9 Reasons Why it’s Not OK to Waste Energy | Blue House Energy

OK, so, we use a lot of energy. It takes energy to make energy. It takes energy to transport fuel, it takes energy to make the vehicles and devices that transport fuel, it takes energy to turn fuel into energy and it takes energy to distribute energy and fuel. Thermal energy is produced as a waste product when electricity is generated with fossil fuels.

Energy is wasted all along the path.

At every junction, we have the opportunity to conserve energy, to find ways to reduce or eliminate energy usage with new technology. At the same time we need to ensure that our energy conservation tactics are also carbon emission reduction tactics.

It's all connected. So what on earth should we focus on? Technology? Programmable thermostats replacing old units, heat pumps replacing air conditioning systems, household energy use reductions, energy efficient appliances, all good.

But energy efficiency is not restricted to technology related to heating and cooling systems, or energy efficient products. Conserving energy is so much more important than saving energy.

What's the difference between conserving and saving energy?

When you're trying to save energy, you're trying to eliminate energy waste from a process or task. Energy efficiency means to use less energy to perform the same task.

On the other hand, when youconserve energy, you're touching the root cause of the problem: you're not worried about the energy performance of water heaters, or an air conditioner. Energy conservation is to not use energy. For example, turning a light off in an unused room is energy conservation while switching to a more energy efficient light such as LEDs to save money, is energy efficiency.

Likewise, not using hot water for laundry and only running the washing machine with full loads, or during off peak hours are energy saving practices. You could save electricity and/or natural gas by doing the wash by hand and setting it out to dry on a line. But no one is going to suggest you scrub clothes on a washboard. That's a waste of human energy. And it really doesn't do much to offset energy usage or greenhouse gas emissions.

Don't get me wrong, creating energy efficiency standards, and promoting energy efficiency for household energy use is all good. It's just that energy saving bulbs and energy efficient appliances make up a small portion of a household energy bill.

Turning from appliance usage to the bigger picture, we can definitely see substantial energy savings when we move to the electrification of heating and cooling systems using heat pumps with high energy performance ratings. Still, it's energy savings, not energy conservation. There are some hot financial incentives right now too. Without energy conservation measures (ECMs) in houses, we're just moving from one energy source to another.

That being said: efficiency is still cheaper than fuel. The most valuable kilowatt is the one you don't use!

The environmental impact of electricity generated from coal fired plants and other fossil fuel power plants that create greenhouse gas emissions is significant, contributing to carbon and methane emissions, making it crucial to reduce waste. Hydro projects have their own issues. When generating electricity, there is also energy waste in transmission and distribution through the grid, so not only is there waste energy at the power plant, there is energy wasted throughout the whole electricity system.

Regardless of the generation source, there are distribution and transmission losses throughout the electrical grid from plant to the end user. When you draw power at the plug, you get every electron that's there, it's true, but that's a bit of a false comfort when you consider that fossil fuel fired power plants are at best 50% efficient when it comes to turning thermal energy into electricity, and distribution losses can knock that back by half again.

One thing is certain: it’s not OK to waste energy.

Here, in no particular order, are nine reasons why. Together, they are what drives me to be so passionate about reducing the amount of energy used in houses.

Here we go:

 Each time energy is expended, it costs money. Heck, even energy efficiency costs money - replacing old appliances with ones that meet today's energy efficiency standards means you're paying top dollar.

All of the infrastructure around us requires energy - our dependence on fossil fuels requires fossil fuels to continue the supply of fossil fuels. We need fossil fuels to explore for fossil fuel resources, to extract them, refine, store, distribute them. And the machinery that allows us to do all that work is built using fossil fuels. Hydro and solar are renewable energy sources, but they are no different - guess what drives the dam-building machinery and mining, refinement and manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines?

To produce electricity, we require coal and natural gas, nuclear power, and hydro. All of which chew up natural habitats and cause environmental damage and generate air pollutants, all of which creates a whole different layer of costs.

It's pretty much a guarantee that the cost of doing business is not going to go down, which means that energy prices are going to increase, which means somebody (the end user - that's you and me) has to pay for it via energy bills even if we do our best to not waste electricity. We can use public transportation, smart thermostats, all the things. We still need to use electricity.

Renewables are the cheapest source of electricity. I said what I said. Fight me.

Or better yet, fightDr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Here's what he said in aGuardian article from 2022:

“In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”

All of the mining, drilling, dam-building, transportation, extraction, refinement, storage and distribution and associated energy waste has an impact on the environment. Not only does energy production eat up natural resources, but most power plants, especially coal fired power plants, that generate electricity also produce greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses exacerbate climate change and air pollution.

In 2021, about 28% ofCanada's total GHG emissions came from the oil and gas sector, 22% from transport, 13% from buildings and 11% from the heavy industry sector.

While hydroelectric generation produces very little in the way of greenhouse gas emissions when it's operating, they cause environmental issues, starting with loss of habitat to the reservoir behind the dam. To manage the reservoir levels, and to maintain the water levels in the river below the dam, water has to be released. Reservoir water is typically low in dissolved oxygen and colder than normal river water. Changes in river temperatures, chemistry, flow characteristics and silt loads affect the ecology. If not released appropriately, water levels downstream will drop and animal and plant life can be harmed.

On top of that, damming rivers has repercussions for spawning salmon and other fish that use upstream areas as nurseries. TheUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that only 312 significant streams in the lower 48 States are still free flowing. All 15 of the large rivers in the continental United States are dammed (or diverted for irrigation), and the watersheds that feed them are all under stress.

Not many of us have a hydro dam in our yard, but there's a significant number of North Americans who do have an oil tank on their property that feeds their space heating and hot water equipment. In 2019, when I was working on a paper study for a net zero renovation package for a small 3 storey multi-family unit, we were tasked with doing a Total Cost of Building Ownership (TCBO) analysis. TCBO looks at all the factors that you need to consider over a longish period of time, say 30 or 60 years. You consider everything: maintenance, repair, replacement, taxes, mortgage principal and interest, and insurance.

Our goal was to look a a business as usual scenario compared to annet zero energy scenario. Which meant calling insurance providers to ask about premiums and what they might look like in the future. In their response they noted that properties with an oil-fired boiler or furnace on site already facehigher insurance premiums because of the environmental hazard of the tank. They indicated that it would become increasingly more expensive and then difficult, and then impossible to get insurance for a property with an oil-fired boiler on it. Specifically because of the risks associated with the tank, regardless of age, material, and position.

Zooming out again to look at the big picture:

The more the energy sector expands to accommodate demand, the bigger the environmental impact. Coal fired power plants pose environmental hazards, including ash disposal and air pollution. The impact of natural gas on the environment, including methane emissions, is also significant. The bigger the environmental impact, the more tenuous our hold on ‘business as usual’. Power plants contribute to emissions, waste production, and landscape alteration, making the environmental impact substantial. At some point, the damage will be irreparable and the resources will be depleted, and human health will be affected. We’re not very far away from that point, if we haven’t already passed it.

Many livelihoods are associated with energy production, directly or indirectly. If these industries fail because they have depleted the very resources they rely on, there is an economic crisis of massive proportions.

Canadians have very little choice but to rely on energy to keep them warm in the winter. So where's the energy going to come from? Energy conservation and energy efficiency are needed, yes, but homeowners and renters are at the absolute mercy of utilities and government policies. It will take time to shift from coal and natural gas, for extraction and for generating electricity. It will take time to shift from oil-based products in general.

If we have to purchase more and more energy offshore, then we are at the mercy of other governments and their policies. The same is true of massive offshore investment in Canadian resource extraction.

We're stymied when it comes to harnessing renewable sources, using less energy, and seeing further into the future than the next few years (that is part of human nature - we're not in survival mode until we're in the midst of crisis, and global changes are not obvious in our day-to-day lives).

Energy poverty is a real thing for way too many people. Read about it here.

Every energy exchange that includes fossil fuels has a carbon cost, contributing to carbon emissions and impacting the environment through the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is crucial to address these environmental challenges.

We can reduce carbon costs associated with operating existing housing through energy conservation measures and electrification (assuming that the electricity is coming from a clean generation source).

In some cases, we can reduce the embedded carbon in a renovation, or even create a minor carbon sink. We can reduce carbon costs associated with new housing in two ways: using low-carbon materials, and creating abuilding envelope that minimizes the amount of energy needed from the least carbon-intensive energy source.

More than 70% of Canada's housing stock is over 30 years old, most of it built well before energy efficiency was a thing. We have the opportunity, the technology and the know-how to greatly improve what's already in place in urban, suburban and rural neighbourhoods, but often, individuals can't afford the upgrades, or aren't interested in paying for upgrades that they won't see the long-term benefit from.

What if we took the burden of energy conservation measures off the shoulders of homeowners and turn energy management into an infrastructure cost borne by the municipality, like water and sewer?

The cost of building new, energy efficient, high performance housing is high. There’s financial costs associated with land development, water and sewer expansion, new roads, expansion of utility grids, and then there’s the cost of construction materials and labour. There are energy costs associated with new development, energy costs associated with every single building material and piece of equipment that gets installed in new construction.

The impact of energy consumption on the environment is significant, contributing to excessive usage of fossil fuels and resulting in carbon and methane emissions. Utilizing renewable resources like solar, wind, and hydro in new housing developments can reduce these emissions and promote sustainability. These costs are only going to get higher as prices for materials go up and options for expansion around big city areas go down. Vancouver and Toronto are already in the top 10 most expensive cities to live in.

Of course, we know that we need to buildtwice as much new housing for Canadians at twice the rate we're doing so now - which means more materials than ever. This, dear reader, is the most painful conundrum. Strap in for more shortages and garbled supply chains. COVID gave us a just a taste of what's to come, I'm afraid.

While energy efficiency is good on its own merits, there is a whole range of non-energy benefits associated with energy efficiency done right. In existing housing, it improves comfort and creates a healthier indoor environment, reducing wasted energy and its negative impact on occupant health, including issues with indoor pollutants such as mold, dust, or radon. Healthier people means less burden on the social safety net.

When a power plant, a furnace, or a water heater burns coal, oil, or natural gas, small particulate matter is released. This gets embedded in our lungs when we breathe it in. Sulfur dioxide can irritate our respiratory systems, carbon dioxide is a health hazard, and nitrogen oxides and other gases interact with sunlight to form smog. All of these carbon emissions and other pollutants are linked to serious health issues like asthma, heart attacks, and lung cancer.

There are estimates using data from the US Environmental Protection Agency that reducing electricity consumption 15% nationwide for just one year would save enough money on health care costs to pay the annual health insurance premiums for nearly 3.6 million families.

That is a significant health benefit.

Sometimes you hear ‘oh, it would be cheaper to move or build new than do renovations'.

Sometimes the word people are actually looking for is ‘easier', not ‘cheaper'.

But really, the costs associated with moving are high, and creating more value in an existing home can outweigh the costs associated with selling and moving. There are real estate commissions, closing costs, decorating costs and moving expenses. These add nothing to the value of a property. You're never going to get those costs back.

There are at least 12 categories of moving expenses that you might need to consider:

1. Truck Rental
2. Moving Supplies
3. Professional Movers
4. Packing/Unpacking
5. Cleaning Services
6. Tips for Professional Services
7. Fragile Item Moving
8. Moving Insurance
9. Storage Unit Rental
10. Personal Vehicle Transport
11. Move-In Expenses
12. Long Distance Moving Costs

This article from Forbes breaks out the details and average costs (US) for these categories. This is just for moving.

What about the costs associated with buying and selling a house?

Real estate commission, legal fees, sales tax, capital gains, in some regions land transfer tax: they all need to be factored into the equation.

What if that money was used to improve and reduce the cost of operating the house?

For someone who purchased their house even two decades ago, it will be difficult to sell and buy or build something similar, simply because of the increase in land and development costs, let alone construction costs. Consider that, in 1990, the average GTA home would have cost a buyer $255,020 ($514,911 equivalent today with inflation) according to data from the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. By 2010, it was $431,262 ($586,473 with inflation), and in 2023, as reported byThe Toronto Star, that average home price is $1,134,781.

It's not cheaper to move. Not any more.

As we get older, more and more of us join the ranks of fixed income households. When that happens, we need to minimize our monthly expenses.

Investing in renewable energy sources like solar and wind can significantly reduce utility costs in the long term. But that's not helpful to a homeowner who's looking for ways to manage a budget and a house.

That being said, a low-energy load house can offset that load with a smaller solar system. This is a big driver for investing in energy conservation measures, because people also want to stay in their houses for as long as they can.

Moving out of an established home is a big thing. A condo or apartment is an expensive purchase. Assisted living and long term care is expensive. And really, ultimately, it's undesirable for older folks to move.

Why?

Because it’s their home, and they are surrounded by their social network, and their health remains better, longer. Aging in place is a cost-effective alternative to long term care. Renovations that reduce utility costs and reduce maintenance costs make sense to people who are looking to their future in their community.

If we look at ways to make housing more flexible - design and build or renovate with a secondary suite in mind, for example, we can leverage larger single family homes into two smaller units and back again as household sizes and ownership patterns change.

I have several articles worth of reasons why all new housing should follow universal design principles, but I’ll leave it at this: each of us is only able-bodied for now. Barrier-free housing with user-friendly details should be the norm, not the exception. Because housing is for people, and people do not fit into the one-size-fits-all standard that has been developed by the able-bodied ones who build housing. 

Also, low operating costs are right handy regardless of how fixed your income is.

Drop a comment below!