Green in India...

I returned from a 2-week business trip to India a few years ago, where I spent time in Chennai (formerly known as Madras) and Noida, New Delhi. While there, it was evident from advertising and company signs claiming "green-ness", that the "green" movement was in full swing.

Or is it?

What I really noticed, is that life continues on as it has for hundreds of years. Perhaps there are buses run by compressed natural gas, CNG, 3-wheel taxis powered by liquid propane gas, LPG, and bicycles driven by human power, but there are plenty of other means of transportation where gasoline is used, such as in cars and motorcycles. And yes, there are many, many motorcycles on the roads, all jostling for space in order to get to where they are going.

Then there are the roaming cows and people on foot meandering among the seeming chaos.

What does this have to do with responsible use of energy? Everything...

In reflecting on my visit to India, I realize this parallels how life continues on in America, and probably most other countries. It is really the responsibility of each individual to determine how energy is consumed, utilized, or even "wasted". We have our various traditions, our preferred way of managing daily life, and no advertising or company sign is going to change it.

Deadly Clean Energy..

On February 7, 2010, an explosion occurred at the 640 MW Combined Cycle Electric Generating Facility, Kleen Energy Plant, in Middletown, Connecticut. Lives have been lost, and it is a tragedy that so many others, including local residents, are affected in a major way.

The event happened, apparently, while gas lines were being purged, probably in preparation for a start-up test of the huge turbines. These turbines create the intense heat source for steam generators, which provide the electrical power. To avoid expensive downtime in the event there is a loss of the natural gas supply, these turbines are able to fall back on the use of oil,making their design more complex.

The Kleen Energy Plant is a project of O & G, who have been around since 1923, and is detailed on their website here, for readers who may be interested in additional technical details.

In many ways, this tragedy is a reminder that clean efficient energy does not come without risks. No doubt the plant, that was still under construction, is more complex that a conventional facility, in order to limit carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, there is so much focus on limiting CO2 output these days, that cost and complexity increase, and probably efficiency is reduced from what could have been achieved.

There is an interesting article, originally published in ProjectFInance, on the investment and cost structure for the power plant, and how the State of Connecticut is obligated to reimburse for any difference between the market price and strike price of electricity. Another fact is that 80% of the Kleen Energy plant is owned by Energy Investors Funds of Massachusetts, who are strong proponents of global climate change, and no doubt stand to benefit more from the trading of carbon offsets, as compared to profit from the generation of electricity.

This is another fishy aspect of the call for clean energy that shouts "conflict of interest", and does not sit well with many people, including this blogger.

Well, I guess it will be quite a while longer before anyone can benefit either financially or energy-wise from the Kleen Energy Plant in Middletown, CT. When or will it ever be completed, is another story yet to play out.

© 2010 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption

No Surprise, CEC Approves New TV Regulations...

On Nov 18, 2009, the California Energy Commission approved the nation's first energy efficiency standards for televisions, by a vote of 5 to 0. The claim is that it will save consumers $8.1 Billion over 10 years on energy costs, and with no price impact to the consumer.

Can you believe?

As stated in a previous blog, the Consumer Electronics Association has well founded issues with old data, fuzzy math, inconsistencies, and over statements behind the CEC's claims. For instance, the CEA believes the $8.1 Billion savings is more like $2.4 Billion, and that there is a real cost to the manufacturer, which will result in a price increase for TVs thus eliminating any energy cost savings for the consumer. All these details and more can be found in an on-line CEA media presentation.

So, what is next?

Apparently, the CEA "will continue to pursue legislative and legal solutions to ensure that California citizens will not suffer the consequences of this misguided policy". Let's hope that something can be done to reverse this madness, but don't hold your breath. A worthwhile read is the complete CEA press release published later in the day on Wednesday.

© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption

CEC Postpones Decision Date for TV Regulations.

On Nov 4, 2009, the California Energy Commission planned to hold a business meeting at the conclusion of the 45-day comment period, to decide on mandating new and potentially damaging TV energy standards.

However, early last week, and due to an overwhelming response, the meeting was postponed until Nov 18, 2009.

The main reason is the Consumer Electronics Association submitted a 91-page report at the last minute, documenting many mathematical errors in the CEC's calculations, plus detailing compelling reasons for avoiding mandatory standards with a subsequent impact on the TV industry and retail segments.

So far, this is good news for the consumer, but the next hurdle is a possible (flawed) decision at the business meeting on Nov 18. If the CEA's analysis is accurate, as I expect, perhaps the CEC will seriously review their position, but don't hold your breath.

Check the CEC Docket # 09-AAER-1C site for a complete list of all public comments, including one from myself.

© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption

No "Green" for Green Light Bulb...

A few weeks ago, I came across a press release from Philips announcing the first entry for the Department of Energy's Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) -- full details on the rules can be found at http://www.lightingprize.org. The entry criteria for this competition is a replacement for the standard 60W incandescent light bulb that consumes less than 10W, provides a lifetime of 25,000 Hrs, and can work with dimmers down to 20% of full illumination.

This is a significant milestone, and will help to reduce energy consumption for general lighting in our homes and offices. Of course, one motivating factor is an award of $10 million, but more importantly there is the anticipation of huge government contracts not too far behind.

Why am I writing about this achievement?

Well, it is something that can really help most of us take a responsible approach to reducing our consumption of energy (electricity costs), while replacing the standard incandescent with something that has similar brightness, color rendering, and color temperature. In addition, this will be great for those who are sensitive to the subtle flicker of compact fluorescent light bulbs, CFLs, and others who simply enjoy the perceived warmth of the dependable incandescent.

However, what really caught my attention today is the realization that prize money is not yet allocated! Apparently, congress has not got around to setting aside the funding, so perhaps Philips, and the other companies expecting some reward, could be out a fair chunk of change. One estimate is that just the cost of the light bulbs submitted for evaluation by the DOE was as much as $0.5 million. This does not include all the years of research and development.

On another point, because the L prize rules require each entrant to commit to manufacturing the product, what is the expected retail price for the consumer? No doubt the LED light bulb will cost more to produce, compared to an incandescent, but I believe it should be priced less than a CFL once economies of scale are reached. The cost of the internal electronics are probably very similar, plus there is no need for a gas-filled glass tube to be used.

The only downside that I see is for residents of our colder regions. Many have come to accept, and embrace, the heating and comfort benefits of incandescent light bulbs. With the reduction in energy consumption for lighting, there will clearly be an incremental increase in energy consumption required for heating.

I guess it is all "swings and roundabouts" as usual.

© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption