NEMA Currents : Energy Efficiency

Congressional Unveiling of Major Energy Savings and Carbon Reduction...

Hansen, Dain — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:22:00 GMT

Do you want to save 4.48-7.95 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon annually (equivalent to removing approximately between 3-5.4 million automobiles annually)?

Do you want to save 25 to 42 Terawatt hours (billion kWh) per year (equivalent to 3 to 6 nuclear power plants or 6 to 10 coal-fired plants)?

Do you want to drive innovation and spur technology?

If you do, see NEMA’s newly unveiled consensus agreement outdoor lighting standard.

Today, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator Pryor, Representative Harman, Representative Upton, NEMA’s President and CEO Evan Gaddis, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the National Resources Defense Council announced a consensus agreement for federal outdoor lighting standards. For the first time ever, pole-mounted outdoor lighting will have federally mandated efficiency standards.

For many months, NEMA has led negotiations with manufacturers, energy advocates, utilities, lighting designers and others to develop thoughtful and thoroughly vetting consensus standards. As you can see from the statistics mentioned, this agreement will have a monumental impact on energy savings, carbon reduction and technological innovation.

World’s Largest Pedestrian Bridge Soaks up Rays

goodwina — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:47:00 GMT

A few days ago, The Kurilpa Bridge in Brisbane officially opened, and it’s been referred to as the “largest pedestrian and cycle bridge.” It’s 470 meters long, and around 36,500 people will use the bridge each week. It features a programmable LED lighting system that can be adjusted for different effects and events.

What’s really cool, though, is that the bridge has 84 solar panels that can fully power the bridge in most lighting configurations, and provide 75% of the needed power for the fully lit mode. Excess power can be returned to the grid. The panels will average 100 kWh for daily output and 38 MWh for yearly output.

A Queensland government page has some amazing high-quality photos from several angles (scroll to the bottom for my favorites). Inhabitat.com mentions that the design is reminiscent of knitting needles, and I agree.

Let There Be (Incandescent) Light: A Different View

Silcox, Clark — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:27:00 GMT

An editiorial in today's Washington Post, Let There Be (Incandescent) Light, declared, "Banning traditional light bulbs as used in private homes seems an effort in the name of environmental protection that has very little payoff." Earlier, the author, David Henderson, a teacher of environmental ethics in the philosophy and religion department at Western Carolina University, stated and asked, "Light bulbs are a poor choice for regulation. Is there an overriding reason to regulate how Americans light their homes?"

I have a different view. There is a larger payoff than Henderson recognizes. First, environmental concerns -- reducing power plant emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases -- is not the only benefit gained from energy conservation standards. They are not even the primary benefit recognized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which is the statute that regulates lighting efficiency. Economic benefits to utilities who are able to avoid capital costs and ordinary expenditures because of reduced electricity consumption from more efficient lighting can be substantial. Lower utility bills to consumers and businesses can be substantial as well; the relative total cost to the consumer of owning and operating a more energy efficient compact fluroescent lamp over its life versus a traditional incandescent lamp favor the compact fluorescent lamp. Yes, the CFL is different from incandescent lamps: acquisition costs are higher, there are differences in the color of the light, and generally they have not been dimmable, but product innovation is underway and will continue and prices have been coming down significantly as production and sales volume have increased. Consumers have many more choices today with CFLs than they did just a couple of years ago, and consumers should take a look at the variety and quality of some of the CFLs now on the market, and remember that a higher price may represent additional value in the product.

The cost of shifting production away from incandescent lamps to other lighting products is borne largely by the lamp manufacturers and the towns with factories that will no longer be manufacturing incandescent lamps. One of those costs is research and development, but that may generate benefits down the road from innovative lighting products that consumers find even greater value in. Lamp manufacturers are already engaged in that race.

The public can thank our organization, NEMA, for that. Initial proposals in States and to Congress here in the U.S. were similar to the incandescent product ban that recently went into effect in Europe. The US Congress, encouraged by NEMA and its lamp manufacturer members, took a different approach: regulate the performance of the lamp; do not specify which products or technologies manufacturers can make and sell and consumers can buy. Banning the "traditional" light bulb --- the "A" line incandescent lamp that is still available on the U.S. market today but will be phased out beginning in 2012 --- merely banned an inefficient lamp, which will mean significant economic benefits to electric utilities and utility customers, allow consumers to spend their money on other things beside electricity, and encourage the development of innovative lighting products and possibly more efficient incandescent lamps. So let there be light --- incandescent light, fluorescent light, and light emitting diodes --- and may the best products win.

And, oh by the way, the regulation of lamp efficiency will reduce the output of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants if consumers and businesses will buy and use more energy efficient lamps. Henderson suggests banning coal-fired power plants. I am not sure that he meant that, because it is not practical. But he is right if he meant that we need to start reducing our dependency on coal-fired power plants as a percentage source of electricity output. With the recent Stimulus legislation and pending "clean energy" legislation, Congress is legislating to increase the share of renewable sources of electricity. But this will make only a dent. America needs to start increasing the share of that other source of "clean energy" --- nuclear power, which represents only 20% of our current power sources for electricity. That's material for another blog.

Roadblocks to energy efficiency, mercury, and a tunafish sandwich

Silcox, Clark — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:34:00 GMT

A July 2009 report released by McKinsey & Company entitled Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy neatly summarizes many of the roadblocks to attaining a more energy efficient economy and highlights strategies for getting around those roadblocks. We have known about these obstacles for awhile, and we have known about the solutions as well. One of the obstacles cited by McKinsey is the difficulty in evaluating, measuring and verifying energy savings. Behavioral patterns such as custom and habit are a also a barrier, and another obstancle arises from the fact that capturing that energy savings requires an initial up front outlay or investment in new technology that is only later recovered in energy savings. Solutions to overcoming these obstacles may include information and education, incentives, and mandatory standards.

These obstacles and solutions are relevant to a number of energy saving products. Compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) are a case in point. When these energy savings lamps first arrived on the market in significant quantity in the 1990s, they were larger than incandescent lamps, they were considerably more expensive (more than $5.00 vs. $0.25), the color of the light was perceived as being too white, and the energy savings and return on investment was not immediately calculable. Custom and habit preferred a smaller, warmer lightbulb based on incandescent lamp technology. Custom and habit preferred buying lamps with familiar wattage levels that intuitively translated into a certain brightness. And the pocketbook was reluctant to part with five or more dollars per lightbulb, when you could not tell how much your utility bill would decrease compared to installing an incandescent lamp. These barriers are falling for the CFL --- slowly. The CFL is now smaller, its price has fallen by two-thirds or more, the color is warming, and the packages they come in tend to show the incandescent wattage equivalent (26W = 100W) as well as the expected lifetime dollar savings for the bulb based on the average life for that CFL. In less than 30 months, mandatory lamp efficiency standards adopted by Congress in 2007 will start the phaseout of less efficient 100W incandescent lamps, followed by the phaseout of less efficient lower wattage lamps in 2013 and 2014.

The European Union began phasing out less efficient lamps this month, and stories of German consumers hoarding incandescent lamps before they disappeared from the shelves received prominent airplay, confirming that for some people custom and habit are difficult to overcome. A second part of the story is the unfortunate hysteria generated by some groups who claim that our economies are replacing a non-toxic product with a toxic product, because CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury that is essential for their energy saving capability. This is a potential barrier to achieving energy savings as well. There are people who actually advocate avoiding CFLs because of their mercury content. Over the past 20 years, lamp manufacturers have reduced the amount of mercury in lamps by 95% or more. Current CFLs contain less than 4 milligrams of mercury vapor on average; some CFLs even less. This amount of mercury would fit on the tip of a ballpoint pen. In contrast, an old mercury thermometer that we once willingly put in our mouth had over 100 times that amount of mercury in the bulb. In the midst of this controversy over banning incandescent lamps comes a report from scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) that the risk from mercury exposure caused by a broken CFL is "negligble," similar to taking one bite from a tunafish sandwich if the room where the broken bulb is located is quickly ventilated and the debris swept into a container that is taken outdoors. Even an unlikely worst case exposure, the authors report, is no worse than eating a serving of fish. The article notes that exposure to mercury vapor, which is the form of mercury found in fluorescent lamps, is different than exposure to more hazardous methylmercury, which is the form of mercury problematic for prenatal and young infant development.

While the health risk from a single broken CFL appears to be negligible, consumers should still keep CFLs out of their trash cans at end of life and dispose of them at retail stores like Home Depot and other hardware stores or municipal hazardous waste facilities that are collecting spent CFLs. Lamp manufacturers' packaging has, for several years, encouraged consumers and businesses to dispose of fluorescent lamps including CFLs properly and cause them to be recycled so that mercury does not end up in incinerators or landfills. While mercury from lamps would not be a significant source of mercury emissions or waste, recycling is a best practice and in some states is now mandatory. A website, www.lamprecycle.org , which is referenced on lamp packaging, conveniently provides useful information to both consumers and business about recycling mercury-containing lamps.

The Federal Trade Commission is currently engaged in revisiting its labeling rule for lamps. One of the changes that is likely to come out of this rulemaking is a new informational focus on lumens -- a measurement of a lamp's light output --- rather than a lamp's power as expressed in watts. When the consumer decides how much light is desired, she can then compare products for efficiency (measured by lumens per watt, with a higher LPW representing a more efficient product), operating cost, and price. The goal of the FTC rule is to break down some barriers to energy savings in the manner advocated by the McKinsey report. The FTC should consider labeling information about mercury content in fluorescent lamps and information about the proper disposal in its current rulemaking, so that another potential obstacle to using these energy savings products is overcome.

What Should Make a "Green" Building?

golds — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:41:00 GMT

Stop me if you've heard me say this before: Buildings are the single largest user of electricity in the nation. According to the US Green Buildings Council, buildings account for 72% of electricity use in the United States. So if you're going to try to conserve energy in our society, buildings would be a great place to start.

That's why there are a number of ratings systems for "green" buildings. USGBC's "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" (LEED) program is the most respected -- which is why it's disconcerting that a new GSA report states that many LEED-certified buildings are, in fact, not even qualified to carry the Energy Star label. How can this be? Because to get LEED certified, buildings can earn points any number of ways. Like the federal building in Youngstown, Ohio, that (according to GSA) is an energy hog -- but received enough points for stuff like having native landscaping and carpets made of low-emitting material to get certified.

This is a challenge that USGBC acknowledges, according to a recent NYTimes article on the subject. The problem is the gap between design and construction (which USGBC certifies) and actual building performance. USGBC will start collecting energy use from the buildings that it certifies, and newly constructed buildings that want to be certified will have to start providing energy and water bills as well for the first five years of operation.

USGBC should also start incorporating more energy-efficient electrical products into its LEED rating system. If energy consumption and carbon emissions are that organization's primary targets, then nothing can really compare to installing such advanced electrical equipment as energy efficient lighting systems, motor controls, temperature controls, and air-conditioning and heating systems. By using such products, even irresponsible human behavior (like leaving lights on all night) won't prevent a building from cutting its electricity consumption dramatically over time.

More Federal Incentives for NEMA Members...

Hansen, Dain — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:31:00 GMT

Before leaving on August recess, Senator Bingaman (NM) introduced a bill, S. 1639, the Expanding Industrial Energy Efficiency Incentives Act. This bill includes the NEMA-advocated advanced motor technology tax credit. What makes this bill even more promising is that, Senator Jeff Bingaman is the Chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on Energy, so he has the authority to push this bill.

This tax credit provides $120 per horsepower to original equipment manufacturers and end-users for the substitution of advanced motor systems with adjustable speed capability, like permanent magnet, electronically commutated, or switched reluctance motors, as well as other technologies as determined by the secretary of energy in redesigned equipment and appliances. The tax credit is estimated to provide between $400 and $600 million in direct tax incentives for the purchase of NEMA member products.

S. 1639 is likely to be adopted into the Senate’s comprehensive energy bill, which also contains NEMA’s “crush for credit” motor rebate program and NEMA’s motor assessment.

With No New Transmission Lines, No New Wind Energy

golds — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:35:00 GMT

An article in the latest issue of Renew Grid magazine (see page 5) adds to the chorus of concern about siting new transmission corridors. According to the article, a survey by NRG Systems of attendees at the recent American Wind Energy Association WINDPOWER conference shows that half of respondents cited transmission/interconnection issues as the single greatest obstacle to new wind generation. Access to capital was a distant second in the survey.

This is nothing new, of course. NIMBYs and BANANAs have been throwing up hurdles to new transmission corridors for a number of years. The bad economy (that is, lack of project financing) has made their jobs much easier, but only temporarily. The need to site new lines in order to access renewable energy sources is simply too great to ignore.

After all, if the energy from the wind turbine can't reach the building, it's useless.

High Hopes for Wind Energy?

golds — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:38:00 GMT

In an increasingly electrified world, the concept of harnessing reliable, inexpensive energy sources sits near the top of most policymakers' wish lists. And there is no energy source more reliable than the wind at high altitudes. The problem, of course, is how to inexpensively turn it into energy.

That problem may be solved sooner rather than later. With modern technology, according to an article by Erik Vance [subscription only] in the recent Nature magazine, a number of entrepreneurs are now testing their abilty to create electricity from high-altitude winds. Of course, they'd rather tap into the earth's jet streams -- those narrows bands of powerful air currents 5 to 8 miles above the earth's surface that contain roughly 100 times the amount of energy that humans use today. But finding those jet streams isn't always easy, and actually harnessing energy at that height would be prohibitively expensive. So these entrepreneurs are focusing on winds in the range of 200 to 1000 yards above the ground.

For those who spend virtually all their time on the ground and don't understand all the excitement about high-altitude wind, Mr. Vance's article puts it in perspective. Using weather measuring equipment, a snapshot of wind speed at a site in Northern California found the following: "At ground level, a light breeze is blowing at under 10 kilometres per hour. At 900 metres, the speed reaches 50 kilometres per hour. But conventional wind turbines only stand about 130 metres or so above the ground. So a wind collector flying 900 metres above the town could theoretically gather 125 times as much energy as a turbine on the ground."

How do these companies plan to tackle the challenge of turning high-altitude wind into energy? Sky Windpower is developing an unmanned helicopter whose horizontal rotors will both keep it aloft and generate electricity. Makani Power has a glider with rotors that will be flown like a kite. And then there's JoeBen Bevirt, a California inventor who is working on a large wing-frame with large rotors at each corner that he hopes to maneuver into the jet stream itself.

The wonders of our free enterprise system can be seen in this race to solve a problem. One day down the road, one or more of these entrepreneurs will likely become well compensated (and well known) with their invention that generates energy from high-altitude wind. And, in the process, our standard of living will rise a little more. A win-win for everyone.

PEV's Are Coming But . . . Lots of Questions to Answer

Scolnik, Alvin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:54:00 GMT

Everyday I read something new and interesting about some form of electric vehicle. Hybrid electric, Plug in hybrid electric, Plug In electric, etc. While they're all using different technologies, the one thing they all seem to have in common is that they are still pretty much in the prototype stage. Sure, the Prius and other hybrids seems to have gone commercial and owners seem reasonably satisfied. But, my neighbor just got one to do his bit for the environment and he's seriously underwhelmed with the vehicle's performance. None are 50 mpg vehicles. Only Prius and Honda exceed 40 mpg and most of the other models are testing in the 30 mpg range. In other words, there's still a ways to go for hybrids to deliver the promised energy savings.

And then there's the plug in vehicles. Really in the prototype and testing stages. What kind of battery will give us a 40 mile range? Which chemistry is most cost effective? What happens to the battery in hot weather? Cold weather? Can a battery survive a high impact crash? What happens when a large number of PHEV's are charging from the electricity grid at the same time? Fast charge? Slow charge? What's the plug configuration? What's the impact on the electrical system? How to ensure consumer safety? And on and on and on.

We need to standardize on battery chemistries that are best from a performance, reliability, safety and cost standpoint. We need to agree on the best ways of configuring the batteries? We need to decide as a country on the fastest, safest, cheapest and best ways to recharge the batteries. We need to settle on the most efficient ways to track the vehicle so that the system can identify and bill me for the energy I use to recharge my vehicle regardless of where I recharge it. The utilties need incentives to create systems that are similar enough to permit uniformity and safety in how vehicles are charged and how they're billed. And there needs to be charging opportunities in buildings, on street corners, in parking garages, and at home, if our country is going to achieve President Obama's goal of 1 million PEV's by 2015.

What we need is a well financed ,government coordinated effort to bring the R&D together to test and optimize the batteries, the vehicles and the interface of the vehicle with the electricity grid. Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe in the abilities and the power of the private sector. And I know the government has pockets of money invested in vehicle programs in many places. But a rapid transition to electric vehicles on a scale that makes it economically viable requires a grand scheme--a well coordinated, really well financed public/private sector effort to accelerate technology development and minimize variability that if not controlled could scuttle the transformation before it gets started. Standards are needed as soon as possible to create the kind of system uniformity and predictability that will encourage widespread market adoption of PHEV's The government needs to jump in with both feet to make this happen.

Happy High Performance Building Week!

golds — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:01:00 GMT

It's High Performance Building Week! I hope you've chosen to commemorate the event appropriately.

Or perhaps you've been too caught up in other important affairs -- high school graduations, summer vacations, walking the dog -- to have gotten wind of this momentous occasion. For the record, the honor was announced in early June, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to that effect. NEMA, naturally, played a role in the passage of the resolution.

Of course, some congressional dedications may be more sentimental (like National Pet Week) and others may represent political nods to worthy constituents (National Plumbing Industry Week, anyone?). Still, the dedication of a High Performance Building Week reflects a growing understanding that huge energy-efficiency gains can be made through using technologies -- such as advanced lighting, thermostat, and HVAC systems -- available today in new and retrofit buildings. For example, as the resolution states:

Buildings consume 40% of the primary energy and 70% of the electricity in this country annually.
Construction of buildings and their related infrastructure consume some 60% of all raw materials used in the U.S economy.
Buildings account for about 39% of U.S. CO2 emissions each year.

Obviously, the promotion of buildings that have substantially greater energy, economic, and environmental performance over standard buildings is a worthy cause. At least as worthy as National Asbestos Awareness Week. So don't let the opportunity escape -- commemorate high performance buildings this week!