NEMA Currents

Storing the Energy of the Future

goodwina — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:38:00 GMT

Today, DOE announced $104.7 million in funding for projects at seven DOE National Laboratories, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. One of the project types is for Advanced Battery Prototype Fabrication and Testing Facilities. In the press release, energy storage technologies are described as “critical enabling technologies for developing advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles and meeting the administration’s goal of putting one million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”

For some interesting background information on energy storage, check out:

Earth2Tech’s Q&A on energy storage. I thought it encapsulated the reasons for and applications of the technology, and found it a resource for helping make sense of other energy storage news. Three people in the industry, including an engineer from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, discuss the importance of energy storage and some of its emerging uses and innovations. Storing energy is a vital part of harnessing energy from renewables, because of the fluctuating availability of wind, water, sunlight, etc. It is also necessary for the success of electric cars, since PHEVs will require balancing energy supply and demand with people’s habits and schedules.
Over at Greentech Media, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) provides his views on the importance of energy storage and argues for a governmental role in the process of improving and developing the requisite technologies.

The Politics and Policy of Job Creation

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:00:00 GMT

This week House and Senate leaders announced that Congress will do something to respond to rising unemployment before they adjourn for the year. I don't know any economist -- or anyone else, for that matter -- who would argue that the current 10.2% unemployment rate and lack of job creation in this economic recovery is NOT a problem. Quite the contrary - workers and their families are very concerned about the availability of jobs, and employers are concerned not only about being able to keep the workers they currently employ, but also being able to grow the workforce when practicable.

What will Congress' answer to the unemployment situation be? Some of the suggestions have been out there a while: another extension of unemployment benefits, extending certain individual tax breaks, giving tax credits to small businesses, providing aid to state Medicaid programs, increased government investment in infrastructure projects, etc. And while there may be some merit and value to these suggestions, one has to wonder: what is the appropriate role for government to play in creating jobs?

The National Chamber Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a forum this week which examined the "Challenges to Creating 20 Million New Jobs: What is the Proper Role of Government?" Some of the panelists' general comments:

You don't grow the economy by increasing taxes.
You don't grow the economy by increasing uncertainty (e.g., potential new government mandates on businesses).
Increased regulation, higher taxes, and higher costs (health care, energy) will make job creation more challenging in this recovery.
Job creation is most robust when the government limits its interference in the free market and allows the private sector to lead the way.
The American people are concerned about jobs, but they care more about freedom, opportunity and enterprise.

Over the next few weeks, Congress should give serious thought to what government policies -- if any -- would actually result in jobs being created and unemployed Americans returning to work. And while they're at it, they should also carefully consider the effects certain high profile legislation (e.g., health care reform, climate change, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act") could have on job creation.

A Small Problem?

Lego, Brian — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:22:00 GMT

The devastating consequences created by the residential mortgage market’s blow-up have been well documented. Now concerns over the broader impact of souring commercial real estate (CRE) loans are on the rise. The value of CRE loans outstanding is significantly smaller than residential loans ($3.5 trillion vs. $11.1 trillion); however, the size of the potential losses is not as much of a problem as it is the size of the institutions that hold these loans.

Smaller regional and community banks (<$10 billion in assets) account for less than 20% of all commercial banking assets in the U.S., but hold more than half of all outstanding CRE loans. Guess which institutions are more likely to lend to small businesses? The answer – small banks. Worse yet, those banks that account for almost half of all small business lending have the highest exposure to CRE loans. Mounting losses for banks from bad CRE debt will likely precipitate yet another impairment to credit availability for small businesses. Since businesses with fewer than 50 employees typically account for about one-third of total net job growth during economic expansions, credit constraints will likely prevent small business owners from ramping up hiring activity once the economic recovery gains momentum.

Green in color only, sometimes. Concerns over advertising claims for Photoluminescent exit signage

boesenberga — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:11:00 GMT

Caveat Emptor, and Carry a Flashlight?

Photoluminescent (PL) exit signs can be an excellent addition to the life safety outfitting of many facilities. Their ease of application and use lend them to be favored by many building operators and sometimes even required by life safety codes. However, PL signage must be applied and maintained properly and has its limitations. Too often advertising claims gloss over or ignore some very critical points that anyone considering PL signage should take into account as they consider implementing it.

Photoluminescent exit signage marketers often claim the signage requires no electricity to operate because it can charge off ambient light in the space. It is often claimed that this feature further makes PL exit Signage "Green" and a great solution for anyone trying to save energy. This claim is in itself contradictory, as it establishes a need for light in a space to charge the signs and thus some electricity usage. Whether or not something is "Green" is subjective, but claims of zero electricity usage appear rooted in the logic that the lights in the building will be turned on for the occupants, and thus light provided for the PL signage. This claim also ignores the fact that a PL exit sign needs a specific minimum amount of light (lux) hitting it to sufficiently charge the photoluminescent material. If one accepts that many facilities turn out most or all of the lighting at certain times when the building is dormant, the PL signage would be discharging some of the time and not fully charged during and just following this period.

The accepted charge time to reach full performance for most PL signage is one hour. This complicates the safety of having PL signage as the primary exit marking if someone enters the building during normal off time when lights are routinely dimmed or turned off. If an emergency occurred before the PL signage was charged, the safety of those inside would be lessened by some factor. This of course does not take into account that there may not have been sufficient ambient light in the space around the PL exit sign to begin with. If the lights are always on, because of the needs of the PL exit signage, the claims of energy savings may not be realized.

Having established that PL signage needs light (electricity and dollars spent) to charge, the next issue becomes how much. All the various life safety codes require a certain amount of light (lux) hit the PL exit sign to fully charge it, and in some cases require dedicated emergency circuit lighting, thus negating all ambient light only, zero electricity claims. An uneducated purchaser/installer also may not be well versed in determining light levels nor capable of evaluating proper code compliance. PL exit signage installed in a normally lit passageway may not be receiving sufficient light to fully charge and thus not meet code.

Additionally, some life safety codes allow for lower illuminance for PL signs as compared to internally lit signs. For instance, UL 924 requires less luminance by a factor of ten for PL exit signage as compared to internally (battery/electric) lit exit signage. The performance characteristics of the photoluminescent material also contribute to a steep decay in luminance over time. A properly functioning battery operated LED exit sign has little if any charge over the first critical hour of discharge time following a power loss. While properly installed and properly functioning PL exit signage may meet its pertinent safety code standards, it will often be dimmer than a comparable electric (battery) sign. At this time there is a dual standard for exit signage, divided between PL and electric.

These are just some of the concerns regarding photoluminescent signage. As with any matter dealing with life safety, anyone considering using PL exit signage to replace existing internally lit signage would do well to research the practicality and feasibility themselves, and not rely too heavily on manufacturers claims. Further discussion of this subject may be found in the soon to be released NEMA Lighting Systems Division white paper LSD-46.

Florida Dunks Residential Swimming Pool Safety

baclawskiv — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:11:00 GMT

On June 9, 2009, the Florida Building Commission voted down a motion to reverse a previous decision exempting the requirement for GFCIs on residential swimming pools. NEMA supported by a local electrical contractor provided testimony to support the reversal of the earlier decision. But representatives from the Florida Swimming Pool Association were able to rebut this testimony citing increased costs to consumers and claiming no additional benefit. Further, they provided erroneous information, suggesting that GFCIs would cause false tripping of pool pumps, which would be a health issue as pool water would not be circulating. Without a requirement for GFCI protection on swimming pools for one- and two-family dwellings, the citizens of Florida will bear an increased risk of electrical shock whenever they decide to take a dip.

Veterans' Day

Buckson, William — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:28:00 GMT

The difference between Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day

I have noticed that many (even within the media) confuse the meaning and are not aware of the difference between the Veterans' and Memorial Day Holidays.

Memorial Day honors service members who died in service to their country or as a result of injuries incurred during battle. While deceased veterans are also remembered on Veterans’ Day, it is the day set aside to thank and honor the 24.9 million veterans presently living in the U.S. today who served honorably in the military - in wartime or peacetime.

For additional information refer to the following links:

http://www.military.com/veterans-day/history-of-veterans-day.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Day

WHY HARMONIZE?

Buckson, William — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:20:00 GMT

Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way

The time intervals between the initiation of harmonization projects and the publication of the developed standards as well as their adherence to a realistic maintenance cycle are cause for concerns by industry given the state of today’s economy.

While global trade and manufacturing require timely development of standards containing common requirements, some National processes remain transfixed in methods that predate the WTO mandate for technical harmonization. This can only impede the progress of true globalization for those affected products. National processes and the SDO’s that must adhere to them need to adjust and advance towards more pragmatic processes just as the products they serve to evaluate must do if North America is to remain competitive.

Bad News on Jobs

Gill, Tim — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:16:00 GMT

Even as numerous indicators suggest that the economy is emerging from recession, one of the most important of all continues to worsen. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that the unemployment rate rose to 10.2% in October (subscription required), its highest since April 1983. Statistics like this don’t augur well for optimistic predictions of a snappy V-shaped recovery.

Hoping for help from Uncle Sam? Steve Pearlstein, in this WaPo piece, gently suggests that it will be difficult for the government to fill the “jobs gap,” among other things.

Touting "No Layoff" Companies

golds — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:45:00 GMT

Economic times are tough for all U.S. manufacturers, and many have had to lay off employees. But some advanced manufacturing facilities have opted not to fire anyone, event if it means switching their roles until production picks back up.

You can count NEMA members among the companies that are keeping their workforces intact. In a radio segment today, NPR highlighted two of them, Hypertherm of New Hampshire and Lincoln Electric of Cleveland, whose CEOs (*** Couch and John Stropki, respectively) sit on NEMA's Board of Governors.

As Couch says, "Once you have a highly skilled workforce, the last thing you want to do is lay them off. This isn't altruism. It's good business."

Hope for Faster Permitting in Siting Transmission Corridors

golds — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:00:00 GMT

The federal government took steps recently to speed up the approval process for electricity transmission lines. Or at least, to speed up the permitting on federal lands. An agreement between the White House and eight federal agencies puts one agency in charge of the cumbersome process of approving transmission corridor permits -- a change from the traditional multi-agency hurdle that transmission developers have had to maneuver. This is good for our manufacturers -- streamlining the cumbersome permitting process for transmission lines is one way to help bring life back to the struggling U.S. manufacturing sector.

And we'd like to think we had something to do with this change of heart. NEMA CEO Evan Gaddis has discussed this topic with FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and NIST Director Patrick Gallagher, and recently dropped a note on the subject to the new manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.

The federal agency agreement doesn't resolve the challenge of siting transmission lines on private lands, but it's a huge step in the right direction. And it's sign that the administration understands the importance of this issue -- especially if the Obama administration wants to connect renewable energy sources (like wind and solar) to the electricity grid. Efforts to hook up renewable energy to the grid have been delayed and blocked by environmental groups and community activists, with the result that it has taken years to move a permit through the process.

For now, the permitting process should move more smoothly for lines that cut across federal lands. Next stop: Streamlining the process for private lands.