Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption

Deadly Clean Energy..

2010-02-07T20:50:00.000-08:00

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.

No Surprise, CEC Approves New TV Regulations...

2009-11-19T19:51:00.000-08:00

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.

CEC Postpones Decision Date for TV Regulations.

2009-11-09T18:42:00.000-08:00

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.

No "Green" for Green Light Bulb...

2009-10-19T18:20:00.000-07:00

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.

CEC conflicted on CEA's position for TV Energy Limits.

2009-10-13T16:05:00.000-07:00

This morning, October 13, 2009, the California Energy Commission, CEC, held a hearing on proposed California regulations limiting energy consumption of TV sets, for both active and standby modes, that can be sold in California starting in 2011. The workshop started with an overview and formal presentation from the staff, then was opened up to participants present in the meeting room and others joining by telephone.

Of course, there were those from utility companies, such as PG&E and SoCal Edison, plus several representing environmental concern groups, all of whom were supportive of the regulations. What I found interesting was that throughout the session, the Consumer Electronics Association, CEA, was criticized many times for their position, and it was claimed they presented contradictory viewpoints on this topic. So, when the time came for the CEA to talk, I paid extra attention.

What I realized quickly was that the CEC is apparently ignorant to the nuances between mandatory and voluntary regulations. This made a strong suggestion to me that their mind is closed, there is no alternate approach, and one basis for the contradictory statements claim. In fact, it is a misunderstanding on the part of the CEC, not conflicting statements from the CEA. Communication is best when clear statements are made, which was the case from the CEA, but unfiltered and unbiased understanding needs to happen as well on the part of the listener.

Several times the CEC asked if the CEA was suggesting that California should adopt Energy Star limits, which currently represents about 25% of TVs available on the market. This was a bizarre statement, and completely overlooked the point that Energy Star is a voluntary program, and allows a manufacturer to place the Energy Star logo on an approved product to help consumers make a responsible choice regarding their purchase. In fact, the new Energy Star 4.0 standard is more stringent than the California proposals, but once again, the CEC wants to mandate limits for all television sets sold after Jan 1, 2011.

Another confusion is limitations on innovation, especially after several participants had presented breakthroughs on new materials and techniques for reducing energy consumption of LED, LCD, and Plasma TV sets. The CEA's position is that unless there is a good balance between regulation and market forces, innovation will suffer. For instance, consider what would have happened if energy consumption regulations were in effect in 2001 when CRT TVs were prevalent. The answer is that we would probably not have Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED displays as they would not have met the limits, and therefore the manufacturer would not have found an economic reason to introduce these type of products. Looking forward, the case can be logically made that regulations, such as those proposed by the CEC, will deter innovation of new display technologies that have not yet been discovered.

In addition, the CEA made claims that data considered by the CEC is outdated, and that there is a major mathematical error in the PG&E analysis. Also, the extra cost involved in complying and registering for the new regulations, other overestimates on savings, and underestimates on cost increases, possibly completely erode the claimed $8.1B economic savings for California.

Well, what is next? My belief is that after Nov 2, 2009, when public comment period closes, the CEC will make a decision to adopt the new regulations at their next business meeting on Nov 4, 2009. The real concern is that other States will introduce similar regulations, and that is when the real damage to choice and innovation begins.

For those who would like to review the CEC documents, they can be found at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/index.html#101309. If you are interested, and would like to support a coalition to halt these unnecessary regulations, please sign up on-line at: www.CAsmartEnergy.com.

It's now official... California TV energy limits to be mandated.

2009-09-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

On September 18, 2009, the California Energy Commission, CEC, released their new standard for energy efficiency in TV sets with screen dimensions less than 1400 square inches, and adopted IEC measurement standards used by Energy Star. Energy Star is voluntary program, and allows a manufacturer to place the Energy Star logo on an approved product to help consumers make a responsible choice regarding their purchase. However, the CEC takes this to the extreme and makes it mandatory for all of California.

The result... it is estimated that the CEC regulations, when they go into effect by 2013, will effectively prevent the sale of many popular LCD and plasma big-screen televisions in California, and cost the State economy $50 million a year in lost sales, plus destroy an estimated 4,500 jobs. This comes at a time when sales of TVs in the U.S. are expected to jump by 11%, which is good, but revenues will be down 10% year-over-year with consumers choosing TVs with smaller screen sizes.

Why does this make sense?

When does going 'Green' justify such an intrusion into consumer choice or technical innovation?

For those who would like to review the CEC documents, they can be found at: www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents. If you would like to join a coalition to halt these unnecessary regulations, please sign up on-line at: www.CAsmartEnergy.com

Want that large-screen TV? Think again...

2009-08-27T15:05:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of June, I wrote about the California Energy Commission's proposals for regulating the power consumption of televisions sold in this state. Since then, a new organization has formed that is comprised of consumers, small businesses, trade groups and associations, to address this situation.

Californians for Smart Energy is "dedicated to having a real discussion about meeting California's energy needs -- without job-killing regulations that are harmful to California's economy". If these regulations go into effect, it will effectively prevent the sale of 25 percent of LCD and plasma big-screen TVs, and 100 percent of plasma sets larger than 60 inches. Imagine how well those that can be sold will perform in your home.

Is this a smart or responsible move? As stated in my blog, it will seriously impact consumer choice, stifle competition and innovation, as well as destroy jobs and reduce tax revenues.

I ask all my readers to please learn more about these unnecessary regulations at casmartenergy.com, then get involved and show your support by signing up.

Thank You.

Is Energy really Renewable?

2009-07-27T15:50:00.000-07:00

Having a strong background in physics, this collection of words did not really resonate for me, so I pondered and researched this question extensively for the past several weeks.

Of course, we constantly see and hear this term bandied about without any thought for its accuracy or factual definition. The word "energy" is defined as a capacity, or ability, to do work, and is present in the forms of kinetic and potential energy. Plus, the word "renewable" is defined as something that can be renewed, or is capable of being renewed. So how does one rationalize any source of energy with the word renewable?

Well, the definition of renewable has adapted over time, partly from the lobbying of environmentalists and other interested parties, to include any energy source that is sustainable within a limited period of time. For this reason, many people accept that solar, wind, wave, geothermal, hydropower are all renewable, but nuclear, oil and coal are not. Perhaps the more exact term of "sustainable energy" should be enforced and "renewable energy" should be dropped.

Hydropower clearly meets the definition of renewable. With a process of water collecting in a reservoir due to precipitation, the controlled outflow driving turbines to generate electricity, and the eventual flow back to the oceans for evaporation to create rain clouds, clearly satisfies the definition of renewable. For solar or wind, it is harder to consider as renewable because once the photon packets or solar waves are intercepted and converted to electricity, they cannot be renewed. However, as the energy source is seemingly limitless, there is a justification to refer to these types as renewable.

Even accepting this creep in definition, there is an obvious case that nuclear should be among the list of sustainable energy sources. Depending on one's belief in the origins of certain fossil fuels, perhaps oil should be on the list as well -- yes, there are compelling thoeries why oil does not come from decaying dinasours.

The best approach to limitations of energy availability is to consume less. In the field of consumer electronics, designers and manufacturers strive to do more, or the same, while requiring less energy to power the product. My belief is that this approach is the fastest and more responsible way to conserve and prolong our energy supplies, whether they are "renewable", "sustainable", or otherwise.

My quest for a full answer is not complete, so I invite readers to post a reply or e-mail me at robert.newell@a4rec.com.

Innovation is under attack...

2009-06-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

In my last blog I spoke about proposed TV energy consumption standards in California and the effect on innovation.

In fact, I want to stress how innovation is under attack these days from our national and state governments, and introduce you to a new movement that is growing fast.

This is succinctly described in a recent letter to the Consumer Electronics Association where president and CEO Gary Shapiro reminds us that "our culture encourages innovation", and where "our entrepreneurial system not only rewards those that take risk, but allows those that fail to learn, start over and try again."

Gary goes on to state, "innovation has led to our national success, yet it is barely discussed in Washington, unless in relation to picking winners and losers." How true this is.

Expanding on this theme, innovation also requires abundant supplies of energy. Without energy, nothing can be manufactured, transported, or made available in stores, virtual or otherwise.

Some point out how the US only represents 5% of the world population, but we use 23% of the global energy. I say, "So What." We are the powerhouse of the world, dreaming up new products and services to make our lives better, and give us time to enjoy what is around us in a responsible way.

I ask you to support this community of industry professionals, entrepreneurs and all Americans who believe innovation will promote American global leadership and economic recovery and growth. Support policies that encourage and advance the innovative spirit of American business. Please join the innovation movement.

Thank You.

Energy Efficient TVs... Are they for you?

2009-06-05T18:18:00.000-07:00

Wow! Are you aware of California’s plan to limit the sale of certain TV sets?

Yes, you did read this correctly.

At the end of 2008, proposals were made to set new standards for energy efficiency. With this myopic focus, under the guise of controlling climate change, the real reason why we purchase TVs will no longer exist.

So, now what happens to decision factors such as:

Picture quality
Audio quality
Number of external inputs
Size

Well, none of these seem to matter anymore. When does meeting “green” limits become the criteria for TV sales, and is the only parameter to compare for a TV purchase decision in California? Whatever happened to consumer choice, healthy competition, and innovation?

Of course, nobody thought about how many jobs will be lost, or the many ways around this by purchasing outside of California, with the associated loss of tax revenue, or the increased price of these crippled TVs. What’s next?

If one is fully supportive of these energy efficiency directions, perhaps the best solution is to simply unplug all the TVs in your home... for good! However, if the TV is something you enjoy, think about turning off other equipment in the home to balance out your overall electricity usage. Better still, step back and look at everything in a realistic perspective and make a responsible decision on your choices for energy consumption.