by Jack Eastman
I really want to talk about refrigerators. They’re so cool! We put a new one in our home and our electricity consumption went way down. We also began sleeping through the night, no longer waking from the old fridge groaning. So I had this idea for an article in which I would rave about this great energy-efficient fridge, a Sunfrost, helping us cut our electricity usage to the point that our home became a prospect for a solar electric system. In the article I was going to encourage everybody to buy one of these fridges and install renewable energy equipment on their homes. Then they could stop buying electricity produced from coal-fired generators that are fouling our air and contributing to global warming.
I hopped on the Internet, and posted my intentions and questions to the Sierra Club’s Energy Forum.
Bob Maginnis replied first with some useful info. “The Sunfrost saves 547 kilowatt-hours per year over an inefficient fridge, or 1095 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, equal to a quantity of coal bigger than the overall volume of the refrigerator.” Good stuff for my article.
Ned Ford, the owner of the Listserv, followed, and that’s when I started to notice a twist in the plot: “The better current refrigerators are about half as efficient as the Sunfrost, which wipes out the economic justification we used to have for the Sunfrost, when the best commercial models were a quarter as efficient, about fifteen years ago.” My neat plans began to unravel. What’s this about economic justification?
In defense of my expensive fridge, I countered, “Advantages of the Sunfrost come more into play when one of the objectives is switching from grid (utility company) to a renewable home-powered electrical system.” Little did I know I was playing into Ned’s next move.
“People building PV (photo-voltaic) homes can avoid five times the cost of a Sunfrost by buying one, but that is because they are effectively paying five times the average price of utility-provided electricity for the power they do get. That’s not a particularly good model to hold up to the public.” In other words, PVs aren’t cheap.
To which I replied, “This is a Sierra Club Listserv and the owner of the list is suggesting that we do not recommend renewable energy homes because they are not economically justified? Every environmental group in the country is shouting renewables.” I go on, at first tentative, “If we led our decisions by economics where would we be?” And then with conviction, “Where would renewables be if pioneers were not out there making a market for them? They are showing it can be done and they are setting examples for living intentionally and responsibly. The Sunfrost doubles the efficiency of the nearest corporate-made model. That’s half the pollution, half the CO2 from coal plant emissions.” Then I pulled my trump card, “Find an economic model that weighs that into the figuring and we’re getting closer to the truth.” That used about all my ammo. Ned, however, had another round.
“If we want to make a change in public policy, we are going to have to reach beyond preaching to the choir. The vast majority of the public indicates in poll after poll that they are willing to pay more for environmental quality, but they are also under the impression that you can't buy much environmental quality except for prohibitively expensive investments like PV.
I found out later that Ned chaired the Energy Technical Advisory Committee of the Sierra Club. Public policy was his forte. “We must change the perception, two ways. We must convince people that there are enormous resources that cost less than our present expenditures on energy, AND we must convince people that there are practical programs that provide systematic ways to capture these savings.”
I asked Ned about these “enormous resources” and “practical programs,” and he referred me to two reports: one on C02 reduction strategies, which confirms that controlling CO2 costs less than not controlling it,1 and the other finds that it makes more sense to raise the fuel efficiency of vehicles than drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.2
He continued, “If you are preaching energy efficiency, make the argument convincing. Avoid mixing in technologies that require a massive subsidy, or a massive cost above that of the current utility-provided power.”
Ned points out that wind power is competitive with the cost of a new coal plant. When he refers to technologies such as PV that require massive subsidies or costs above utility-provided power, he does so at the risk of angering renewable advocates on grounds that the comparison fails to weigh in hidden costs. For example, a report based on research conducted by the Abt Associates, a consulting firm for the Environmental Protection Agency, claims that power plant pollution is linked to 30,000 premature deaths every year.3 Another example sited is Desert Storm and the cost of protecting our oil interests abroad. Ned knows these things, but he also has his own ideas on what emphasis will get the most bang for the buck in terms of governmental policies.
“We already have all the people who don't think economics matter when it comes to sustainable energy on our side. We have a substantial struggle ahead, just to get the current crop of elected officials to pay attention to the factual evidence that demonstrates a massive efficiency potential. Unless you start looking at the efficiency resource, and making clear changes that increase the rate of efficiency adoption, we will have no reductions in CO2 from the electric sector this decade.”
At which point I’m all ears. Global warming is no laughing matter. I know. Record summer temperatures are already high enough.
Ned goes on, “Advocating photo-voltaics, or the like, with public funds, or money that results from a public program, is EXACTLY what the present administration wants us to do. It gives them a clean field of fire to deny the existence of any solution to climate change, so they might as well build a huge number of new coal and natural gas plants.” Not a pretty picture.
“If instead, you point out that they, not the environmentalists, are the ones who are sticking their heads in the sand, because there are massive efficiency opportunities that rely on proven technology and proven programs, we will undermine the security of ignorance that protects them and their tragic objectives. We have the economic high ground. Let's take advantage of it. The Sierra Club and the environmental movement will get where they are going through the work of a lot of different people who don't all see things the same way.”
One such person is Phil Scott, board member of IRENEW, a grassroots organization advocating renewables in Iowa. He joined the discussion, admittedly late, and on a “soapbox.” “If we as a society, culture, and world economic community don’t make the hard decision right now to make the change to a non-polluting, sustainable energy economy, it is entirely likely that the human species and certainly civilization will not survive beyond the next 75 to 100 years.”
Ned agreed that the ability of the planet to support the majority of the human population is at considerable risk. I think Phil, like me, is quick to jump when even so much as a hint of doubt is cast upon renewables. “It is past the time to be polite,” Phil continued, “Everyone who has the means to go solar, wind, hydro, or whatever, should be encouraged to do so.” He went on, “If we were to factor in the cost that our fossil fuel energy system has cost the average citizen just in terms of the Defense budget for the past two decades there would be no comparison. In unsubsidized terms, solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuel energy.”
At this point I’m standing on the pew, pumping my fists. I’ve installed PV panels on my house and have cut our consumption of grid electricity by 3,630 kWh per year, thus reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from the coal power plant by over three and half tons. Phil installed panels on his house ten years ago. We have reduced our impact on the earth and it feels good. But what are we to do about these differing viewpoints within the Sierra Club?
In an effort to clear up these discrepancies, Ned rephrased the main point of his advice, “Separate the renewables message from the efficiency message.” It is Ned’s belief that the majority of Americans are not going to examine the moral implications of using fossil fuels. Looking around at all the oversized SUVs, I’m inclined to agree with him. He feels we can get “the greatest movement toward a sustainable economy by teaching something that they are already conditioned to think they support – money-saving efficiency.” He’s got a point, but I was happy nearing the end of this discussion when Ned gave a nod to the renewable advocates. “It’s not an either/or proposition. We need some people to be trailblazers, and we need sustained interest in renewables.”
So what does this have to do with refrigerators?
A. If you have the money and you feel a moral obligation to reduce your impact on the planet to as great an extent as possible, plus you want the lowest electric bill possible, buy a Sunfrost, or equivalent. Payback runs close to 15 years, and should you ever decide to install wind or solar, you have made a good choice. Here’s some specs: Model RF-19, 19cu.ft, $2,460, 281 kilowatt-hours/year.
B. If you are on a budget and it’s time to buy a new fridge, and you are willing to spend a little more for a high efficiency fridge, buy one. The extra cost will pay for itself in savings in less than ten years and you will be helping the environment. For example: Whirlpool Model 83982-4, 18.8 cu. ft., $800, 440 kilowatt-hours/year.
For anyone buying a new appliance, I recommend taking the time to visit: http.//www.ACEEE.org The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy maintains an online buyers guide for appliances.
1. U.S. Department of Energy. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, Nov. 2000. http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm
2. Friedman, David et al. Union of Concerned Scientists, Drilling in Detroit: Tapping the Ingenuity of the Automaker Industry to Build Safe and Efficient Automobiles, 2001.
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html
3. Hansen, Brian, “Power Plant Pollution Linked to 30,000 Premature Deaths Each Year,” Environmental News Service, 17 Oct. 2000.
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct2000/2000L-10-17-15.html