Energy Efficiency Reduces Use ? : Increases Mean Prosperity

The United States has a larger reserve of fossil energy then Saudi Arabia? It's true. But never mind the truth, this is about politics and to the democrats there is nothing else in the universe that matters.

The push for Renewable energy like wind and solar is to reduce our need for fossil fuels, but it makes no sense as we reduce our use of coal or natural gas, the price of energy goes up. As we struggle to conserve our energy we pay more for it and when we pay more for energy we pay more for everything else.

Efficiency in recovery of energy is key to our success as a nation and it is important to national security whether is LED or 'fracked' natural gas, the more energy we have available the better our lives will be.

Also,consumption for energy increases each year by more the 8% and to meet this demand  we have the enormous reserve of fossil energy that has been released by 'fracking' that will stand us well into the next century.

But again, eliminating fossil fuels is not about conservation or saving the environment, this is about limiting the options that an individual has to gain prosperity and increase their personal freedom to choose their own destiny. To the progressive socialists, this is not acceptable. Individual freedom and prosperity means individual thought and that means the death of socialism.

Believe, this is the agenda and ideology of the progressive socialist liberal democrats. This is not about independence for the individual, it's about dependence on an all powerful government.

Does Energy Efficiency Reduce Overall Energy Use?
Source: Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, "The Problem With Energy Efficiency," New York Times, October 8, 2014

October 13, 2014

The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded last week to three researchers responsible for the development of LED lighting, report Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the New York Times. Specifically, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which presented the award, said that replacing traditional lighting with LED lighting would "lead to a drastic reduction of electricity requirements for lighting." The academy noted that one-fifth of the world's electricity goes towards lighting, expecting that LEDs could reduce that figure down to just 4 percent.

But is that really the case? Shellenberger and Nordhaus say such a theory is flawed. While LEDs may reduce energy consumption on an individual basis, global energy consumption tends to increase as energy becomes more efficient. They explain:

• As America's lighting became more efficient, moving from coal to whale oil to kerosene to the light bulb, demand for the latest energy technologies increased, raising energy consumption overall.
• Cheaper energy technology allows developing economies to access these technologies, increasing consumption.

Is increased consumption a bad thing? Not at all. Lighting efficiency has been a major contributor to economic development, the authors explain (noting that the cost of lighting in Britain has dropped by a factor of 3,000 over the last 200 years).

Affordable, efficient lighting options allow people in poor and emerging economies to light their homes, increasing demand. This effect -- an increase in energy consumption brought on by an increase in energy efficiency -- is known as a "rebound."

Shellenberger and Nordhaus stress that the rise in energy consumption is a positive, not a negative; LED lighting and other efficiencies allow the poor across the world to consume and access more energy.