Conventional thermal power plants for electricity generation lose about 2/3 of the energy of the fuel source as waste heat. That’s well known just based on the Carnot efficiency. However, Lovins is more creative in his thinking and questioning. “For example, pumps, the biggest use of motors, move liquid through pipes. But a standard industrial pumping loop was redesigned to use at least 86 percent less energy, not by getting better pumps, but just by replacing long, thin, crooked pipes with fat, short, straight pipes. This is not about new technology, it’s just rearranging our metal furniture. Of course, it also shrinks the pumping equipment and its capital costs.”

Similarly, Lovins looks at redesigning buildings from a whole system perspective. Typical engineering problem solving might look at the diminishing returns of additional insulation to calculate the optimal level is at the crossover point when added insulation costs more than the energy savings. This thinking overlooks the capital cost of the HVAC infrastructure that can be downsized or possibly eliminated altogether. Properly designed buildings can cost LESS to build while simultaneously using a fraction of the energy.

“How much thermal insulation should surround a house in a cold climate? All engineering texts (at least in English) say to specify just the thickness that will repay its marginal cost from the present value of the saved marginal heating energy. But this omits the capital cost of the heating system—furnace, ducts, fans, pipes, pumps, wires, controls, and fuel source. A 1984 subarctic-climate house so optimized saved ~99% of its space-heating energy with $1,100 lower construction cost, because superwindows, superinsulation, air-to-air heat exchangers, etc. cost less than the heating system they replaced. This approach has also been adopted in >20,000 EU and US “passive houses,” saving 75–95% of US-allowable heating energy with no extra capex.”

To the contrary, he understands what it takes far more than most. It starts with asking the right questions. Your comment implies you may be starting from a suboptimal premise. As Lovins likes to explain, end users want the services energy provides, not the energy itself. “Outsulation” is an excellent example.

I read Lovins’ Soft Energy Paths in 1979 which inspired me to go for a master’s in mechanical engineering to work on energy related issues.

You obviously don’t know anything about him, but still you insult him. He has studied energy issues his entire life; how about you? I visited his home once, and was amazed by what he’s accomplished in the cold climate of the Aspen area. If you were to tour his home/energy systems, you likely wouldn’t even understand how they work, but work they do. As one who made a living in the home heating business for over ten years, I was impressed.

Most of the numbers in this column have little relevance to the hard questions. Stipulated: wind and solar plus batteries (whether fixed or in vehicles) will provide an affordable solution to most energy needs, most of the time. The hard questions are how to keep the grid up and running during calm periods in winter, and how to power hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation. Efficiency won’t help much with either of these challenges, and we can’t dismiss proposed solutions merely because they’re slow and expensive. There are no fast or cheap solutions to these hard problems.

Bear in mind more than half of energy is lost in production and transmission of electricity. Another 20-30% is lost in inefficient use.

After speaking with Lovins I spent $1000 on caulking/spray foam and door and window sealing and cut my gas bill by 20%. Another $1000 on replacing old light fixtures cut my electrical bill by the same.