European energy snobs vs. ugly Americans

Before making comparisons and coming to conclusions, we should look at the facts, and I have not seen any comparisons, such as with CBECS.
England claims to be much further along on the path to sustainability and zero carbon. Our contemporaries there get much higher fees and have far more laws and regulations than we do on these issues. Following are some quotes in the CIBSE Journal this spring from prominent CIBSE members and Past Presidents. They are not mine.
The design intent has not been managed through the procurement process and into use.
Buildings are being used more than the designers anticipated.
Systems are too complicated and baffle the users and management.
Controls don’t work and things are left switched on.
The basis for the design is often flawed; we just do not have the right type of guidance.
The building services sector must embrace operational and facilities management.
Being able to access data on the performance of buildings is a crucial step in monitoring energy efficiency.
The building services sector has been failing clients for too long when it comes to energy efficiency and performance outcomes.
For all the intention that goes into building design at the moment, the reality is completely different.
At least in England those who publish in the CIBSE Journal and the CIBSE Journal have the fortitude and are admitting their failures to achieve sustainability and describing some of the reasons why. Why are our journals not doing that too? Too often in our journals, one cannot tell the difference between the articles and the paid advertising about green and sustainable products and political ideology.

Eventually, temporary technology leads will be trumped by demographics: as European birth rates collide with unsustainable "cradle to grave" welfare state policies, their societies will collapse leaving a robust red-neck America to apply the technologies that the European’s did so much to develop. Sadly, with Western Europe’s aggregate fertility rate far below minimum sustainability, this will happen within the next 25 years. The attendant wave of migration out of those dying cultures by the young can already be seen. For example, the Netherlands is already exporting a majority of the few young people it produces.

I have a couple of mantras: You pay for insulation whether or not you own it. And, it is easier to conserve than produce. It takes time to learn to see energy use and conservation with "new eyes". I put in 5 KW of tracking solar at my home to offset my consumption for home and a sideline business in my workshop. My workshop was built by myself and it has more insulation than my house, which was 10 years old when we bought it. Now, I am working to plant trees to shade the house, far more insulation in the attic, and maybe new Pella triple pane low-e windows. Everybody can do something, and it takes discipline to put money into insulation and conservation upgrades to your home and business. American education is horrible, with little scientific training for 2/3 of students not "college bound", making it hard for those young people to understand the principles of energy and conservation. Global Warming ??, then get your lazy behind out and plant a tree, trees sequester CO2... Then years later, harvest that tree rather than let it die and rot, releasing that CO2 again, but sequester it a second time in efficient housing that is built to last at least a century.

Our community model, lifestyle and standard of living are built around cheap and abundant energy. Our foreign and domestic policies have been built on sustaining this artificial model. We are

I think the main difference was already captured in several of the posts below -- the cost of energy. But when Al Gore started talking about raising energy costs here too to make us more efficient, look where it got him.
Other differences include the post-WWII economic difficulties in Europe, which led to smaller cars and increased used of bicycles; the post-WWII suburban sprawl in America; and a 1950's American philosophy (which still persists) that there's nothing Mother Nature could do that we couldn't engineer better -- which led us to seal up all our office buildings and malls and airports and data centers, so you have to run the air conditioning even on nice cool days, instead of just walking over and opening up the window like they do in Europe.

I believe all of the readers have ignored the essential point of Michael Ivanovich's article, and spending too much time justifying, rationalizing the US vs. EU debate. The point then? ...that Americans had better keep a sharp eye on Europe. There's no point advancing our Renewable Energy Plans if we don't learn from them, or udnerstand where they've obviously excelled.
Its a rule in any business - make friends with your enemies, so you can keep a close eye on him. Only a foolish American would nowadays think we're simply best and better than the world - our US CEO's all pledged and sought a Global Economy, and these are the consequences.
BTW, California has its miles of wind turbines - many 20-30+ years old. The vast majority of the longest running & highest reliability wind turbines in California's foothills aren't the American-made ones installed 20-30 years ago.
They're the ones made in Europe.

There is a simple reason we are behind the Europeans in energy - public policy. While Jimmy Carter had his eye on the ball, next four Presidents didn't. Even Al Gore's term in the White House shotgun seat gave us little to show as far as energy progress. When Reagan gleefully pulled Carter's solar panels off of the White House, that symbolized the next 20 years' Energy Dark Ages. Public policy, in terms of NREL funding, Solar tax Credits, Green public buildings, and public transportation was negative on energy conservation.
A bright spot is California, where public policy required conservation. The average Californian uses half the utility power that the average American does, as a result of consistent investments in energy efficiency.

I have read in several places that European countries have much popular support and greater tax monies going toward renewable energy, than in the U.S. Don't have the sources to quote, just thought it was common knowledge.

Michael,
Before you get too much further into the US vs. Europe energy debate, you need to check into the programs that were presented earlier this week at the Connectivity Week Conference and Expo in Santa Clara. I think you will find the "Ugly Americans" further along as the conference focused on cutting edge advances on Smart Grid, Smart Devices and Smart Energy Services with many excellent speakers and companies atttending. My sense is that we are starting to see a groundswell in these areas and quite possibly a new industry emerging.
Don't be surprised when the "ugly Americans" surpass the Europeans in the Smart Grid technologies.
If only we could catch up to them regarding Nuclear Energy power...

I can't believe there is only one reason why Europe is ahead of the US. There are many. One reason not mentioned by other commenters here is that the North American climate is so extreme compared to Europe that it really does take more energy to make it year-round-habitable everywhere, unless you're willing to give up on being a homogeneous American culture, also called "one nation".
How does Russia do? Australia?
And since other commenters are giving reading suggestions, I'll suggest Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' and 'Guns Germs and Steel' if you haven't already read them.

Thanks for all the discussion! Kool-aid, barbed wire, and all. I'm at the NFPA show in Chicago - but working on the next installment. Michael Ivanovich

Michael,
Go sit down with a cold beer (if you're in the US)and re-read Texas Bob's comments ten times until they sink in. After that go get a book by Thomas Sowell on economics and you'll begin to understand what drives the US energy usage. By the way what use is a statistic that computes "energy usage per person" anyway when it is devoid of a context of what is being produced? Be careful about what kool-aid you drink.

Those questions remind me of a steer caught in the bob wire. Kinda prickly but of no never mind. Ask any silly question y'all want, but you get the same answer: It all boils down to Money and Control. And anyone else thats says different is selling something. We're spending $4.5 billion to get a couple million worth of green wind energy from west Texas to Dallas. We're making silly regulations to buy all new green buildings in Austin so the politicians can say "hey lookit that" rather than helping industries retool and revamp to compete in the world economy. Green is nothing but buzzword bingo applied to purty near everything these days. I saw a sign last week that said: "Go Green, Don't eat meat." Energy is only a percentage of the average industry cost pie. Making a big deal about it is like letting your tires soak in the crick to pamper your car; kinda nice, but don't do much. As for railroads, any time some fool is interested in running a rail line from my ranch to the plant, I'll sign on. Until then, I'll continue to run my diesel pickemup to work and back, because its a vehicle for WORK-- before, during, and after my 8-6 job. If that makes me an UGLY AMERICAN, then pass the steak and Slurpie. I'm proud of it.

There is also the Bleeding Edge of Technology. Many times it is better to wait until the failures are resolved, then get into the game and beat them on price. Kind of like the auto industry. It is always easier to improve than to invent.

As a Brit working in the US my take on the differences is very much about energy cost and taxation - simple supply and demand. we saw the effect of this on gas usage in the US last year when consumption of gas fell when the price rose to $4+ / gallon, people started dumping their SUVs on the realization of the high cost of running inefficient vehicles. The conditions of high cost and high taxes have been in place for a long time in Europe and was driven higher when government signed up to carbon reduction as signatories to the Kyoto protocols. The cost of land and the close proximity of countries and cities has meant for a long time that the huge vehicles used in the US were irrelevant in Europe so small cars have been popular for along time. Sure the Americans have got some catching up to do but there is an opportunity to catch up quickly as new technologies are maturing quickly that will enable rapid gains to be made.

As I understand it, the U.S. is best in energy use per unit of gross domestic product dollar compared to other industrialized countries.
We consume more per capita; but, we produce more per capita.

The Europeans are no better than anyone else. The way the measure energy make them look much better than everone else. I lived in Norway for more than 18 years and their energy usage is among the highest in the world.

One word: money.
EU has been paying over $4/gallon for years for gas, so it is no wonder they are so energy wise.

Forget all the economics and politics - its all genetics! I am a european native that grew up in the US. When we were small our dad followed us around the house turning off lights, not allowing the water to run while brushing our teeth, rolling starting the car whenever possible to save the battery, parking in the shade to avoid air conditioning (actually we NEVER did have A/C in the car or our house - and we lived in the humid Midwest. You just toughed it out). No TV's in every room, room temps kepta t a healthy 68. I could go on and on but it is disgusting to see the waste in this country and the day of reckoniong is coming. I am hoping that I have helped my kids to see that there are better ways to live.

Thanks for the subject topic Michael. I'm an American HVAC engineer who's been working in the UK for a while. You're absolutely right, our energy use per capita is appalling compared to other developed nations (i.e. Europe and Japan). However our performance to date is defensible and I'd like to say why based on my observations. First, European countries and Japan are much smaller and more densely populated than the US. The population density in the UK for instance is about 5 times that of the US. I'm pretty sure Japan is at least as much or more. Making trains work in a densely populated country is easier. Buses also cover distances faster and people are more apt to walk or ride bicycles. However, European countries struggle to make rail economical compared to driving and struggle with semi to full nationalization of this industry. Britain is in concensus that it is cheaper to drive here. What if gas prices go up? Well they just raise rail ticket prices too. Implementing rail on a larger scale in the US has significant obstacles, not the least of which being cost.
Since it's so densely populated in Europe people live a lot closer together and real estate is in higher demand. This makes the average sf/person available in the building stock lower which uses less energy on average. They've also had to deal with polution like smog and overcapacity landfills here for decades longer than we have. In the buildings industry, it is much more regulated over here. This is a major cost to development. If a building costs 10 million dollars in the US, it would cost about 10 million pounds in the UK or more. It's that expensive. Our path thus far in the US is a direct result of our prosperity and inginuity mixed with ample space.
Another major reason Europe performs better is that they've done a much better job of winning hearts and minds regarding climate change. They've taken it very seriously and haven't waited for the US to come around. They're off and running on emissions trading schemes and renewable contribution targets. I don't know about how well they maintain building systems here compared to America (I haven't noticed a big difference in quality), but it may be due to more heavy-handed regulation. I know they have major issues with old legacy buildings (Victorian concrete block walls with air gap and brick veneer) that have no insulation. The average US building is much younger and more likely to have some insulation, however poor.
Another thing they make good use of here in Europe is operative temperature (or dry resultant). Essentially they're taking account of the radiant heat component to affect comfort which can often favor a more efficient distribution medium (i.e. water versus air).
America may be a bit behind on energy but we're catching up quickly. We have many of the world's great manufacturers for buildings and our entrepreneurial capital in green and renewable energy companies is second to none. It's just time to hit the red button and start implementing. We certainly have more to brag about than a democratic administration and stimulus.
Part of this is cultural; we're just less socialist than Europe or Japan. We don't necessarily need more regulation, just smarter regulation. I personally think putting a cost on CO2 emissions is the only way to do it in a capitalist system. This may not be very popular but it's better than the alternative of the government picking technology winners and losers. Make it a capital budgeting priority for clients and watch the innovators do the work. Oh, and perhaps the most important part of this...reinvest every dollar raised through emissions cap-and-trade into fighting the problem and releiving economic strain and do it until climate change is no longer a concern. No new car buyer tax credits for me thank you very much!

Thanks for the subject topic Michael. I'm an American HVAC engineer who's been working in the UK for a while. You're absolutely right, our energy use per capita is appalling compared to other developed nations (i.e. Europe and Japan). However our performance to date is defensible and I'd like to say why based on my observations. First, European countries and Japan are much smaller and more densely populated than the US. The population density in the UK for instance is about 5 times that of the US. I'm pretty sure Japan is at least as much or more. Making trains work in a densely populated country is easier. Buses also cover distances faster and people are more apt to walk or ride bicycles. However, European countries struggle to make rail economical compared to driving and struggle with semi to full nationalization of this industry. Britain is in concensus that it is cheaper to drive here. What if gas prices go up? Well they just raise rail ticket prices too. Implementing rail on a larger scale in the US has significant obstacles, not the least of which being cost.
Since it's so densely populated in Europe people live a lot closer together and real estate is in higher demand. This makes the average sf/person available in the building stock lower which uses less energy on average. They've also had to deal with polution like smog and overcapacity landfills here for decades longer than we have. In the buildings industry, it is much more regulated over here. This is a major cost to development. If a building costs 10 million dollars in the US, it would cost about 10 million pounds in the UK or more. It's that expensive. Our path thus far in the US is a direct result of our prosperity and inginuity mixed with ample space.
Another major reason Europe performs better is that they've done a much better job of winning hearts and minds regarding climate change. They've taken it very seriously and haven't waited for the US to come around. They're off and running on emissions trading schemes and renewable contribution targets. I don't know about how well they maintain building systems here compared to America (I haven't noticed a big difference in quality), but it may be due to more heavy-handed regulation. I know they have major issues with old legacy buildings (Victorian concrete block walls with air gap and brick veneer) that have no insulation. The average US building is much younger and more likely to have some insulation, however poor.
Another thing they make good use of here in Europe is operative temperature (or dry resultant). Essentially they're taking account of the radiant heat component to affect comfort which can often favor a more efficient distribution medium (i.e. water versus air).
America may be a bit behind on energy but we're catching up quickly. We have many of the world's great manufacturers for buildings and our entrepreneurial capital in green and renewable energy companies is second to none. It's just time to hit the red button and start implementing. We certainly have more to brag about than a democratic administration and stimulus.
Part of this is cultural; we're just less socialist than Europe or Japan. We don't necessarily need more regulation, just smarter regulation. I personally think putting a cost on CO2 emissions is the only way to do it in a capitalist system. This may not be very popular but it's better than the alternative of the government picking technology winners and losers. Make it a capital budgeting priority for clients and watch the innovators do the work. Oh, and perhaps the most important part of this...reinvest every dollar raised through emissions cap-and-trade into fighting the problem and releiving economic strain and do it until climate change is no longer a concern. No new car buyer tax credits for me thank you very much!

Europeans have placed large taxes on energy for decades recognizing the other impacts (costs) of energy use beyond the extraction, processing and delivery costs.
We need to get serious about gradually applying energy taxes here and efficiently direct their use for energy saving technologies.

The long and short of this is that "we" ugly Americans are way to addicted to living beyond our means. The government and public carry too much credit debt that we delay repaying to the next generation, instead of taking the responsible approach that past generations did and spend only what we can afford. Front end costs of energy efficient systems are only deemed acceptable if immediate payback can be proven. The though process is why invest in a future for the next generation when now is all WE have. A selfish self interested lot we are to rob the next generation a chance to compete with the rest of the world. Now is the time to become responsible for our own actions or crumble as a country on the world stage. It’s our decision not the next generations.