Energy efficiency, savings - or nuclear?

(Suomenkielinen versio alempana.)

For years now I've bored people by writing about energy, even when asked to talk about "urbanism" or "architectural styles after modernism and post-post-modernism." It has not been much appreciated, when I've stated that the quality of urban space or buildings does not depend on how they look but on what they are. It seems difficult to grasp that nothing else than the looks will change, if you change the looks... square to circle, white to red, brick to timber... so what?

My other hypothesis meets with equal disbelief: that poor design or planning in reality means an absence of it. If a structural detail or a functional aspect of a building does not work, it means that no one has spent any time thinking of it. Maybe there was no funding available, or no knowledge about alternative solutions. But the worst case - and the most common - is that it hasn't even occurred to anyone that there is a problem which needs to be solved.

This is what has happened with energy. Engineers have calculated the insulating capacity of various materials and details, and the industry has produced fantastic windows, as examples. In Finland we boast about our district heating systems and the efficiency of co-generation of energy and heat, now even tri-generation, where cooling is added. But, scrutinized by the construction industry lobby, the politicians have not set really ambitious energy targets, even if every singly new building could be a zero-net-energy building with marginal extra cost and existing technology. No rocket science.

Of all energy, almost 40% is consumed in buildings, transport takes almost 20% and industry the rest. You can argue the accuracy of the figures, but the maintenance of buildings (heating, cooling, lighting, equipment) is the single biggest consumer of energy. It is shocking to see how much energy is spent on cooling and lighting. The figures and shares change from country and continent to the other, but the principle remains the same.

These days, it is much more sexy to talk about the need to build more nuclear power than to talk about energy efficiency and savings. During a recent public debate the director of the Finnish company Fortum Nuclear Services corrected the language of other speakers by noting that energy savings are the result of energy efficiency. His implied message was that energy efficiency requires new technologies, and the applications take time.

Wrong! Efficiency is efficiency - which of course leads to a smaller growth of energy consumption - but energy savings are simply savings: again, no rocket science, no hi-tech. You switch off the light, you leave your car in the garage and walk or take the subway, or you take off the plug of the mobile phone charger when you don't need it. This requires a change in your behavior, you can't blame the engineer or the politician.

However, it may require more political will to ask for savings, instead of for more nuclear power. - Otherwise, the nuclear lobbying by the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament is totally incomprehensible.