energy consumption is from renewable energy sources, including biofuels such as ethanol, solar, hydroelectric and wind power.

The health care industry is less open than other industries to the use of renewable energy sources, and few health care organizations have publicly stated carbon reduction goals.

A recent Johnson Controls survey of various industries found that only 38 percent of health care organizations had either invested in or were exploring renewable technologies, compared with 68 percent across other industries.

Catching up

Recently, the health care sector has begun to transform its core practices in response to the scientific confirmation of the link between climate change and health. Health care organizations are placing a growing importance on initiatives such as energy management, and while they are less likely than other industries to achieve green certification, they are more likely to implement green features without pursuing formal certification.

:}

Physician heal thyself.

Green Medicine – How to save energy by never using it in the first place

Posted on by
1

Funny I just saw a report on PBS that relates to this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/jan-june10/peru_03-31.html

The vast majority happen in remote areas, 99 percent of them in developing countries. In Peru, a new national strategy to turn those numbers around is taking shape. And the program is being seen as a model for Latin America and the developing world.

Here, in the remote region of Ayacucho, 12,000 feet above sea level, sits the village of Vilcashuaman. Many hours from the nearest airstrip, it’s a town so remote that even the impressive Inca ruins draw few tourists.

A casa materna, or birthing home, was built for women late in pregnancy to live in as their due date nears. And it’s a centerpiece in the government’s new strategy.

Dr. Oscar Ugarte Ubillus is Peru’s health minister.

DR. OSCAR UGARTE UBILLUS, Peruvian health minister (through translator): We detected that one of the critical problems is the amount of time and distance it takes to get attention when complications arise in childbirth. So, we have created 450 waiting homes throughout the country.

RAY SUAREZ: At the casa materna in Vilcashuaman, pregnant women bring their children. They make their own meals with ingredients from a hospital garden, and live as if at home.

Twenty-nine-year-old Eulalia Centro is here with her 1-year-old daughter. Eulalia had her first child at home without complications, before the birthing home existed. But she lives in an area with no roads. It takes a full day on horseback just to get to Vilcashuaman.

So, Eulalia chose to have her second, then her third child at the birthing home.

EULALIA CENTRO, mother (through translator): Pregnant women are always dying at home, so that is why we decided to come here.

RAY SUAREZ: The birthing home is occupied nearly every day of the year. Pregnancies in the region are tracked with a simple felt map. The circles represent each pregnant woman’s home and the number of hours it takes to reach them.

Red felt represents pregnant teenagers, at greater risk for death in childbirth because their bodies haven’t fully matured. Twenty-four-hour staff are trained to deal with obstetric emergencies, like breech babies, placenta blockage, and hemorrhaging.

Josefina Montes Perez is an OB-GYN at the casa.

:}

They did not try to build an air conditioned hospital, with a helicopter pad filled with 1.5 million $$$ a year doctors. They made it a place where they grow their own food, heat water with the sun, use natural herbs for labor and have an an ambulance, with blood and someone who knows how to control the bleeding if there is a problem. They cut the mortality rate by 50%. You can supply healthcare to people cheap. You can not supply industrial healthcare cheap…what got me to thinking about this?

http://www.greenmedicine.net/

MISSION

The mission of Green Medicine™ is to investigate and support research efforts on medicinal substances and medical foods from Peru.

ABOUT GREEN MEDICINE

GREEN MEDICINE is the website for information on Dr. Williams’ research in the upper Amazon under the Institute for Amazonian Studies (IAS), which he founded in 1996, and the Pino Center for Traditional Healing in 2004. His intention is to advance the mission of Green Medicine by working closely with Peruvian research organizations, individual investigators, universities, socially and environmentally responsible businesses, and traditional tribes of the upper Amazon and Andes for the purpose of exploring the following areas of study:

Evolutionary Biology in Tropical Rainforests:

  • Fragmentation of natural ecosystems
  • Robustness of plant and animal evolution and behavior
  • Complexity theory in natural ecosystems

Basic Research in the Therapeutic Value of Natural Compounds from Plants and Other Biological Substances

  • Development of rainforest botanical and biological medicines and extracts from natural products including antiviral, anticancer, immunomodulatory, and health promoting adaptogenic substances

Healing Methods and Medicines of Traditional Tribal Peoples

  • Ethnobotanical investigation for new plant medicines
  • Ethnomedical investigation of indigenous healing practices in addition to plant medicines
  • Consciousness exploration among indigenous people involving natural entheogenic compounds and medicinal plants

Dr. Williams has been working in Latin American since 1969 and in Peru since 1996.
For information on his books and integrative medicine practice, visit www.drjewilliams.com.
To view his site on shamanic healing, go to www.andeancodex.com.

:}

Healthcare And Computer Energy Savings – Turn them off and save money

Posted on by
1

That is right – turn off your computer when not using it and the medical world could save millions of $$$. Why don’t they energy manage their data networks? Because they don’t have to, they think they are Gods.

:}

http://it.med.miami.edu/x1159.xml

Computer power management

What’s the big deal?

Research shows that personal computers (PC) are not being actively used during the vast majority of the time that they are kept on.  It is estimated that an average PC is in use 4 hours each work day and idle for another 5.5 hours.  It’s also estimated that some 30-40 percent of the US’s work PCs are left running at night and on weekends.

Office equipment is the fastest growing electricity load in the commercial sector.  Computer systems are believed to account for 10 percent or more of commercial electricity consumption already.  Since computer systems generate waste heat, they also increase the amount of electricity necessary to cool office spaces.  (Yes, they lower the cost of heating somewhat.  That’s not a big factor in Miami.)

For the Medical Center, we estimate the savings from PC power management to be hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, even without factoring in increased office cooling costs.  Considerable savings are also possible from easing wear-and-tear on the computers themselves.

If you’d like to make a savings calculation for yourself or your organization — on electricity, dollars, trees, CO2 emissions — you can do that here.

Isn’t this “automatic” on most computers?

Almost all computers and monitors sold in the US today come with ENERGY-STAR energy-saving features.  But they generally don’t work unless you set them.

Both Windows and Apple/Mac systems allow you to set the amount of idle time that occurs before the system goes into “standby” or “sleep”  mode:

  • On Microsoft (Windows) systems, times are set in the Power Options section of the Control Panel.  Get there by the following path: Start > [My Computer >] Control Panel > [Performance and Maintenance >] Power Options.
  • On Apple (OS X) systems, standby and power option settings are set under System Preferences.  Go there and then select Energy Saver.

Standby/sleep modes are suitable for when your computer is idle for an hour or more.  A full system shut-down and power-off is appropriate at the end of the work day.

Will power management hurt my computer?

It’s a myth that turning computers off and on shortens their lives — unless you turn them off many, many, many times every day.  It’s also a myth that starting the computer requires a lot of “extra energy”: it actually only takes the equivalent of a few seconds of running time power.

Computers generate a lot of heat — principally from their central processor units (CPU).  Allowing a “cool down” during a power-off period will generally increase the life span of the entire system.  Allowing your computer to rest its moving parts, like the spinning hard drive, cooling fans, etc., will tend to increase the life-span of those components.

The reboot of the system that takes place when power is restored has another positive effect.  Many software patches and upgrades require a reboot to be fully installed and functional.  A computer that is only rarely rebooted may lag behind on software updates, and accordingly be more vulnerable to malware attacks.

Is there any downside to power management?

Obviously you have to consider the value of your time too.  A fully powered-down “off” computer takes a considerably longer time to restore to operational status than one in stand-by mode.  One in stand-by takes longer to restore than one that is fully on — although not much longer.

We’re not recommending you turn your system entirely off unless you plan to be away from it for a long time — such as at the end of the work day.  We do recommend setting a sleep/stand-by mode for when your system is idle for 30-60 minutes or more.

Unless your system is controlling an ongoing process, such as running/monitoring laboratory equipment, there is usually no good reason to leave it on when you are away for extended periods.  And many good reasons not to.

How does power management work?

Power management savings come from reducing hardware power to sleep levels when the computer is not fully active.   Idle-ness is defined by an absence of mouse or keyboard activity (and no on-going processes for applications) for a set time period.

:}

That’s right they saved hundreds of thousands of $$$. So how many Medical Centers like this exist? Well how many Major Universities are there in the US. That is right…hundreds of millions of $$$$

:}