ENERGY EFFICIENCY

With citations and examples beginning with the invention of the steam engine in 1698 and continuing through the present day, Inhaber and Saunders present a compelling case.

Early inefficient steam engines consumed little coal because they were not greatly used, while the advent of efficient steam engines sharply increased overall use of coal. Early steel production was inefficient and used only small amounts of iron ore, while introduction of the efficient Bessemer process led to greatly increased usage of iron ore and coal. The government of Denmark introduced severe conservation standards for the efficiency of electrical appliances with the effect that (efficient appliances being more desirable and less costly to operate) electrical energy consumption in Denmark increased. The United States mandated more fuel efficient automobiles, so more automobiles were purchased and driven farther, canceling the expected reduction in national fuel usage.

These events were much more desirable than those hoped for by conservationists. Had civilization been trapped in the wood-burning age or the coal age by actual reduced consumption of these resources, progress toward the nuclear age would have been slowed and overall living standards and life expectancies would have been much lower.

The authors also point out that this principle applies to conservation of labor by industrial increases in labor efficiency. It played a role in the concomitant fall of Marxism. Marx claimed that, as labor efficiency increased, workers would be thrown out of work. In fact, increased labor efficiency led to vast increases in employment.

In a free market, the use of a resource is determined by its marginal price. This price (measured at present in America in dollars) is actually the fractional purchasing power of potential users. Efficiency gives users more for their money, so use of more efficient resources is greater.

Our family uses about 60 kilowatt hours per day (more than most residential users because we pay only about 6 cents/kwh). At today's price of $5/watt for solar panels and efficiency assumed for fixed collectors, in our climate, of 4 peak hours per day, we would need 15,000 watts of panels on our roof at a cost of $45,000 and about $5,000 for batteries, inverters, and other attachments in order to transform 60 kwh/day. A typical, currently available solar panel generates about 11 peak watts per square foot, so we would need 1,350 square feet of roof angled in about the right direction. Moreover, panel lifetime is currently estimated at 20 to 50 years. Assuming 35 years, depreciation on the panels alone is about the same as our current electric bill.

Special situations, low energy applications, hobbyists, and self-sufficiency projects are using these panels now, but most Americans are surely not shingling their houses with them. (There is even a tiny local industry here that refills ordinary automobile-sized storage batteries for people who carry them to their homes in the hills, withdraw electrical energy, and bring them back for refills.) Solar cells will, however, become less expensive in the future. Interestingly, in a world of solid-state electronics where advances in efficiency are so rapid that each month's computer catalogue is a new experience, solid-state solar cells have decreased in price very little over the past decade. This may not be entirely an engineering problem.

Inhaber and Saunders conclude that their "difference of opinion is not with those who seek to save energy; it is primarily with those who are confused about what transpires when they do.'' Access to Energy has deeper differences with many of the pseudo-conservationists who seek to use government power against free-enterprise. The free-market already knows that conservation and efficiency of a resource increases utilization of that resource and increases the technological well-being of our civilization. Inhaber and Saunders illustrate that beautifully. Let's hope not many of the pseudoconserva-tionists read their article.