Could our (electrical) energy needs be met by conservation alone?

Question

If we were to eliminate all energy waste could we greatly lessen our impact on nature, and by these conservation methods also provide ourselves with all the energy we currently need?

Imagine something as simple as having street lights that use a fraction of the energy that conventional types use.

LED lighting might soon provide this reality. Or, imagine turning off all the lights when not really needed! Look at all the public municipal buildings that leave their lights on all night long with nary a person in sight. I would bet that millions of watts are being 'burned' away needlessly, in a thousand cities---as we speak! Look at all the 'stand-by' electrical appliances that use power in their hiberbating state. Worse yet, look at all the computers that are left on for no good reason. We have the technology folks: it's our fingers flipping a switch to the OFF position. I ask; could our current (no pun intended) energy needs be met by simple conservation methods ?

Answer 1

No.  Conservation is not a source of energy (i.e. negawatts don't exist) and we do need energy to live.

It also isn't such a good way to save the environment because if you don't switch to a power source that doesn't emit CO2 all you're doing is delaying the problem, not stopping it (and not even delaying the problem as much as you'd expect) and you may very well end up diverting resources away from stopping the problem.

If everyone started using more efficient equipment what would happen is that they'd just buy more equipment or they'd run what they've got in a less efficient manner (e.g. those who replace a V8 SUV with a 4 cylinder diesel or hybrid will tend to increase their driving and those who buy a cheaper to run air conditioner are likely to set it to run cooler).

Leaving lights on when they shouldn't be is not something I approve of but if we have clean power it wouldn't matter but really the only way to make street lights more efficient is to reflect the light that gets sent up into space down towards the ground (which is a good idea anyway).

We'd be better off not bothering with energy conservation and just building more nuclear power plants (which stop more CO2 from being released than all the windmills and solar panels on the planet).

Answer 2

U r very right.  People should become a little more reponsible and should not misuse electricity.  Imagine a world without light/energy. Our future generations will blame us for our callous attitude.  Fossil fuels, thermal, hydro are not infinite.  Nuclear energy is fraught with syndromes of danger - remember Chernobyl episode - Oil may last another 50 years, coal may last at best, 150 years, water is already being impounded for human consumption only.  Such being the scenario, any kind of saving of electrical energy should be welcomed.

My grassroots level inovative initiative project titled U-SEE - Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy  to World Bank was honored for its simplicity, sustainability, replicability and for its economics.  By SWITCHING OFF ONE INCANDESCENT BULB for six hours a day by l,00,000 people can save 7,00,000 units of electricity per month which can be utilised for other productive purposes. Doesn't  this amount to saving the world from global warming?

visit World Bank website http://dmblog.worldbank.org/mirrors-can-...

If u need further info, mail [e-mail]

Let us be the change we want to see.

Answer 3

No.   We could remove some of the dirtier powerplants now in use instead of building new ones, but we would still need power produced from somewhere.   All those "ugly" wind turbines in the world could be removed if people took simple steps to lessen their energy use and save themselves money.   There is now way we can reduce our carbon dioxide output enough to keep below 450 ppm, even with nuclear, without turning to conservation- there just isn't enough time to build the infrastructure necessary otherwise.