The US government is certainly driving energy efficiency with US Energy Secretary Steven Chu usually describes himself as an “energy-efficiency nut.”

Venture capital investment in energy efficiency hit a record in 2009: at least 115 deals worth nearly $1 billion, according to a preliminary tally by the Cleantech Group and Deloitte. That’s an increase of 39 percent from 2008. In comparison, solar was down 64 percent from 2008, and there’s increasing talk about solar being “overfunded.”

Scott Smith, U.S. cleantech leader for Deloitte stated: ”In 2009, there was a pullback and realization by investors that because of the capital intensity of solar, there may be safer places to put their money.”

Energy efficiency generally covers a wide range of technologies that are designed to cut energy use such as improved lighting, greener building materials and sophisticated software that monitors power consumption, such as Eniscope and it’s related software.

Energy efficiency is also increasingly proving an effective way to create desperately needed jobs, save struggling consumers and businesses money and reduce carbon emissions — all at the same time.

Kevin Surace has seen the shift firsthand. For years, the CEO of Serious Materials, which makes energy-saving windows and drywall, was the only energy-efficiency executive at industry conferences.

“I remember standing with a piece of drywall at the Cleantech Forum in 2006,” he said. “Every other company was solar, wind and biofuel. People were like: What are you doing at our conference?”

Now Surace is the keynote speaker at many of the conferences he attends.

“All the cleantech conferences are efficiency, efficiency, efficiency,” said Surace.

“When you really break it down, every dollar spent on energy efficiency pays back the investment four or five times. It saves people money and creates jobs. And it has bipartisan support.”

“Energy efficiency is very capital-efficient,” said Rob Coneybeer of Shasta Ventures. “We like the idea of people using IT to measure, monitor and improve their energy usage.”

John Osborne at BSI (British Standards Institute) Training encourages organisations to think of energy management as business critical for cost reasons, but equally important as a means to embed sustainability and change across a workforce…

Improving energy efficiency within a business can provide a number of real benefits. Not only will it help to reduce impact on the environment, but it will also save money. Why then, do so many companies fail to put sufficient energy management policies in place to improve their effectiveness? A BSI study revealed that 80 per cent of respondents rated energy management as “very important”, with the key driver being to reduce or control cost, yet 60 per cent didn’t have an energy management policy in place.

Organisations are clearly talking the talk when it comes to energy consumption, but simply making the right noises isn’t enough. If businesses are to truly cut costs and offset this against less attractive cost cutting exercises then they need to put a clear system in place to manage this. Without a transparent policy to guide businesses forward, how can they even begin to answer those all important questions?

• How much energy does the business use currently?

• Who is responsible for managing energy efficiency within the company?

• What are the current issues with your energy consumption?

• What activities lead to consumption of energy?

• How can you improve your energy efficiency?

• Have you identified what areas need to be improved or completely changed?

• How much energy could you save in the long term?

• What impact would saving energy have on your business from a financial perspective?

Those businesses that are unable to answer all of these questions have really only scratched the surface of effective energy management (if at all). The likelihood for those that have a clear policy in place is they will have already addressed these questions, and will have made the first foot hold into producing a robust framework for making significant and continued improvements in energy consumption. A policy and tight framework will also allow identification of an organisations’ past, present and future energy consumption as well as the development of an energy monitoring process.

The BSI report showed that two thirds of respondents did not conduct regular energy usage audits, nor did they maintain a current energy management policy, both of which compromise the delivery of continual improvement in energy management.

In an effort to make the right noises, some businesses may make minor adjustments to save money, such as ensuring PC monitors are switched off at night, and perhaps replacing light bulbs with energy saving varieties; but is this really enough?

Energy management has evolved into a rather complex arena, covering a multitude of business activities all of which need to be taken into consideration when bringing about change and improvement. Companies may find that additional training and a standardised management system (such as BS EN 16001, the new European standard for Energy Management Systems) is needed to help them build a framework that will enable them to implement change. But there are a few simple steps you can take in the first instance to get the ball rolling:

• Take regular meter readings: this will help you to understand how much energy your organisation is currently consuming

• Organise thorough inspections of the work premises: this will help you to identify the areas where further savings can be made.

• Assess energy consumption levels on current activities

• Talk to employees and get their input on energy waste

• Take into account all energy related activities under the control of your organisation, for example the energy used to operate machinery and heat buildings. In taking these initial steps, most organisations will begin to realise the level of energy emissions being needlessly emitted every day.

Wasting unnecessary energy is largely due to poor organisation and education; in most cases employees simply don’t understand how to make the change themselves. But ultimately, wasted energy will affect the efficiency and productivity of a business, certainly in the long term.

Making change happen:

• Build a policy that incorporates the processes and practices you need to improve energy efficiency across the business. This will create a mechanism to turn energy efficiency into a key performance indicator

• Get buy in from senior management – do they really understand the benefits of making this change?

• Communicate with staff – involve them from the outset, get their feedback and suggestions for improving energy efficiency. The most successful change happens when everyone in the company is onboard.

• Establish clear minimum reduction targets so you have something the measure against

• Establish reliable ways of measuring consumption / assess on regular bases – energy consumption can fluctuate seasonally depending on weather and productivity.

• Establish objectives, implement, monitor and measure and continually improve

Once a policy has been created, organisations must implement the behavioural change needed to embed energy efficiency considerations into everyday decision-making and this is by no means an easy feat. This won’t happen overnight, it requires clear planning, perseverance and ongoing support.

Actions speak louder than words in today’s challenging climate, it’s clear that businesses can no longer continue to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to energy efficiency. The benefits are now clear to all, but if businesses are to truly reap those benefits changes need to be made, policies must be put in place and improvements must carried out and maintained. Those 80% of companies that cited energy management as a key driver for reducing costs, should really make their actions speak louder than their words if they are really serious about controlling spend and increasing the overall efficiency of their business – it could also significantly reduce the need to make cuts elsewhere in the business, which in most cases would only damage an organisation’s performance.

BSI Group

They interviewed Sir John Parker, who is Chairman of the National Grid in the UK, but has been involved in many other varied major industrial and commercial corporations. In most of these he has championed sustainability and has implemented many environmental and energy policies.

Andrew Cave, the writer of the piece, described Sir John as evangelical about the need for companies to invest in energy efficiency. What Sir John stated in the interview was the highlight for me and I would like to share his words with you.

Sir John told the Telegraph regarding energy efficiency:

“It’s the area that doesn’t always seem to me to get the highest attention and it’s the lowest-cost way of reducing one’s carbon footprint,

“With energy efficiency improvements you get a triple win: you reduce energy consumption; you make your business more cost efficient, which protects and creates jobs; and you reduce emissions. So, it seems to me that we ought to put much more effort into reducing our energy consumption.” Sir John said.

He was also asked this question by the paper:

If you had one message to fellow business leaders on building a low carbon business, what would it be?

“Start with energy efficiency; I think it’s that simple.

“There’s a danger that you can get too esoteric about this. If you take the mine-head power stations that we have at Anglo American, they capture methane which would otherwise escape – but we’re also capturing a free fuel to create the power.

“So, it’s sustainability and energy, it’s energy efficiency, and it’s reduction of carbon capture. It’s a lovely three-way hit, but it’s driven by energy sustainability in its wider sense.”

Just further evidence, this time from someone who has been there and done it, that energy efficiency and using innovative energy saving technology is the way forward for commerce and industry.

It is good to see someone in the higher echelons of the business world realising the importance environmentally of energy saving but also the fiscal advantages that it brings to businesses.

He has a great interest in sustainability and it is worth reading the whole piece – Curbing The Carbon Culture – The Daily Telegraph.

Sir John Parker’s CV as published by the Telegraph:

Over 27 years, Sir John, 67, has been on 13 quoted company boards, nine of which he has chaired.

He is still much in demand, adding the chairmanship of mining and minerals giant Anglo American to his non-executive portfolio this summer – just in time to see off a hostile takeover bid from rival Xstrata. His past chairmanships have included three dual-listed companies in cruise ship operator Carnival, pallets giant Brambles and paper group Mondi.

In addition to chairing Anglo American and National Grid, he is vice-chairman at DP World and a non-executive director at Airbus maker EADS and US cruise ship operator Carnival. He has only recently relinquished the joint non-executive chairmanship at paper group Mondi.

The article, most of which appears below, states how often finding the money for the energy monitoring solutions and the load-side products can be a stumbling block, but the article explains that the money saved from reduced energy bills over a fairly short period provides a great return on investment.

What is also of interest is the article does highlight how Indonesia is now realising how important it is to become energy efficient. I know from speaking to people from Indonesia that climate change, energy efficiency and security has not been a concern – hence it is good to see they are sitting up and taking notice.

The article mentions how they need to become efficient to make the best of a strained power generation system – a situation faced by most of the world.

Part of the article:

Living in a tropical country, air conditioned high rises often serve as our oasis. Little do we realize that the comfort they provide comes at a cost.

Since the 1980s economic boom in Asia, high-rise offices, malls and residential compounds have been sprouting here and there. Most of them are more than a decade old now and seem in dire need of a makeover.

Not so much for the sake of appearance, but to curtail their use of high-priced energy, as the building sector currently the second largest consumer of energy.

Retrofitting – in this context, the changing and adding various energy-efficient features in an existing building – has thus become the new buzzword in the field of green construction.

Sucking up between 31 and 40 percent of the total energy produced globally, buildings, especially existing ones, are places where energy can be saved, experts at a recent International Green Building Conference in Singapore say.

“We can potentially save two thirds of the energy consumed in existing buildings by retrofitting them,” World Business Council Energy Efficiency in Buildings co-chairman Constant Van Aerschot said.

“The amount of carbon dioxide emissions originating from buildings, through their use of energy, has been underestimated. While most of us thought the rate stood at around 19 percent, it has actually reached 38 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions,” Aerschot added.

Buildings set to be retrofitted are first audited to identify key inefficient areas, then upgraded with newer and more energy-efficient equipment and monitored to ensure they are run in an energy–efficient manner, Singapore minister for national development Mah Bow Tan added at the launch of the Singapore Green Building Week.

Sounds like three simple steps, but how does one retrofit existing buildings then?

Well, companies in recent years have been busy developing an array of technologies to assist with this process, ranging from energy measurement devices for the auditing process, adjustable glaze on glaze walls to reduce heat absorption, to automated building operation systems.

Even a simple coating of acrylic on the roof of a house can potentially help reduce the energy consumption required for air conditioning.

But, then comes the one thing that often hampers the process. Money, money, and yes, money.
But, guess what, despite the extra investment required, retrofitting a building with energy-efficient features only costs around 5 to 11 percent more than business as usual operational costs.

“We initially had to invest an extra 8 percent into [retrofitting] our headquarters, but quickly recovered our expenses in just a couple of years,” India-based hotel developer ITC Limited technical general manager H. C. Vinayaka said.

Through annual savings in energy consumption, the costs incurred retrofitting buildings are recovered in two to four years time, green building practitioners say.

But, still, additional investment is required. And it’s not always available.

“This is where monetization through carbon trading for buildings can come into play,” said Maria Atkinson, global head of sustainability for Australia’s Lend Lease Corporation.

Buildings can make use of the existing clean development mechanism scheme to finance retrofitting initiatives.

This colossal investment would be assigned to developing new low-carbon technologies and funding energy efficiency breakthroughs. While energy consumption has decreased for the first time since 1981, the money invested in new low-carbon technologies has been significantly cut due to the financial crisis.

While fossil fuel demand is predicted to peak by 2020, the focus has to be put on energy efficiency, which would achieve in itself 50% of the energy savings by 2030.

That is when the crucial quality of energy saving implementations becomes blatant. Professionals all over the world, regardless of their sector of activity, all have increasing incentives to adhere and adopt cost reducing energy saving tools, as all function and operate using energy in some form (lighting, motors, refrigeration, air conditioning…).

This confirms the un-matchable business opportunity currently seized by the professionals of the energy saving industry! The profit being made by companies, such as Enigin PLC namely, is not only monetary but also ecological and of moral value, in tangibly impacting on global climate change.

The 450 Scenario, outlined in a report issued by the IEA, aims to restrict greenhouse gas concentration to 450 parts/million, and global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Should the current trend of global energy consumption prevail as it is, energy demand and carbon emissions are forecast to rise of 1.5% per year until 2030..

This report therefore simultaneously advocates optimism and alarm because solutions to act upon climate change exist, but should the efforts to achieve these solutions be insufficient, the scenario promises to be bleak. The financial crisis has undeniably triggered a decrease in global energy use this year, but consumption will take off again inevitably if government policies don’t evolve.

It is predicted that demand will be enhanced by an alarming 40% between now and 2030, equating to 16.8 billion tonnes of oil, while fossil fuels represent over 3/4 of the incremental demand.

To reverse the trend in terms of climate change, the energy sector needs to be analytically transformed, via aggressive surgical strikes, in order to contain greenhouse gas concentration and temperature rise. To succeed in realising the 450 Scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes in 2030, from 28.8 Gt in 2007.

Low-carbon energy technologies play a crucial role. Around 60% of global electricity production comes from renewables (37%), nuclear (18%) and plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (5%) in 2030.

The report also points out the various prerequisites and elements that need to be taken into account in order to progress positively in favor of the environment. For instance, higher oil prices, associated to the depletion of oil sector investment, is identified as a serious threat to the global economy, just as it starts to emerge from a crisis.

2010 should see oil demand recover to reach 88mb/d in 2015 and 105 mb/d in 2030. Natural gas should also continue to play a bridging role in meeting the world’s sustainable energy needs – its demand is expected to rise by approximately 25% in 2030, as opposed to a previously forecast 41%, due to more efficient use, lower electricity demand and using non-fossil energy sources as a preferred alternative.

The focus is also put on Southeast Asia, as it becomes increasingly influential on energy markets – an expansion of 76% is expected on demand from 2007-2030.

The global energy landscape is slowly but surely being re-centered towards Asia, as China and India especially undergo strong growth.

On the brighter side, the IEA is placing the emphasis on switching to hybrid, pulg-in hybrid and electric vehicles by 2030. These ‘clean’ vehicles are estimated to represent an impressive 60% of total sales by 2030, as opposed to only 1% today!

Climate change, human rights and energy efficiency are some of the top priorities in business leaders’ sustainability strategies, according to a survey of BSR Conference 2009 attendees. And just as important, a large majority of companies expect their sustainability budgets will stay the same or increase, making sure they have the money to enact the actions they want to.

The BSR/GlobeScan State of Sustainable Business Poll 2009 (PDF) polled 274 business leaders attending the conference in San Francisco.

When asked to list “very significant” priorities over the next year, 41 percent chose climate change, 32 percent cited human rights, 29 percent said workers’ rights and 26 percent listed water availability/quality.

More companies are not only more focused on sustainability and environmental issues, but they expect to have the funds to support their climate strategies. Eighty-nine percent said their companies’ sustainability budgets will stay the same or increase, with only 8 percent saying that their budgets will decrease (in 2008, 31 percent said their budgets would decrease).

The top strategy related to climate change is energy efficiency, mentioned by 44 percent, and a large number of businesses see significant opportunities coming from lowering energy costs and/or other efficiencies (70 percent), improving stakeholder relationships (67 percent), driving innovation (65 percent) and strengthening credibility with consumers (65 percent).

Businesses also see many barriers to addressing climate change, but fewer companies see them as significant compared to the opportunities cited above. The barriers mentioned were competing strategic priorities (49 percent), short-term financial pressures/recession (46 percent), complexity of implementation (44 percent) and uncertain/insufficient policy frameworks (40 percent).

When asked to choose actions that companies should take to rebuild public trust that was lose due to the economic crisis, 39 percent said that companies should create innovative products and business models designed for sustainability, and 38 percent said companies should measure and demonstrate positive social and environmental impacts. Only 4 percent said companies should reform executive compensation.

Anon Cramer, president and CEO of BSR, said that he has seen an increase of attention given to the idea of “sustainable consumption” this year. “Until recently, companies have been very reluctant to talk about this topic,” he said. “If Walmart is thinking about this question and trying to maintain its success while significantly reducing the material input of products its selling…I think that has the potential to change people’s minds.”

It is time to get the facts and the myths about compact fluorescent bulbs — CFLs — to address the concerns, questions and rumors that seem to be everywhere these days.

And because I often hear from readers complaining that the CFLs they buy never last very long, I tried to find out the best ways to use the bulbs so they reach the promised lifetimes their manufacturers claim. Consider the following:

• Mercury: CFLs do contain about 5 milligrams of mercury. The bulbs do not emit mercury when they are being used. When putting them into lamps, hold the bulbs by their base and don’t force them into the socket.

• Breaking: The only way for the mercury vapor to escape the tube is if the bulb breaks. If that happens, ventilating the room for about 15 minutes will allow the gas to escape. You can then carefully scoop up the broken pieces, double-bag them and throw them out with your trash.

• Sources: The largest man-made sources of mercury are coal-fired power plants If you’re really concerned about the amount of mercury in our air, then, you’re actually better off buying CFLs than incandescents. Since CFLs use less electricity than incandescents, they actually reduce the amount of mercury getting into our environment.

• Disposal: To dispose of unbroken bulbs, it is recommended that you take them to a recycling center in your community. Contact your local municipal solid waste agency to find the locations of recycling centers near you.

• Hazards: There have been reports about CFLs causing fires, smoking and causing other hazards. While there has been little proof that bulbs caused these problems, you should make sure that the CFLs you buy carry the Underwriters Laboratories UL mark that show they have been tested for safety hazards.

• Lifetimes: Frequently turning CFLs on and off will shorten their lifetimes. For uses of about 15 minutes or less (such as in closets or stairways), use incandescent bulbs. For recessed fixtures, three-way fixtures, dimmers, outdoor use or other specialized situations, make sure the package says the bulb is appropriate for this use.

• Cost: Cheap bulbs probably won’t last as long or work as well as those with the Energy Star seal that ensures it meets strict federal standards. Low-quality bulbs often flicker and have short lifetimes.

• Savings: You will save money by using CFLs. It’s estimated that between 10 and 20 percent of the average home’s electric bill is for lighting. CFLs will last seven to 10 times longer than incandescents and use one-fourth of the energy to produce the same amount of light.

By Ken Sheinkopf, who is a communications specialist with the American Solar Energy Society.

In the 2006 Stern Review on the economics of climate change, climate-related revenues were forecast to climb to $500 billion by 2050.

“We can see that this seemingly huge figure has already been surpassed well ahead of time as more and more businesses adapt their business model,” said Joaquim de Lima, global head of quant research for equities at HSBC.

The climate sector has surpassed the size of the global aerospace or defense industry, with the United States, Japan, France, Germany and Spain accounting for 76 percent of global climate revenues, the report found.

For revenues to rise to $2 trillion, the way energy is generated and used needs to change and continued government support is needed.

The four core investment pillars will be low-carbon energy production, energy efficiency, control of water, waste and pollution and climate finance, the report said.

Energy efficiency recorded the highest investment returns in the year to date at 30 percent, followed by carbon finance at 24 percent.

“This is a very significant trend given the substantial share of climate stimulus funds that have been directed at energy efficiency and energy management by governments across the globe,” HSBC analysts said.