By Elisa Wood

November 5, 2009

Scientific research has brought us products that offer greater energy efficiency. But is research, itself, energy efficient?

Evan Mills, staff scientist with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, raises this question and points out what may be a largely untapped market for energy efficiency companies: research labs. (See Environmental Science & Technology, http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/pubs/pdf/sustainable-scientists.pdf.)

US researchers “unwittingly” spend about $10 billion annually on energy, he says in the article, and could cut the bill by half through sustainable practices.

It’s important to take a look at research efficiency because labs are often energy intensive. Researchers may work in hyper clean environments with sophisticated air ventilation, or they may need data centers with vast air-conditioning. Thus, a lab’s utility bills can be “staggering,” he says. Consider CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, whose 230-MW capacity needs costs $80 million per year; or the US Department of Energy’s data centers, which pay $100 million per year for energy.

Money saved through efficiency could be channeled into more research. Yet only 1 to 3% of research labs operate in “green” facilities. LBNL has created a model energy efficient lab setting at its Molecular Foundry, a nanotechnology lab in Berkeley, California. With LEED gold certification, the facility has achieved energy savings 28% beyond California’s already aggressive building standard. http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/en/news/releases/LBNL_Release_FINAL.pdf

Typically, laboratory’s can find energy savings by using  premium-efficiency fume hoods and laboratory equipment, avoiding over-ventilation, limiting pressure drop in the ventilation system, engaging in energy recovery, minimizing simultaneous heating and cooling, and properly sizing space conditioning equipment to match energy needs, according to Mills.

He recommends that we reduce energy costs by including efficiency requirements in research solicitations. Labs could then calculate the cost of efficient equipment or building improvements into a proposal’s capital expenditures.

“Doing the right thing isn’t the only reason to strive for improved sustainability,” Mills says in the article. “The scientific enterprise depends on availability of ample energy and can be fettered by its cost. In the 1980s, LBNL’s particle accelerators were responsible for the vast majority of site-wide energy use. Indeed, the Bevatron’s [a particle accelerator] energy budget only allowed for ten months of experiments each year. At the time, raising the energy efficiency of the process (e.g., through improved magnets and power supplies) trimmed consumption and costs sufficiently to enable a full year of experiments to be conducted.”

Today, it appears energy research has succumbed to the syndrome of the cobbler’s children who have no shoes. Science discovers efficiencies, but doesn’t necessarily put them to use for its own purposes. Given our growing mastery of common efficiency practices in homes and businesses, research labs represent a new frontier for the energy efficiency industry.

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

October 29, 2009

By Elisa Wood

Some green energy sources seem to have charisma; others struggle for public attention with little success.

Solar energy is an “it” technology, as evidenced once again by the tremendous participation in the annual Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, California this week (Oct. 27-29). Twice as many companies (945) are displaying their wares in the Expo Hall this year, despite the still lagging economy. And overall attendance is expected to break last year’s record, itself a record breaker.

Even on Main Street, ask pretty much anyone and they know solar, probably like it, and see it as an economy builder.

Ask the same people about geothermal heat pumps and there is a good chance they won’t know what you’re talking about. Or they may give an answer that confuses the appliances with geothermal geyser power plants.  For whatever reason, the concept of extracting heat from the ground has yet to capture the public or political imagination as much as extracting it from the sun.

Yet, geothermal heat pumps could have a significant impact on our energy supply. They can be installed pretty much anywhere there is a building. And if we used them to maximum potential in the United States, we could avoid building 91-105 gigawatts of generation, nearly half of the new power we will need in 2030, according to the US Department of Energy.

Homeowners who consider then discard the idea often cite the high upfront installation costs. Yet the same argument could easily be made about solar photovoltaic panels. So why is geothermal an also ran technology?

One problem, according to the DOE, is that the heat pump industry needs to collect and disseminate more solid data on heat pumps. Work underway by the Chewonki Foundation, an educational institute in Maine, moves in this direction. With a grant from the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Chewonki is monitoring and measuring the performance of a newly installed heat pump system at its 11,000 square-foot meeting hall. The state is looking for an alternative to heating buildings with oil, a relatively common fuel in Maine. Geothermal heat pumps may prove to be that alternative. http://www.onsetcomp.com/resources/white_papers

This is not to imply that the geothermal heat pump industry is not growing. To the contrary, US shipments of geothermal heat pumps grew 40 percent last year, according to a report released this month by the Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/ghpsurvey/geothermalrpt.pdf. The industry is very much a domestic jobs builder. Most of the systems shipped in the US last year where manufactured here — 416,019 tons – with the remaining 86 tons from China. Sixteen percent of US product was exported.

Still, the geothermal heat pump industry is a small one, representing $319 million last year. Compare this to a domestic solar PV cell and module market of $1.72 billion in 2007 (2008 figures are not yet available from EIA).

Of course, it was just a few years ago that solar conferences were drawing hundreds, not tens of thousands of people, as Solar Power International does now. So who knows?  Perhaps it’s not far-fetched to imagine the term” geothermal” rolling off the tongue of the average consumer, as easily as “solar” does today.

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

By Elisa Wood

October 22, 2009

If Harry Truman were running for president today, he’d probably ‘Give ‘em Green,’ rather than ‘Give ‘em Hell.’ Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan would be, ‘It’s the environment, stupid.’ And Herbert Hoover might be promising a solar panel on every roof, rather than a chicken in every pot – and the pot would sit on a smart-metered stove, powered by a plug-in hybrid, eligible for renewable energy certificates.

Today, green credentials count. Hardly a day goes by without a mayor, governor or legislator claiming some sort of first, best or highest green energy goal.

That’s why the state energy efficiency scorecard, released this week by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, is significant. It carries political currency.

Bragging rights go to California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon and New York,* the top five states (in that order) doing good by energy efficiency.  Some red faces, however, might be found in Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Wyoming, the group that ACEEE says “most needs to improve.”

States are expected to continue their pursuit of energy efficiency into the next decade. The ACEEE reports that utility ratepayer-funds for efficiency will likely grow from $3.1 billion in 2008 to $5.4-$12 billion in 2020.

What’s most interesting is that so much money and effort is being put into energy efficiency now – during the Great Recession – when states face deficits. This defies conventional behavior: Historically, Americans worry about the environment only when the economy is sound.  It appears that green energy advocates have successfully imprinted in the American psyche a link between renewable energy and efficiency and economic prosperity.

“This growing and deepening commitment to energy efficiency is so strong that the current recession has not put a dent in the vast majority of state programs,” says Steven Nadel, ACEEE executive director. “And that is for good reason:  Energy efficiency is the only resource that can actually reduce energy consumption while growing the economy — making efficiency the ‘first fuel’ states can use to balance their energy portfolios.”

So we find ourselves in a kinder, greener nation, one with no electric meter left behind, where we walk softly and carry a big wind tower…

*At about the same time the ACEEE released the report, New York announced plans to shift Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative money, slated for clean energy programs, toward reducing its deficit. This may have reduced New York’s ranking in the eyes of the environmental community.

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

By Elisa Wood

October 15, 2009

Waxman/Markey’s climate change bill is about 1,400 pages.  Its length and complexity, alone, provides fuel for its opponents.  Would it stand a better chance of enactment if it encompassed less?

For example, would it have been wiser if Congress pursued cap and trade one year and a renewable energy standard another? I’ve asked this question a lot during interviews the past few weeks, and received a range of responses. But what I found most enlightening, at least from an energy efficiency perspective, was a webinar offered by Bill Prindle, vice president at ICF International. http://www.icfi.com/markets/energy/webinar/webinar-archive.asp.

Here’s what I took away: Energy efficiency helps the carbon reduction cause. But the carbon reduction cause doesn’t do much for efficiency.

Most versions of cap and trade programs now on the table do not recognize the value of demand-side resources in reducing emissions.  Credit goes to emissions reductions at the power plant level, not at the retail customer level. So while my new, efficient heat pump will cut my energy use and therefore carbon emissions, this action is not acknowledged anywhere in a cap and trade system. Cap and trade offers no financial reward to the consumer or business that invests in energy efficiency measures.

In a perfect world, lawmakers would rethink cap and trade to encompass demand-side efficiency. But it appears that political and technical obstructions make that difficult. This is bad news – and downright odd – given that energy efficiency is widely acknowledged to be the cheapest way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

So what’s to be done?

Prindle describes the need to enact polices that complement cap and trade. This is where a national renewable energy standard comes into play. Within Waxman/Markey, the standard requires not only a certain percentage of renewables in a state’s energy mix, but also certain amount of efficiency – a so-called energy efficiency portfolio standard. With a standard in place, efficiency increases, energy use declines, and fewer greenhouse gases are emitted – without any cap and trade influence. As is often the case, the states have already jumped out in front of federal policy:  19 now have such energy efficiency portfolio standards.

A bill with just a cap and trade scheme, one without a portfolio standard, eliminates a powerful way to reduce carbon emissions. So perhaps the 1,400 pages of Waxman/Market are justified. The verdict, of course, is out on whether or not Congress will pass an energy bill this year. Much has been made of the complexity and length of health care reform legislation. Expect the same when, and if, the energy bill comes under public scrutiny. We’ll see what pages make it beyond the cutting room floor.

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

By Elisa Wood

October 8, 2009

I’ve been writing about energy for 20 years.  And during those years, I’ve heard many out-of-the box concepts and witnessed some surprising trends. But it seems that lately head-tilting news comes along more and more frequently, a sign I think of how quickly innovation is occurring in the electric power industry.

Below are three ideas that caught my attention this week as I covered the industry. Perhaps you have your own head-tilters to add. Please do!

By the way, two decades ago solar and wind power were pretty much oddball ideas. Consider that before judging any comments.

• A 14-year-old boy in an impoverished African village, who has never heard of the Internet, built a working windmill out of scrap material

Too poor to attend school anymore William Kamkwamba went to a US-sponsored library to try to keep up on his learning. There the Malawian boy found diagrams for building windmills and painstakingly followed the directions to bring electricity and water to his famine-stricken village. He scavenged for junk and found old bike parts, pipes and fans to make it work. His fellow villagers thought he was crazy until he succeeded. His story is chronicled in his book, “The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind.” http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/

There is some irony here that an attempt has been underway for 10 years to build offshore wind power on wealthy Cape Cod, with no luck. Maybe the region needs to hire Kamkwamba as a consultant.

• Baby you can drive my combined heat and power car

We’ve all heard that combined heat and power is a highly efficient approach to heating, cooling and electrifying schools, stores, office buildings, factories, hospitals, and multi-famly housing complexes. But cars? Thomas Blakeslee, president of the Clearlight Foundation, posits that we could achieve far greater fuel efficiency if, rather than feeding ethanol directly into cars, we used it to fuel combined heat and power plants that would in turn electrify cars. The efficiency would be so great, we could drive these electric cars 22 times farther on CHP electricity than if we used the same acre of corn to make ethanol. http://www.clrlight.org/CHPethanol.htm

• Energy efficiency: The invisible hand that Adam Smith never saw

Energy efficiency is often discussed in terms of how much money it can save a household or business on utility bills. But how about what it can save an economy? Environment Northeast issued an interesting report in September that investigates what efficiency can do for state gross product. The macroeconomic report found that every $1 million invested by a state in energy efficiency increases gross state product by $7 million. http://environmentnortheast.org/

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

By Elisa Wood

October 1, 2009

The US has about 29.6 million small businesses and they employ over half of the nation’s private sector. They hire 40% of our high tech workers, make up 97.3% of our exporters, and generate most of our innovations, according to SCORE. http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

Still, we hear small business often say it gets the shaft when it comes to public policy; it just doesn’t have the political clout of big business.

What’s this got to do with energy efficiency? I’ve been wondering – suspecting actually – that small business is getting left out of the energy efficiency boom sweeping the United States.

I admit that my evidence is purely empirical and cursory. I have been trying to collect case studies from the Eastern states for an energy efficiency guide that I am collaborating on with my colleagues at RealEnergyWriters.com. I’ve put out a request for the case studies from small businesses to my many good sources, as well as through the social media.

I’ve received profiles of schools, colleges, hospitals, and manufacturing facilities – all non-profits or large energy users. Where I wonder is the dry cleaner, the Mom & Pop shop, the car wash?

I don’t mean to imply there are no small business efficiency programs. Several people have directed me to Efficiency Maine’s program, which does not target small businesses per se, but does serve many. I’ve also received some great examples from United Illuminating in Connecticut.

Manufacturers and data centers are low-hanging fruit that energy service companies like to pursue. Homeowners have consumer groups pressing state regulators on their behalf. But who is pushing before state utility commission’s to be sure small business gets its fair share of the vast amount of efficiency funding now being distributed?

Perhaps the fault lies with small business, itself. Overwhelmed by trying to operate in this economy, do small business owners have the time to think about energy efficiency?  It’s likely few even realize funds and financing mechanisms exist in several states to help them with upfront capital costs.

Small business may well fall victim to some of the market failures Environment Northeast points out in its October 1 report, “Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth.” http://www.env-ne.org/

These failures are:

* Liquidity Constraints – when a consumer or business has inadequate access to capital to purchase efficient equipment or improve building energy performance

* Split Incentives – when the owner of a piece of equipment or building (the landlord) does not pay the energy bill and is thus unlikely to invest in efficiency improvements that would benefit the resident/renter

* Information Problems – when purchasers do not know the future energy costs of a product or property and are thus unlikely to invest in the more efficient option with a higher upfront cost

* Behavioral Problems, such as bounded rationality – when the complexity of a decision is beyond the ability of a consumer to make an economically optimal choice.

So this blog does not really reach a conclusion, but asks a question: Are small businesses getting left out of the energy efficiency boom?  If so, what’s the problem? If not, please direct me to success stories!

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

By Elisa Wood

September 24, 2009

Expect to see this number a lot in energy discussions over the next few years: 2.5 cents/kWh. It is the average cost of energy efficiency, a figure pegged this week in a new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

This number is big news because it is so small.  As a resource, energy efficiency beats out all conventional power sources on price.  (See chart below.) Moreover, it’s a price that has been dropping. Five years ago energy efficiency cost 3 cents/kWh.

But just because something is cheap, doesn’t mean people will buy it. How much energy efficiency will make it into the nation’s energy shopping cart?

Efficiency boomed in the early 1990s, but then busted later in the decade when deregulation allowed many utilities to shed their efficiency programs. It is resurging now, part of push by state and federal policy makers to green and ‘smarten’ energy supply.

Most utilities do not make money on efficiency, and this is part of the reason it busted in the late 1990s. Perhaps as important, efficiency’s branding was off. It was seen as an extra, a nicety to pursue out of goodwill when a utility or state had some extra money.

ACEEE and other efficiency advocates are trying to reshape the image. They refer to efficiency as a fuel – just like wind, sun, coal, natural gas, oil. And they want efficiency to be the ‘first fuel.’ This means that when a utility is planning its energy supply, it first applies as much efficiency as is cost effective and plausible, before it builds more expensive new power. Some eastern states are already using this planning concept. In addition, many states have set specific energy efficiency goals, some very aggressive.

That is why ACEEE’s 2.5 cents/kWh becomes so important. It is a kind of marker against which other resources will find themselves competing more and more in policy planning.

Meanwhile, an increasing number of states are decoupling utility profits from kilowatthour sales or instituting other financial incentives that inspire utility support for efficiency.

Of course, our economy cannot prosper on efficiency alone, but many studies indicate we still have a lot of waste in the system.  So as an energy planner, if you were confronted with increased demand – and are not dealing with policy or system issues that require generation or transmission as a solution – which of these would you pursue first?

Credit: Cost figures from ACEEE, “Saving Energy Cost Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved through  Utility Sector Energy Efficiency Programs,”  September 2009, http://www.aceee.org/press/u092pr.htm.

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

By Elisa Wood

September 17, 2009

Sort of like my car keys, “the forgotten memory doesn’t disappear – we just can’t remember where we put it.” So says Jonah Lehrer, one of my favorite bloggers and contributing editor at Wired.

What’s memory got to do with electric power? It appears we keep misplacing energy efficiency. When critics – even sometimes supporters – talk about reducing greenhouse gases, they forget to calculate whether or not energy efficiency can lower the price tag.

Could it be, then, that carbon dioxide reductions will cost society less than we forecast?

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy contends that is the case. “Much of the debate on federal cap and trade legislation is focusing on the cost of compliance.  Prior studies either do not account for energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, or due to a shortage of time and other resources, address only a few of the energy efficiency provisions,” says ACEEE in a new report, “Energy Efficiency in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009: Impacts of Current Provisions and Opportunities to Enhance the Legislation.”

The findings run contrary to conventional thinking about climate change costs.  The climate bill passed by the US House in June won’t cost us money; it will save us money, according to ACEEE.

The legislation would require that 20% of our energy supply come from green energy — 8% of the 20% can come specifically from energy efficiency. It also ramps up buildings codes and appliance standards, and takes other action to decrease energy use.

These efficiency measures would save the average household $220 by 2020 and $486 by 2030 – more than cap and trade costs.

Even more savings are to be had – as much as $832 per household by 2030 — if the Senate makes some changes in the bill, according to ACEEE. Specifically, the organization says Congress should:

• Mandate that 10% of our energy come from efficiency
• Direct one-third of electric utility allowances to energy efficiency
• Extend to 2030 the 9.5% allowance revenue allotted to state energy and environmental development funds.

Exactly how much energy would we save?  If the Senate makes these changes to the bill, we’ll save as much energy by 2030 as US households now consume in a year, says ACEEE. The energy savings are equivalent to what 512 power plants produce at their peak production. A big number, a kind of elephant in the room, one would think. But we’ll see if it gets lost as Congress works on climate change in the coming months.

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

By Elisa Wood

September 10, 2009

The United States has been generous with tax credits for energy production. But until now, it’s been somewhat miserly about giving breaks to those who make the equipment that makes the energy – or saves it.

That’s changed with creation of the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit (MTC), part of the federal stimulus package. The 30% tax credit makes $2.3 billion available for new, expanded, or re-equipped domestic manufacturing facilities that produce clean energy equipment.

But with the deadline for applications right around the corner – September 16 – manufacturers are perplexed by eligibility requirements and wondering if they qualify.

Bridget Hust, partner with the law firm Faegre & Benson, who has been pouring over the rules on behalf of clients, says application requirements are “all over the map.” She suggests that if you think you might be eligible, then apply. It may not be clear exactly who will qualify until mid-January when the Internal Revenue Service accepts or rejects applications. And even those that are rejected may have a shot at revising and resubmitting their proposals, she said. The Feds plan to keep giving out money until the $2.3 billion is exhausted.

The credit seems particularly wide open for technologies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions – even the more obscure approaches. Hust says she is particularly eager to see how the tax credit affects manufacturing of advanced transmission, smart grid and energy storage products, since they may be key to integrating more wind power into the system.

The DOE says the credit is available for:

• Technologies that create energy from renewable resources (sun, wind, geothermal and other renewable resources)
• Energy storage technologies (fuel cells, microturbines or other energy storage systems used in electric vehicles)
• Advanced transmission technologies that support renewable generation (including storage)
• Renewable fuel refining or blending technologies
• Energy conservation technologies (advanced lighting, smart grid)
• Plug-in electric vehicles & vehicle components  (motors, generators)
• Property to capture and sequester carbon dioxide
• Other property designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

The manufacturer may not need the credit, particularly in a down economy where many lack taxable income. But like the solar and wind production tax credits, it could draw third-party investors in need of a tax break who will partner with the manufacturer.

See Hust’s white paper for more details http://www.faegre.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=10112, or go to http://www.energy.gov/recovery/48C.htm

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

By Elisa Wood

September 3, 2009

Energy facilities take up space. Some, like wind farms, take up a lot of space. In fact, new energy production will consume more land than can be found in all of Nebraska by 2030, according to a recent report by The Nature Conservancy.

This will create what the report describes as “energy sprawl,” a term I’m guessing we will start to see more in the legal briefs by NIMBYists. It’s a flashpoint phrase. Americans don’t like sprawl of any kind — although we appreciate the convenience it affords. Nice that the super store is only five minutes away; not so nice to give up the paradise that became the parking lot.

Unfortunately, cleaner energy often means greater energy sprawl, the report says. The more aggressively we pursue greenhouse gas reduction, the more acreage we are likely to use. Biofuels, in particular, gobble up a lot of land because they use farm crops.

The report is not suggesting we give up on green energy. On the contrary, it appears to be more a matter of choosing energy sites with care. Chief among the report’s recommendations is pursuit of more energy efficiency. Of all energy choices, efficiency has the lowest impact on land use. For every terawatt hour of electricity use avoided, we avoid sacrificing 4.7 to 17.8 square miles, says the report.

After efficiency, the next three best ways to achieve emissions reductions, but limit energy sprawl, are to:

*Build power plants on brownfield sites as much as possible

*Create flexible cap and trade rules, which allow for emissions reductions with certain low-land impact technologies, such as nuclear power.

*Site plants carefully, in areas where they have minimum impact on habitat

The report also suggests that we make energy sprawl a new metric in energy policy, another issue to weigh when debating which resources to build. Is this a good idea? I’d be interested in hearing what readers think. On the one hand, clearly it’s important to protect habitat. On the other hand, siting power plants already is difficult. And if we don’t produce enough electricity, the consequences are serious.  Power shortages drive up prices, undermine our economy and disrupt our well-being.

I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And I’m guessing they may depend, at least in part, on how close you live to that piece of ‘Nebraska’ likely to disappear.

See the full report at http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802

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