Light-bulb Liars II: Mercury and CFLs

By Elisa Wood

July 16, 2009

The Washington Times ran a commentary July 11 that took a swipe at compact fluorescent lights. Titled “Light-bulb liars,” the article warns that broken CFLs are an “environment disaster in your family room” that “could poison the dog, the kid and the wall-to-wall rug.”

To underscore the gravity of CFL dangers, the article then takes us through the Environmental Protection Agency’s step-by-step mercury clean-up advice. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/11/light-bulb-liars/?feat=article_top10_read&page=2

Here are a few things the article fails to say about CFLs, that enerystar.gov points out.

*True, they contain mercury, but a very small amount. They average 4 milligrams, compared with 500 milligrams in the old mercury-based thermometers, an amount equal to 125 CFLs.

*Advancements in CFL technology are reducing their mercury content. Some have mercury content as low as 1.4 to 2.5 milligrams.

*Coal-fired electric plants create a heck of a lot more mercury. CFLs are more efficient than conventional light-bulbs. So when we use CFLs we use less electricity, meaning grid operators and utilities can fire up coal-fired generators less frequently.  If all of the CFLS sold in 2007 ended up in a landfill, they would deposit 0.16 metric tons of mercury. In contrast, coal plants emit 104 metric tons of mercury annually.

The article also points out that CFLs are more expensive than conventional incandescent lights, but fails to say that they continue to operate far longer.

After I finished reading the Washington Times commentary, my eyes went back up to the title: “Light-bulb Liars.” Now the Times wasn’t referring to itself, was it? Okay, to say the paper lied might be a little harsh, but the article certainly engaged in hyperbole and sins of omission.

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

Using electricity to save the planet

By Elisa Wood

July 9, 2009

When it comes to energy efficiency, it used to be the big guys that mattered. Policymakers and market leaders focused on manufacturers, refiners and others that gobbled up lots of kilowatt hours.

It’s not surprising. Manufacturers create bang for the buck. Better motors, refrigeration or combined heat and power can lead to six-digit dollar savings — far more impressive than the $10 per month an aggressive household effort might generate.

An energy attorney once told me an interesting story in this regard. He asked his family to turn down the thermostat to save money; they said they would rather just skip ordering pizza once a month.

Household efficiency often doesn’t seem worth the effort. But a shift is occurring; efficiency efforts are increasingly focused on the residential sector.

In fact, a study released this week by the Electric Power Research Institute shows that homes, in aggregate, offer greater technical potential for energy savings and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions than stores or factories. And it does not require use of refrigerators that talk to the grid, glowing energy orbs, or other cutting edge technologies to significantly reduce emissions. Instead the report finds carbon reductions in switching out common home devices that use fossil fuels with those that use electricity.

EPRI looked at household activities that use energy: clothes drying, heating, cooling, cooking, warming pools. It then found electric technologies that allow us to perform these activities with less fossil fuel use; a heat pump for example might replace a natural gas furnace.

What electric devices did the best job replacing fossil fuel? EPRI’s short list for households includes heat pump clothes dryers, heat pump pool heaters, air source heat pumps for heating and cooling, ground source heat pumps for heating and cooling, heat pump water heaters and in the Northeast, electric instantaneous water heaters.

The report also cites what regions offer the most potential for energy savings. Not surprising (See my July 2 blog, “Energy bill could open Southeast’s EE market” www.realenergywriters.com), the South offers the most potential, followed by the Midwest, Northeast, and the West, when residential, commercial and industrial energy use is considered. For reductions in CO2 emissions, the potential is greatest in the Northeast, followed by the South, the Midwest, and then the West.

Of course, savings achieved by switching from fossil fuels to electricity will be even greater as the nation introduces more renewable energy into its power generation fleet. EPRI says a good next step might be study how great those savings could be.

For years the electric power industry has taken heat for being a polluter. Odd to think it could also be what saves the planet.

For more details see: “The Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions by Expanding End-Use Applications of Electricity,” www.epri.com.

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.

What price motivates customers to save energy?

By Elisa Wood

May 29, 2008

“Are we there yet?” We’ve heard that refrain often over the last couple of years. No, not from our kids in the backseat of the car, but from energy observers wondering exactly how much price pain the consumer will take before cutting back significantly on use.

Two reports circulating this week indicate that we have arrived – or at least we are close.

Americans drove their cars 4.3% fewer miles in March 2008 than they did a year earlier, according to the Federal Highway Administration. This is the first time since 1979 that we took to the road less in March. While a 4.3% drop may not sound like much, it amounts to 11 billion miles, and represents the largest decline since the FHWA began reporting monthly statistics in 1942. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa0811.htm

It appears the specter of $4/gallon keeps the key out of the ignition. AAA reports that average unleaded gasoline prices hit $3.952/gallon on May 29, up from $3.197 a year ago. Prices already have topped $4 in several states, among them California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia. http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.asp

Meanwhile, on the electricity front, a recent study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found that charging power generators even a modest price for carbon dioxide emissions would motivate changes in consumer behavior and power plant operations. The study comes as several states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast prepare for a carbon cap-and-trade program set to begin next year. Congress is eying similar national rules.

The report, published by Environmental Science & Technology, says that consumers would likely reduce consumption of electricity at a price as low as $35 per metric ton for CO2. This is lower than prices posted by Point Carbon for European trading May 28, which was €26.20 per metric ton or about $40. http://int.pointcarbon.com/Home/Market%20prices/Methodology/category745.html.

In addition, at $35 per ton for carbon, we may see changes in the way that grid operators dispatch power plants. They may start giving preference to lower emissions generators. While power prices would rise, “consumers would pay more attention to their energy consumption or switch to more energy efficient appliances,” said M. Granger Morgan, Lord Chair Professor in Engineering in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon. http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/news-multimedia/tepper-multimedia/tepper-stories/co2-pricing-study-reveals-consumption-efficiencies/index.aspx

No one wants to see high energy prices – the economic ramifications are enormous. But the good news is consumers appear to finally be saying “Ouch,” opening more doors for plug-in hybrids, energy efficient appliances, green construction and other energy savings approaches.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and subscribe to her free Energy Efficiency Markets Newsletter and podcast.