EnergyStar claims 2nd Law Thermodynamics wrong !

Look for this logo when considering your new r...
Look for this logo when considering your new roofing materials (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If you consider the question :

How much energy is wasted in buildings ?

read in light of the EPA brochure Energy Star by the EPA, pretty soon you are faced with a nonsense that appears to be systematically overlooked.

The brochure claims:

 'The Average Building' Wastes 30% of the Energy It Consumes'.


Suppose for the purpose of argument we accept this figure for a moment (Note: for the record I consider this a very low estimate, but I may have been biased generally by looking at big UK buildings and data from thousands of SMEs around Europe - perhaps their waste is profligate in comparison with cautious cultural conservative policies towards energy in the US *heavy irony flag*). 

So if 30% is wasted, then by eliminating all waste it follows that the 30% could be saved - but this is not possible, because 100% efficiency cannot be achieved.  (Note struck out  causing confusion and does not add to article)

Only now do things go from the sublime to ridiculous...

On the next page we read,
"ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings Use 35% less energy" ... Compared to Average Buildings

(becoming more than 100% efficient or ...we are faced with  other possibilities if the "facts" are as written

1) A negative number of buildings are Energy Star labeled.  - I think it safe to reject this.
2) There are no buildings in the US - This has not yet been reported on the news.
3) Energy Star have achieved Perpetual motion of the second kind

The facts "as written" appear questionable.

Please note that I think that Energy Star buildings are typically far less energy profligate than average buildings, and probably by more than 35%,  I will also guarantee that they are very far from perfect !

Therefore if we exclude the physically impossible it is safe to say 

"The average building wastes far more than 35% of the energy It consumes"

If this is the case - our industry would be better served by plausible argument, better statistics, an understanding of mathematics, and less denial of the extremely bloody obvious.  

But that is merely an Englishman's opinion - I would love you to share yours ... (below please rather in linkedIn etc where other people miss it)

If you would like a more erudite discussion about the implication of some buildings being better than others ( if some are better then some are worse is the tl;dr ) then bookmark or register the feed to get a reminder to come back when I have written it !

Update: - It just occurred to me that a cynic might say EnergyStar labelled buildings are saving 35% relative to "average buildings" because EnergyStar labelled buildings are somehow selected.  Now given that I am a cynic I will have to consider this further... 

If EnergyStar is an investment and one tends to invest in buildings that are in good basic shape but need refurbishment... (but that would mean that the claims were totally biased - surely no self-respecting NGO or whatever would do such a thing ?)

Still taking comments ;)

Related articles