Page 14 RAIN Oct./Nov. 1983 lawed most kinds of passive design by limiting window areas (on the theory that windows lost heat no matter which way they faced). But then we found out the code was wrong in a different way than most folks figured at the time: it turned out that superinsulation would allow all-passive heating without extra south glazings anyhow. Meanwhile, the next generation of building codes required east-west orientation and few north windows. But now we know that orientation and shape need not impede passive performance, and new glazings can now provide passive heating just from ^fuse skylight, facing due north—or south in the Southern Hemisphere. (This is just one of many cases where regulation, supposedly our friend, turned out to be a hindrance; the market, however imperfect, was a better ally. It is ironic how some of us most acutely aware of what markets don't or can't do are now tr^ng to help them do even better what they do so remarkably well.) The list of surprises is a long one. Remember when utilities didn't want people to hook up dispersed generators to the grid, lest those ugly, noisy waveforms mess up the nice clean utility power signal? Now we find it's the other way around, and that we need to protect the dispersed generators from all that crud on the line. Remember when we were told that renewable sources were unreliable—only to find that in many key respects they are more reliable and predictable than modern power stations? Remember when people hadn't yet developed solar ponds, or ice ponds, and insisted that nothing that simple could possibly work? These and a host of other soft-energy myths die hard, but they are dying steadily. One basic realization from the past few years' worldwide analysis of what kinds of energy we need (hence, what's the best tool for each job) is that the opportunities are vastly greater than had been suspected—not just in technology (such as a full-size 64-kWh/y refrigerator) but in how technologies add up. It's now common for long-term calculations to show that it's worth improving national energy efficiencies not just by 10-20 percent, but by 75-90 percent—that is, to reduce national energy needs by severalfold, just by using energy in a way that saves money. Much of the saving is a sum of many individually small savings—not just in heat and liquid fuels, but also, roughly equally, in electricity. A second surprise; many of us worried, a few years ago, that there might not be enough practical, cost- effective renewable sources to meet all long-term energy needs. Now, to our embarrassment, we've discovered that there are probably too many. There are more good renewables than will be needed. Some perfectly good, workable, cost-effective renewables simply won't make it in the market, because there won't be enough energy demand to support all of them. Therefore, marketing needs to be much more differentiated, seeking specialized niches where a particular technology may have a unique advantage. Third, the key cost savings are turning out to come, not from mass production, learning curves, or new technologies (though all of these are important), but mainly from whole-systems views that identify syner- gisms between energy supply and energy efficiency, between different energy supply technologies, between energy and food, shelter, or other systems (so that several tasks can be done simultaneously by the same equipment). Such integration is vital to low costs, but is very hard to analyze. But analysis is no substitute for experience. The market has been at once a rewarding and a harsh master. Enterprises to deliver efficiency and renewable technologies have been severely shaken out, and that maturation will continue. Many good small businesses got lost in the shuffle, victims of accidental circumstances. Some technologies got misengineered, badly promoted, badly sold. Many good machines with good economics didn't make it because the promoter or timing or the structure of the deal were wrong. Many good ideas got mishandled; some will survive false starts, others may get lost. Government demonstration projects often demonstrated how not to do things. Some bad ideas got promoted beyond their worth. Some fraudulent ideas and practices gave solar energy, in certain times and places, a bad name—emphasizing the importance of rigorous quality control and information feedback, so that people know not only what their opportunities are, but also how to shop prudently for them. And homely truths of marketing are being relearned: to compete, one must eliminate extraneous markups and transaction costs, sell in unregulated retail markets wherever possible, and design business plans to be indifferent to the world oil price. Semantics has turned out to be uncommonly important. At least two-thirds of Americans now realize that "energy conservation" means insulating your roof, not freezing in the dark—doing more with less, not just doing less or doing without. But most of us must still avoid such an ambiguous term: as long as it means curtailment to Messrs. Carter and Reagan, among others, it's easier to change the word than to change their heads. So we must say "using energy efficiently" (or, for businesspeople, "raising energy productivity"). Yet many more word-traps remain unsprung. Most utility efficiency programs still use "audits" (redolent of the IRS), and many people still confuse themselves by speaking of "producing" oil when what they are actually doing is consuming oil. It's hard to think straight if we don't say what we mean. The enemies of successful soft-energy implementation remain the same: ignorance, sloppiness, overconfidence, insensitivity to others' perceptions, overselling immature products while underselling mature ones, writing off constituencies rather than speaking to their concerns in their language. What started as a diverse movement is becoming, happily, an ever-shifting symphony of bizarre partnerships and coalitions: generals and hippies both promoting energy self-reliance. Daughters of the American Revolution urging patriotic Americans to weatherstrip, environmentalists cooperating with big. business, poor people starting successful soft-energy enterprises. We're re-proving the wisdom of letting a thousand flowers bloom, of letting native intelligence water the grassroots. There have been some sharp frosts, but the perennials are setting good seed. It now looks as though what makes economic and every other kind of sense is actually going to come to fruition. Now it's up to us to have fun doing it, laugh often, respect
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz