I don't think the solution is that simple. Nanotech. is employed in most areas of everyday life which means it kind of does impact on every action to conserve energy but it impacts equally on energetically wasteful processes. The solution cannot be merely technical but would have to have a strong cultural component.
A simple thought: Having a gadget that uses less energy and resources (even in the ideal case from cradle to grave) doesn't help a lot if one collects a larger quantity of gadgets. That would be an indirect rebound effect.
Our tools and gadgets are becoming more efficient for the most part, but we are still increasing energy and resource consumption beyond the growth rate of humanity. We are barely putting a dent in the rising energy demand. The reasons for that are complex and global. Inventing efficient technologies is a good start but doesn't do a lot by itself. The solution has to be more faceted than that and custom built for each culture.
Fully agree. There is no ultimate solution of the problem at all.
Nevertheless, potentially nanotech can contribute in lots of fields, e.g. storage systems, catalysts. On the other side the hype of nanotech products for convenient but unnecessary products has its part in increase resource consumption and energy demand. Production of nanotech products has generally higher energy demand than products of larger scale.
Good point Titus, I agree. We also noticed a higher energy demand in the production phase of nanoproducts. That is not a problem if the use phase is long enough. The energy savings of nanoproducts in that phase often make up for the higher energy demand during the production phase, but many products today are subject to fashion or are quickly exchanged for newer models. If they are not re-used, downcycled or recycled in a quantitatively meaningful way they don't have use phases that are long enough.
Longer use phases are also hampered by product designs that are meant to fail after a certain amount of use.