TheMinistryCafe

I love the expression “one thing that amazes me about common sense is how uncommon it is”. I don’t know who coined that expression first, but I think of it often (especially when dealing with my kids). When I first studied architecture in the 70’s, the oil crisis was fresh in the minds of most Americans. As a result, new visions developed for passive solar designs and earth sheltered homes. After the crisis ended, the country went back to largely wasteful ways of using energy. Rising costs have again brought energy-use reduction to the minds of people in America. Coupled with concerns about global warming, reduction is here to say.

I am glad to see the end of the Hummer line – but not because of its carbon footprint. There are valid concerns about global warming, however, I do not subscribe to the thinking that it is the biggest threat to our future. I consider spiritual issues to be preeminent. I’ve also been practically influenced by Scandinavian economist and professor Bjørn Lomborg’s thinking in his book Cool IT!. (Thanks, Rob Reeves, for giving me a copy!) Lomberg argues that change is only sustainable when it also makes economic sense. This, after all, is common sense. Bill Clinton was elected president as he campaigned on: “it’s the economy, stupid!” Most people are more concerned about their personal economy than they are about global warming or other noble causes; your economy is your greatest concern when you’re out of work and have no income.

As we’ve worked with churches over the years, we’ve proposed many energy-efficient alternatives that were declined due to the higher up-front costs. We try to point out the long-term savings. The response from church leaders or building committee members in most instances has been to get the immediate benefits of lowered construction costs. It is hard to argue against taking the savings in situations where the church is struggling to afford the project in the first place.

Now to my pump…

I have a small pond in my backyard with a recirculating waterfall. The pump started to have problems last fall. I hoped it would heal itself with the winter rest. It did not. So I went on-line to find a replacement. Money has been tight, so I looked for the cheapest pump I could find of equal capacity. I found one for $129 – with free shipping! It used 750 watts to operate, which was the same as the old pump. I also found a high-efficiency pump that used only 250 watts; it cost $400. So I did a little math. The pump runs about 5,000 hours a year (24 hours a day for about 7 months).  The cost for each 100 watts to operate over that time at the current electric rate of $0.15 per kilowatt hour is $75. The cost to operate the cheaper pump for one season would be $562.50 (If I had calculated that initially, I would not have made the waterfall!). The cost to operate the high-efficiency pump? $187.50. The cheap pump year one cost (purchase and operate) would be $691.50. The high efficiency pump year one cost is $587.50. With electrical rate increases of 22% expected over the next year, the savings will be much more considering years two and three.  

This brings up an important question: what payback period makes the higher initial cost worthwhile? One year is a no-brainer. What about 3, 5, 7 or 10 years? With continuously rising energy costs, pay-back periods are getting shorter. For this reason, at WPH we’re starting to move into the energy audits as a way to bring savings to churches. What if every church could reduce their building energy costs by 20%? What might that do to help meet ministry needs or improve staffing? We believe there is a lot of energy to be saved by the average church. With the cost of energy rising, it’s the right time – no matter where you stand on global warming. As for my pump? The biggest issue was convincing my wife that we still needed a waterfall.