More Discussion on Renewable Energy – “Top vs Bottom”

Follow-up by John F Robbins CEM/CSDP

I guess the main diff between your book’s perspective and mine is where we are in the picture. I’m at what I tell students is “the bottom” where the actual clients, aspirations and small-scale implementations are. When I say “implementations”, I mean efforts which result in lowered use and demand for conventional energy. Only some of that is renewables. At my own home, which I consider typical of my projects, I started with lots of added insulation, caulks and sealants, then windows, better daylighting and a passive solar addition, then replacing all lightbulbs and major appliances, then adding solar water heating and some solar electric. Same deal with my client projects.

I start projects by negotiating how much to cut with the clients. My favorite cut level targets are one-third, one-half and two-thirds. What we’re cutting is a baseline of usage set in a prior year, whether in the same house or building or in a new structure. If designing a new place, then the new place must be aimed to achieve the target cut level based on the prior situation. Doesn’t always move as smooth as this explanation, but I’m at least explaining the intent and process.

Many so-called efficiency and renewables programs nowdays are focused at the top, like the mfrs or producers or providers of mass-scale products and services. For instance, Ohio’s green energy program prides itself on “leading the way” relative to RE jobs creation. It says nothing about how much conventional energy it hopes to displace. In fact, the last governor’s “advanced energy” proposal had no phrases or sentences anywhere which said anything about actually reducing conventional energy use or generation. It only talked about increasing non-conventional energy in the grid and non-conventional energy jobs. Same thing now seems ready to happen in KY where I now live. States in my region are not willing to state openly any intent to shutdown or reduce coal burning. As you say in the book, a lot of this is due to lobbying and political power by the coal industry which is powerful in Ohio and KY.

Being at the bottom gives a different perspective than what you’d find at the top. For example, I meet people who want to cut their carbon emissions, maybe even eliminate them. Or they may want to become more independent or self-reliant. Many say they want enough storage to get through power outages which can be quite longer in rural areas than in cities. One client a few years ago described a 5-day outage! So when my house is on the annual solar tour, I sometimes get visitors who aren’t even as interested in the solar stuff as the storage or how often I need how much grid backup. One visitor once told me he had been a card-carrying environmentalist his entire 50+ year life and was now sick of seeing no progress for all his donations. He said he wanted to take control over his own energy and pollution, could I help him?

I could give more examples, but suffice it to say that none of this is being discussed anywhere at the top or in your book. There the issues are more macro-economic, more about national security, jobs and money flows. At the bottom, the issues can are are often much more personal and emotional. And that’s where I’ve been for 27 years.