Will support for efficiency hold in 2009?

By Elisa Wood
December 18, 2008

The stars are aligned to make 2009 a good year for energy efficiency — or at least, most of the stars.

President-Elect Barack Obama has assembled an energy team that supports clean technologies. Most notably, Obama named Steven Chu as energy secretary on December 15. Chu is a Nobel Prize winner and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a leader in bringing energy efficiency technologies to market, such as the compact fluorescent light bulb. http://www.lbl.gov/

Obama also is in the process of putting together an economic recovery package that places high priority on energy, including investment in efficiency. The goal is to quickly create jobs by giving ‘shovel-ready’ projects a boost in the sluggish economy. Efficiency projects more easily qualify as ‘shovel-ready’ — set for quick development – than most energy undertakings. Efficiency measures rarely require the kind of time-consuming permitting, engineering and financing of power plant or transmission construction.

So what star is out of place in the sky? The star that governs oil prices. It costs far less to fill up the gas tank now than it did last summer. That is a good thing. The problem is that the US consumer tends to be short-sighted. If gasoline is cheap today, who cares about tomorrow? Energy efficiency falls out of favor.

Joe Loper, senior vice president for the Alliance to Save Energy, warned about this “cycle of complacency” in testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources December 10. Loper recommended $15 billion in economic stimulus money for energy efficiency to keep the nation’s energy goals on track. Investing in efficiency will not only create jobs, but also will foster continued use of technologies that have already proven their worth. “A silent partner” in meeting the nation’s energy needs, efficiency has reduced America’s energy bill and related carbon emissions by 50% since 1973, he said.

Obama, himself, is worried that declining gas prices may erode support for his aggressive energy agenda. He told Time magazine that lower oil prices make “the politics of it tougher than it might have been six months ago.” http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_president-elect_on_his_goals_and_agenda_in_a_time_of_crisis/

We’ll see in the next several weeks if support continues for an overhaul of the nation’s energy portfolio, or if the public follows the wrong star in the sky.

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

Front-load washers: Leaky solar panels revisited?

By Elisa Wood

December 11, 2008

Some days I’d like to throw my front-load clothes washer out the back door. But that probably won’t be necessary because it may walk out on its own.

The LG product shakes and rattles so much in the spin cycle that it ‘walks’ several inches across the floor each day. One guest to my kitchen thought we were experiencing an earthquake. Sears repairmen have visited twice, but tell me nothing is wrong with the machine: front loaders just do that. In fact, one repairman confessed that he’s called out to homes “all the time” because of these over-agitated beasts.

I spent several hundred dollars more on this machine than I would a conventional washer that loads clothes from the top. I was willing to do this because front loaders are more energy efficient. They use about one-third as much water as top-loading machines. That translates into less energy needed to warm the water. Front-loaders also spin faster, removing more moisture from clothes so that they require less time in the dryer.

The machine includes sophisticated electronics and can perform all sorts of tricks — from automatically measuring the size of laundry load to singing me a sweet song when the cycle is over. But I eye its friendly R2D2-like exterior warily. How soon before all of the rattling and rolling breaks the delicate electronics, and I have a hefty repair bill?

Several months after I bought the machine, Sears advised that the machine might stop shaking if I shored up the laundry room floor from below and replaced the linoleum with tile. Sears sales folks did not tell me before I bought the machine that its successful use required home remodeling.

Supposedly, a next generation front loader will be released shortly that does not try to escape its owners. I’m not sure what good that does me – and so many others – who already put down our hard-earned cash on today’s poor design.

I write this not to whine about my purchasing misstep, but to point out the dangers that faulty products cause the green energy movement. We’ve been down this road before. In the 1980s, when high oil prices piqued consumer interest in renewable energy, the industry rushed solar panels to market without properly training installers. Many roofs leaked. Renewable energy became associated with poor quality. Today, the solar industry wisely puts a great deal of effort into proper training of installers and product warranties. Solar panels, in fact, are now associated with quality custom construction. But it took years to restore consumer confidence.

Energy efficient appliances risk the same backlash if they take advantage of our desire to do the right thing. Consumers are willing to pay more for greater efficiency; their willingness will falter if energy efficiency becomes associated with inferior workmanship.

The stakes are high. In the not-too-distant future the auto industry is likely to offer the plug-in hybrid vehicle. A source I interviewed recently pointed out the enormous damage to public confidence that will occur if the plug-in hybrid is introduced before its battery is perfected. Not long ago several million laptop computers were recalled because their batteries overheated and sometimes caught fire. Imagine the consumer dismay if several million plug-ins cars – far more expensive than laptops — were recalled ? I am as eager as anyone to fuel my car by plugging it into an electric socket. But I do hope the auto industry takes its time overcoming the difficulties of perfecting the battery and gets it right before marketing the cars.

The public supports green products now more than any other time in our history. We may think that this support is rock solid. I’m not so sure. My front-load washer could rattle anything.

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

Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and combined heat & power

By Elisa Wood

Dec. 4, 2008

The universe contains many mysteries. A big one for me is: Why doesn’t the United States use more combined heat and power (CHP)?

It requires an energy geek, of course, to even ask that question. Most of the world knows nothing about CHP, even when referenced by its other name: cogeneration. So it was heartening to see the Department of Energy’s recent effort to educate the public in a Dec. 1 report: “Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future.” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/distributedenergy/

What’s the problem with CHP? People are unaware of it – even though it’s been around for 100 years. It could benefit from a marketing makeover, especially a name change. Combined heat and power does not roll off the tongue easily like solar and wind, nor does it evoke an image of efficiency and greenness.

Here is a quick definition: CHP systems are a form of distributed energy (like solar) built close to where they are used. They generate electricity and use the excess heat that is produced to cool or warm the building. So a CHP system uses one fuel to create two resources – power and usable heat. As a result, CHP plants are about 35% more efficient than typical generators.

“CHP may not be widely recognized outside industrial, commercial, institutional, and utility circles, but it has quietly been providing highly efficient electricity and process heat to some of the most vital industries, largest employers, urban centers, and campuses in the United States,” says the report.

It appears the United States may finally embrace the resource. The DOE report proposes that 20% of US generation capacity come from CHP, up from today’s 8.6%. Because CHP is so efficient, its greater use would mean far less greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report finds that under the 20% scenario, the US could avoid over 60% of its projected increase in carbon dixoide emissions between now and 2030.

Several states are putting policies in place to help advance CHP, particularly energy efficiency portfolio standards. These standards require that energy efficiency make up a certain percentage of the state’s mix of electric resources. Fourteen states allow use of CHP to meet the standard.

CHP also should get a boost from a new 10% federal tax incentive signed into law as part of the financial recovery package in early October. The credit applies to small and medium-sized CHP projects.

That still leaves the problem of the brand name. Suggestions welcome! Preferably something that could make combined heat and power the “Brangelina” of the energy world.

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

Clean energy, jobs and the real estate market

By Elisa Wood

November 20, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama wants to create five million new green jobs over the next decade. This is a big goal, but in line with what clean energy industry advocates see as possible.

An upcoming international report provides some solid perspective on why green initiatives make for good job building opportunities.

Scheduled for release next summer, “Greening Buildings and Communities: Costs and Benefits,” finds that green buildings create roughly $1/square foot of value in increased employment. A typical green office creates roughly one-third of a permanent job per year. This is done by shifting spending from fossil fuel-based energy to more labor intensive domestic jobs in energy efficiency, renewable construction and new green industries.

A preview of the study, released this week by Good Energies www.goodenergies.com, also finds that green buildings are not as pricey as often believed. They add, on average, about two percent to the cost of a building. Moreover, green buildings reduce energy use by an average 33%. The extra cost of building green usually pays back within five years.

Based on an analysis of 150 green buildings in the United States and 10 other countries, the study is billed as the largest international review of its kind to date.

What good is it to bet on jobs from new construction in this economy? It turns out that green buildings are not falling victim to today’s real estate downturn. Buildings in green neighborhoods are holding value better than conventional homes. On average, sales prices tend to be $20/square foot higher.

“The deep downturn in real estate has not reduced the rapid growth in demand for and construction of green buildings,” said Greg Kats, the study’s lead author and a Managing Director of Good Energies. “This suggests a flight to quality as buyers express a market preference for buildings that are more energy efficient, more comfortable and healthier.”

The report’s findings underscore a growing sentiment that the green energy and efficiency industries are key to economic recovery. What we’ve lost – jobs and real estate values – these industries offer to give back.

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

Lower energy prices: Now you see them, now you don’t

By Elisa Wood

November 13, 2008

When combined with efficiency, solar homes can achieve ‘net zero’ – they consume no more energy than they produce. It is likely we will see a growing number of net zero homes built as more states reach what is called ‘grid parity’ – the cost of solar energy becomes no higher than the power we buy from our utility. Industry insiders say that about a dozen states already have reached this goal.

This is all good news. But at some point – maybe soon – the laws of supply and demand kick in, creating an odd dilemma for the clean energy industry. Net zero homes and other efficiency measures reduce the amount of power we need from utilities. And as demand drops, so do utility prices. Suddenly, solar energy is once again more expensive than utility power. Clean energy, in effect, becomes undercut by its own good work.

Bob Reedy, solar energy research director for the Florida Solar Energy Center http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/, sees “an uncomfortable zone” occurring in the next five to ten years when energy regulators will need to rethink utility rates. Utilities will still need to cover their fixed costs and may find it difficult to do so as efficiency reduces their energy sales. So regulators may raise utility rates, making solar power cheaper once again.

This oscillating price position for power in some ways mirrors what is happening in the transportation fuel market now. Gasoline prices are falling. How will consumers and policymakers respond? Will we expect them to stay low and get lazy about diversifying toward cleaner fuels?

Given the political climate – Obama is pushing for more renewable energy – it may seem unlikely. But history suggests that the clean energy industry should be wary. The post-Carter years offer a cautionary tale. Solar and efficiency advocates may want to start now educating consumers and policymakers that low energy prices can vanish quickly.

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

A new EE resource: Distributed people

By Elisa Wood

Novermber 6, 2008

Energy efficiency is often described as the invisible resource. It improves our energy supply without any of the usual industry trappings: smokestacks, wind turbines, transmission lines and poles. This is one of its virtues.

But efficiency’s invisibility also causes problems. Because it operates out of sight – inside walls, underneath lampshades, and in factory motors — efficiency tends to attract fewer cheerleaders than more obvious forms of clean power.

Peter Love, Ontario’s Chief Energy Conservation Officer, has proposed a solution: Distributed people.

“Many of you have heard of the concept of distributed generation,” he told reporters this week during a news conference. “This is distributed leadership. This is having many, many people across the province become champions for conservation.”

Love kicked off his distributed people campaign last year by calling on each city to designate municipal energy conservation champions or MECOs. Fifteen cities in Ontario responded. Now Love is pushing businesses, health care institutions and schools to do the same.

No job description exists for Love’s MECOs (or BECOs, HECOs and SECOs). There is no pay scale or training. “The main thing I want these people to do is be noisy,” he said. “Conservation is invisible. We need to have markers for it — we need to let people know progress is being made.”

What message should these advocates promote? Love tells them to talk about efficiency’s “Three E’s,” which are its economic, employment and environmental benefits.

Love’s distributed leadership program may not be a game change on par with New York’s effort to reduce electricity use 15% by 2015; Connecticut’s program to develop a white tag market; or California’s zero net energy goal for new construction.

But, in a time when governments are running large deficits and banks are reticent to loan money, it may make sense to pursue a low-cost strategy of ‘small, loud and many.’

Following his own advice, Love issued a “noisy” report on Ontario’s progress. Peak demand was down 5 percent by the end of 2007, and now the province is on target to achieve a 6,300 MW reduction by 2025, he said. The report, including a description of Love’s distributed leadership program, is available at http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=1115&BL_WebsiteID=1

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

Electricity use falls because of efficiency

By Elisa Wood

October 30, 2008

Electricity sales can gauge the national economic health. An ailing economy uses less electricity because is produces fewer goods and services. Sometimes, however, electricity sales fall for a good reason – efficiency.

Such is the case in the United States, according to a recent statistics released by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The organization annually assesses how well the grid is likely to perform over the next several years.

The 300-page report has a lot to say, but this headline jumped out at us: Demand Response Projected to Offset Nearly 80% of U.S. Peak Demand Growth in 2016; Significant Growth in Energy Efficiency Projected.

NERC forecasts that North America will offset 34,000 MW through demand response – a kind of efficiency program where customers are paid to reduce energy use when the grid is under strain. In addition, conventional energy efficiency programs are expected to cut electricity use by 11,000 MW. As a result, total electric demand will drop 3.3%, NERC said.

Demand response will become “a critical resource” to help us keep the lights on over the next ten years, according to the report. Our economy is becoming increasingly electrified, but we are unwilling to build more energy infrastructure. “Many coal plants have been deferred or cancelled, nuclear plants are becoming more and more expensive, and transmission lines increasingly difficult to site,” NERC said. Demand response will help bridge the gap between our electricity needs and our power resources.

Further, demand response is a good “dance partner” for wind energy, a resource that NERC forecasts will grow 750% by 2017. Wind farms offer a clean source of energy. But they only create electricity when the wind blows. Demand response can serve as wind’s partner during these times, reducing energy use to make up for the loss and averting a greater ramp-up of fossil fuel generators.

Our demand for electricity will still grow over the next several years, as our use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices increases — but not as much as we had thought. Last year, NERC forecasted a 17.7% growth in summer peak demand; this year it puts the figure at 16.6%. The organization attributes much of the change to efficiency. We’ve figured out how to do more with less, a good economic move.

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