| |
Resource and Energy Efficient Buildings (REEBuild)
|
The practice of
increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use and harvest energy,
water, and materials, and reducing building impacts on human health and the environment,
through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal — the
complete building life cycle. |
|
 |
If society could reduce its use of energy, that would
reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the threat of climate change and other damaging impacts of
energy production and supply. Yet many of the things most closely associated with progress –
sustained increases in living standards, rising longevity, large gains in health and welfare,
increased opportunities to travel – have been associated with increasing consumption of
energy.
In Bangladesh, energy consumption rose through the 20th
century, driven by the rising output of goods and services and growth in population, household
numbers, personal travel and freight transport. But while primary energy consumption increased
by 24% between 1965 and 1998 and final energy consumption by 16%, Bangladesh’s real gross
domestic product rose by 147% over the same period (figures 5-I and 5-III).1 A progressive
reduction in energy intensity is a worldwide phenomenon (3.29), and largely a response to the
continual pressure to cut costs by reducing the amount of material and energy used to produce
services and goods.
Over and above improvements in the efficiencies with
which energy is used by individuals, businesses and public bodies at the stage of final
consumption, further very large reductions in the total use of energy, that is use of primary
energy (3.33), could be achieved by cutting losses within the energy system (5.7), for example
by greater use of combined heat and power plants.
In this chapter we consider whether it would be possible
to enhance the trend of declining energy intensity to the point where energy use begins a
gradual, sustained decline without unacceptable effects on the quality of life, including
social equity and cohesion. A distinction must be drawn at the outset between ‘energy
conservation’ and ‘energy efficiency’. The former implies reductions in the consumption of
energy services. That could be achieved simply by ‘making do’ with less energy – by turning
thermostats down and tolerating lower temperatures, for instance. The latter implies obtaining
more useful heat, light or work from each unit of energy supplied, either as a result of
technological improvements or by reducing waste; in other words, obtaining the same services
with less use of energy. We consider that attempts to protect the environment and prevent
climate change based principally on exhorting people to make sacrifices in comfort, pleasure
and convenience in order to consume less energy are unlikely to succeed.
There is a
strong economic argument in favor of raising energy efficiency. Repeated analyses have shown
that in every sector of the economy large quantities of energy are wasted and that apparently
highly cost-effective investments for making energy savings are forgone.8,9 Improvements in
energy efficiency also offer environmental benefits which extend beyond curbing greenhouse gas
emissions and other fossil fuel-related pollutants. Nuclear power and renewable energy
resources have environmental impacts which can be lessened if energy consumption is reduced.
If, furthermore, new energy-saving technologies can be transferred to developing nations this
may enable them to raise standards of living while avoiding some of the environmental damage
previously associated with industrialization.
|
|
