Golf carts on interstate highways?

By Elisa Wood

May 28, 2009

If you trust the television images, it appears that soon we will all drive cars the size of golf carts because of Obama’s new fuel standards. Newscast after newscast illustrated the new 35.5 CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard with a two-seater microcar. In some cases the image was juxtaposed with a threatening-looking SUV, usually black — Darth Vader on his way to crush the rebellion.

The message? Be afraid. Be very afraid. And to be honest, I was. My first thought? There is no way my kids are getting in a microcar.

Since then, however, I’ve looked into safety and small cars. True, small cars can be unsafe – but not necessarily.

Greencar.com offers an informative article by Kellen Schefter http://www.greencar.com/articles/smart-car-offers-drivers-new-high-mpg-option-top-crash-rating.php. Shefter describes crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on Daimler AG’s 2008 smart fortwo. It is not as destructible as the golf cart it resembles. On the contrary, the smart fortwo earned the institute’s best ratings for front and side crash protection. For rear crashes, it was rated acceptable.

Schefter explains the technology behind the car’s crashworthiness. The smart fortwo is built to distribute the impact of a crash over its entire body; the rear-mounted engine breaks away and slides underneath the car if it is hit from behind, “absorbing energy and reducing the rebound inherent in such a stiff structure.” And the car has a short wheelbase so that in a side collision, it is more likely to hit an energy-absorbing axle.

In any case, we may not need small cars to meet fuel efficiency standards, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute. But the cars will need to be light. Lack of vehicle weight is typically linked to poor crash performance. RMI says, however, that light weight, like small size, need not mean danger on the road. The organization plans to issue a study in July that illustrates how big cars made out of light materials can have “crash safety comparable to, or better than, that of a similarly sized heavy vehicle,” according to a paper RMI recently posted on its website. Safety depends on good engineering. Because the engines need not be so big in the light car, “the crumple zone” can be larger, creating greater safety, RMI says. http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid603.php.

Still, the biggest challenge for the car industry may not be one of engineering, but psychology. Can marketing efforts overcome what Schefter calls the “bigger-is-better intuition” of the safety-minded American car buyer? As I think about my kids in a microcar, I realize that I’ll be a good test case.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Will society unplug?

By Elisa Wood

May 21, 2009

As a society, we’re accused of being too plugged-in, too reliant on our computers, televisions, and charged-up cell phones. Turns out, we are willing to unplug.

A study by SmartPower (http://www.smartpower.org/) found that unplugging unused appliances, those sucking up vampire energy, is an energy savings act people are willing to do. And they don’t just say they will unplug – they do unplug.

This is an important distinction because often people tell researchers that they intend to conserve power or buy renewable energy. But when it comes time to do act, they balk. SmartPower was able to discern where and when people walk-the-walk through a “Living Diary” study, part of a two-year effort in New England to see how the economy, volatile energy prices and environmental concerns motivate consumers.

Smartpower followed the activities of 81 people for two weeks. The participants were given daily questions, homework and tasks, which led to over 1,000 diary entries.

“Unplugging was the most frequent efficiency experience. Panelists reported that it was the easiest to perform, required the least sacrifice and was the most universally relevant to all participants,” SmartPower said in recent comments filed before the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.

Such research becomes increasingly important as the industry seeks ways to spur consumers to act in a more energy efficient way, an approach known as “residential behavioral strategy.”

In Connecticut, SmartPower and two other companies have proposed an ambitious behavioral strategy program intended to encourage people to cut energy use 20% by 2020. The trio – which also includes Earth Markets (http://earthmarkets.com/), a finance company, and Efficiency 2.0 (http://efficiency20.com/), a software firm – offers consumers several goodies, among them free compact fluorescent lights and software to monitor energy use online.

But that’s not all. The program includes two of the biggest all-time motivators for the US consumer: beating the Jones and earning cash. Communities compete to see who saves the most energy and the results appear on line for all to see. In addition, participants have the chance to earn money through the sale of efficiency certificates or “white tags,” a currency of value in Connecticut. Consumers and businesses can earn a certificate for each megawatthour of energy they save. They sell the white tags to utilities and others who must, under state law, produce or buy a certain number each year to help the state achieve its efficiency goals.

The program must still win regulatory approval (http://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/(Web+Main+View/Search+Electric)?OpenView&StartKey=05-07-19RE02) . But if it does, its 200,000 customers would not only earn money from white tags but also save money on their energy bills – for a total financial gain estimated to be $100 million.

Not a bad benefit. Definitely worth the time of unplugging the appliances at night.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

The one energy efficiency report to read

By Elisa Wood

May 14, 2009

Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, raised a lot of eyebrows recently when he suggested that the US may no longer need to build conventional power plants – that efficiency and renewable energy might meet our needs.

He has since clarified his position, saying much will depend on how we think about energy, its use in the system, and market response.

Still, critics say he overestimates green technologies. Are they right? Reading over the most recent report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy gives one pause about underestimating technology.

We know that semiconductors have given us computers, cell phones, the Internet – they’ve changed the way we live and work. But often semiconductors are thought of as the source of energy gluttony. We are all plugged in much more than we were 20 years ago.

Steve Nadel, ACEEE director, calls this “the high tech energy paradox,” in his introduction to the report. “Analysts tend to pay more attention to the energy-consuming characteristics of semiconductor devices than to their broader, economy-wide, energy-saving capacity.”

Turns out that in making life easier for us, semiconductors also have been taking a lot of strain off our power system. ACEEE looked at how we might have accomplished tasks without the semi-conductor and found it would have taken a lot more energy.

“Computers and servers show us that it can be easier to make decisions, and that it is easier to move electrons than it is to physically move people and goods,” says the report.

In fact, technologies that use semiconductors saved us 775 billion kWh in 2006 alone. Without semiconductors we would have used 20 percent more power that year. Or put more strikingly, had it not been for semiconductors, we would have built 184 additional, large power plants.

The report goes on to extrapolate that the semiconductor industry is likely to lead to even greater savings in the future.

Semiconductors could support an economy in 2020 that is 35 percent larger than today, but uses seven percent less electricity. By 2030 the economy could be 70 percent larger and use 11 percent less power. What does this mean in practical terms? About $1.7 billion in electricity savings, a lot less carbon dioxide and many more jobs, says the report.

Such startling projections make Wellinghoff’s statement seem less dramatic.

Here I’m in danger of sounding like a sales pitch on the jacket of a paperback. But if you read only one energy efficiency report this year, make it this one: “Semiconductor Technologies: the Potential to Revolutionize U.S. Energy Productivity. http://www.aceee.org/press/e094pr.htm. It is an eye opener.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Businesses like efficiency, but hold back

By Elisa Wood

May 7, 2009

“It’s the economy, stupid,” the famous line of political strategist James Carville, seems even more relevant now than when he uttered it during Clinton’s 1992 campaign. A recent survey on executives’ attitudes shows that energy efficiency hasn’t escaped the shadow of recession, despite strong support for the resource.

Johnson Controls and the International Facility Management Association asked 1,400 business executives in April what they think of energy efficiency. They like it. A lot.

Seventy one percent said they pay more attention to energy efficiency than they did a year ago; 51 percent see energy management as extremely or very important; 45 percent plan to use efficiency as their top strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Yet, the survey also found businesses holding back on making investments. The problem? “Economic and regulatory uncertainty,” says C. David Myers, president of Johnson Controls Building Efficiency division, in a May 6 news release.

Energy prices have dropped significantly over the last year. But businesses apparently do not feel confident enough about the future to prepare to take the savings and invest it in energy efficiency — in preparation for the next jump in energy prices. In fact, the survey revealed a likely 10 percent decrease from last year in the use of facility capital budgets to fund energy efficiency projects. It also showed a six percent drop in the number of businesses planning to use their operation budgets to invest in efficiency.

Not surprising, nearly half of those interviewed cited lack of capital as a barrier to pursuing efficiency. However, if Washington plays it right, efficiency investment should rebound once the economy does. Business leaders believe incentives from utilities or government will drive the investment, according to the survey. Eighty-five percent expect either legislation mandating energy efficiency or carbon reduction within two years.

Businesses are understandably hesitant to risk capital until they know the specifics about an energy efficiency portfolio standard and carbon requirements now under debate in Congress. Perhaps the slogan for this point in history should be: “It’s about the economy, stupid…and Washington.”

More information on the survey is available at: http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.