Oil is continually becoming more scarce and more expensive to acquire, because of this finding a substitute is very important. Unfortunately, there has yet to be a feasible substitute for oil, so we are faced with a future that will probably involve several different alternative fuels. T. Boone Pickens recently released a new video outlining his plan, and mentions that he sees a world with multiple energy types for transportation. This made me think and as I thought about this it began to make more and more sense.
We currently have no energy source that is adequate to replace oil, so we will have to use many different energy sources for particular uses. This means, we could end up seeing electric vehicles for in-city driving or local commuting and hydrogen, fossil fuel, and/or alternative fuel vehicles for a multitude of uses. Each energy type will play a role in our future, depending on geological location and vehicle usage. Vehicles that are used for heavy loads may operate on diesel or natural gas, and vehicles that are used for every-day city driving may be electric, hybrids or alternative fuel powered. Using multiple energy sources will complicate the consumers purchasing decisions, because consumers will need to choose vehicles based on energy type and predicted usage.
Our energy future must rely on sources of energy other than oil, and because of this we will see several different energy sources emerge. Consumers will need to have a basic understanding of energy. Energy will play a MAJOR role in the majority of our future decisions. In addition to alternative fuels, I also believe we will see an increase of rail-based transportation being used. Rail transportation is generally energy efficient and relatively convenient. Using energy without thought will become a thing of the past.
Here are my thoughts, i look forward to seeing some of your thoughts/comments below.
BP has been under a lot of criticism lately from citizens, organizations and government officials because many feel that BP is to blame for the Gulf of Mexico oil well leak. The oil well began leaking oil into the ocean over 40 days ago. Since that time, BP has tried several different techniques to either control or halt the flow of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. With government officials making comments like, “I think we’re now beginning to understand that we cannot trust BP…BP has lost all credibility, now the decisions will have to be made by others because it’s clear that they have been hiding the actual consequences of this spill”, Congressman Ed Markey. I’ve began to wonder what will happen to future offshore drilling endeavors. Do you think that BP wants or likes losing all of this oil into the ocean?
With quotes like that made by Congressman Ed Markey, it seems like we are going to see more government intrusion into the oil industry through regulations and/or the government trying to control aspects of the oil industry. Do the ‘evil’ bankers ring a bell?
Suddenly, because of this one offshore oil drilling disaster, talks of putting offshore drilling to a halt have risen. We have been drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico for over 70 years now and on top of that there are thousands of operating oil wells that have a good track record. I know that the BP oil leak is major, but to consider stopping offshore oil drilling would be halting an important energy source for our nation. Per President Obama during his BP press conference, “The government is running things…”; since when has the government micromanaged anything very successfully?
The federal government can not continue to attack BP both publicly and legally by launching a criminal investigation into BP. The plans for this, and all oil wells are presented in detail to the federal government before drilling can begin; only after the approval by the federal government can drilling start. BP got the plans for this oil well approved so blaming BP for this disaster seems ignorant. This type of behavior has the potential to scare away companies and to stop future oil well development.
I would love to see the adoption of more renewable energies but we simply can not change the fact that we NEED oil and that finding sources of oil will require us to go offshore. It is naive to think that government could/can solve this problem, that we should stop our search for oil, and that we have the ability to stop using oil. Renewable sources have a ways to go before becoming a good replacement for oil, so until then we need to work on gathering more oil and perfecting renewables at the same time.
Sources:
BP Criminal Investigation Launched By Feds – Huffington Post
Obama under pressure on oil drilling ban – The Examiner
This year Kuwait University and the Kuwait Oil Company released results of a study using a modified version of Hubbert’s curve to predict that oil will peak in 2014. This study seems to mostly agree with a another study that was popularized by Sir Richard Bronson of Virgin Group Ltd., which predicted that oil will peak in 2015.
There are many different arguments about the time frame of peak oil, some argue that it has already occurred (Dot 2 and/or Dot 3) and others argue that peak oil won’t occur for many years (Dot 1). I personally do not get too hung up on when peak oil will occur or whether it has occurred. Either way you look at it peak oil is not something that can be ignored and as you get near the top of the curve you begin feeling the effects of peak oil. This is because more costly sources are being used and it is more difficult to increase production. Many of the economic troubles that we are experiencing today stem from these facts.
One of the major reasons the Kuwaiti study is so interesting is because a major oil producer is stating that it will no longer be able to keep up with the demand of its product and that the it will be more costly to acquire. That is like Apple telling its consumers that even though demand for its iPhone is increasing, in a few years it will no longer be able to keep up with demand and the iPhone® price will also start increasing. No oil corporation would want to admit peak oil’s effects on their business which is why this announcement is so unbelievable.
The really unfortunate part of this whole ordeal is that while oil companies, oil producing nations and numerous other respected organizations are releasing reports that peak oil is REAL and IMMINENT, we continue down the same path. Cities, states and governments should be having serious discussions about how to deal with peak oil and should also be considering plans to deal with these conditions. Instead, the United States government is busy talking about things like health care, broadband expansion, cap and trade and numerous other topics that are irrelevant in a world where cheap energy is no longer abundant. Cities continue to spend money on beautification projects and citizens are living their lives like everything is just going to go back to the way things have always been. I realize that NO ONE wants to talk about these things because it can paint a grim future for our society, but if we continue to put our heads in the sand we will have a major problem on our hands that no one is prepared for. If we start planning now we could have a brighter future, but planning can only begin when everyone is mentally prepared to begin serious, tough discussions.
If you are interested in some more information about peak oil, visit one of Dan’s previous articles here.
Earth Day is a good day to reflect on things that you can do to reduce your expenses and to reduce your energy dependence. Many of you will go do something “green” today, which is good, but Earth Day is more about making life changes. So, this Earth Day evaluate your life and see if you can find something that you can change or give-up in order to reduce your energy usage.
Below are some past articles that I wrote about how you can add a little green into your life, I hope they help.
Recently there has been a lot of buzz surrounding electric cars, like the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf. Electric cars have been idolized as the cars of the future, the perfect balance of usefulness and cleanliness. The interesting thing about the electric car though, is that it has been around since the beginning of the automobile. Electric cars aren’t anything new and breathtaking; the only thing that could be new or breathtaking about an electric car could be some of the technological advancements that are being put to use.
The electric car has been competing with the combustion engine since the beginning. Initially the electric car had a decent market share but as the combustion engine advanced and oil prices lowered, so did the number of electric cars. The combustion engine has been able to offer everything that consumer’s desire:
Long range
Convenience
Speed
Power
Affordability
Durability
Some of the above bullet points might be debatable, but if you look at the overall history of the combustion engine I think all of these items hold true. The combustion engine is not without negatives though. Some of the more widely known are:
Pollution
Low efficiencies (i.e., fuel economy, energy efficiency, heat, etc…)
Wear and tear (i.e., spark plugs, cylinders, etc…)
Overall the combustion engine has and continues to offer many positives that are cheaper and better than anything else currently available.
What is it about the electric car that brings so much excitement and hope?
The electric car has enormous potential, but the problem is that it has a ways to go before that potential can be achieved. Some of the known potentials of the electric car include things like: being clean, reducing oil usage and getting its energy from renewable sources. Some of the biggest challenges for the electric car are, battery longevity and reliability, energy consumed to manufacture and dispose of vehicle components, and the integrity of the electric grid.
Fundamentally the electric car hasn’t changed much in the past 100 years, but there are some advancements in battery technology, energy conservation and regeneration that are helping to improve their viability. In my opinion one of the single most exciting things about the electric car is that the electric motor can achieve 90% energy conversion efficiencies. This number is amazing when compared to a typical internal combustion engine, which has efficiencies of about 15-20%. This type of efficiency gain could drastically reduce the overall energy usage of a vehicle.
What sort of drawback does the electric car have?
Up to this point, electric cars have only used batteries as a means to store energy (besides a few experimental vehicles using other storage methods). Your typical lithium-ion battery has a charge/discharge efficiency rating of roughly 80-90%, which makes the battery a decent storage medium for vehicle applications. While there have been some improvements in battery technology over the years, batteries still have their share of problems like weight, susceptibility to climate change, durability and expense. Many of these problems we have personally experienced in our daily lives in devices like cell phones and laptops.
The batteries in the Chevy Volt for example, are estimated to last up to 100,000 miles or 10 years. At which point the cost to replace the battery is estimated to be in the $2,000-$3,000 range, although current costs are actually around $10,000. This seems unfeasible for typical consumers, not to mention the complete waste of energy and resources used for manufacturing and disposing of the battery.
Conclusion
While the electric car has the potential to be something really great, the battery is a bit of drawback at this point. Hopefully researchers can continue to improve battery performance or develop other technologies to use as the storage medium instead. Another key very important thing to consider is where the electricity to charge these electric cars comes from. Again the electric seems ideal but once you consider the big picture it is far from ideal…at least at this point.
Tell me what you think:
Can the electric grid handle large numbers of electric cars?
Do you think electric vehicles have the potential to overtake the combustion engine?
Recently, President Obama announced an $8.33 billion loan guarantee to build a brand new nuclear power plant in Georgia. This could be the first new nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years, which is a big deal. Now before everyone gets all giddy about this announcement there are several things that need to be understood.
What is a Loan Guarantee?
A loan guarantee is a promise by a government to assume a private debt obligation if the borrower defaults. Most loan guarantee programs are established to correct perceived market failures by which small borrowers, regardless of creditworthiness, lack access to the credit resources available to large borrowers.
–Wikipedia–
Basically, what this means is that the government is “cosigning” the loan and is responsible for the loan if anything goes wrong. This can be used to help finance projects that are risky, new or are having a hard time getting the amount of credit needed to finance the project.
What About the Radioactive Nuclear Waste?
Nuclear waste can be a scary thing when you consider the harmful potential of this substance. Typically nuclear waste is stored in pools of water or cement caskets on-site of the nuclear power plant. This system has proved to be relatively successful thus far, but a more permanent solution is needed. With the Obama administration’s cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project, which was supposed to be the nations repository for radioactive waste, many are left wondering what will happen to existing and future nuclear waste. With no clear long-term plan for radioactive waste, many are left wondering why the President would be in favor of building a new nuclear power plant.
Personally, I feel relatively safe with the cement caskets being used to store this waste. The cement caskets that store this radioactive waste are rated to be good for 90 years, so we still have some time to get a game plan.
Courtesy: Wikipedia
So the questions that immediately come to my mind are:
How long will these cement caskets actually last?
What do we do when these caskets start needing to be replaced, do we just move the waste to newer caskets?
Why don’t we start reprocessing nuclear waste to generate electricity?
Unfortunately the answers to these questions are topics of much debate. Clear answers to these questions do not appear to be in the immediate future.
Should the Government Be Guaranteeing Loans for Nuclear Plants?
With the pathetic financial state that our government is in, are they really in a position to even offer a loan guarantee? How can a government that is constantly raising its debt ceiling even consider having to pay 8 billion dollars for a power plant. If the government continues offering loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and some of the companies default on their loans, where is the money going come from to pay these loans?
Regardless of your political beliefs, the fact that the United States government is continuing to promise more expenditure should be a red flag. How much longer can we continue promising, borrowing and ‘printing’ money?
But Nuclear Energy is a Good Clean Source of Energy, right?
As many of you know, I am in favor of building new nuclear power plants, see my previous blog post here. Nuclear power offers many benefits and we are in need of diversifying our energy portfolio. There is no doubt in my mind that nuclear energy will play an important role in our energy future because of the increased energy demands and reduced availability of cheap/clean energy. Nuclear energy has been picking up steam for several years and it appears that it may finally be getting some much-needed attention. As nuclear energy continues to garner attention and becomes more cost beneficial, I am confident private investors will start investing in the construction of these plants.
When Zach and I started this blog, we agreed that it should be in the technical domain, rather than the political one as much as possible. The hope was that with high quality information available to the political class and activists, the “solutions” would be forthcoming. As time goes on though, it seems that even as difficult as our energy challenges are, the political ones are tougher. This reality requires the Energy Strain blog to deal with issues that may be considered to be more in the political domain.
For the moment, the world seems focused on “Climate Change.” Climate change is the new term for what was originally termed “Global Warming.” It is difficult to figure out who changed “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” I would argue that both of these names are actually very poor names for this problem. One thing that we know for sure is that the Earth’s climate has been changing for the entire time that it has existed. It seems to me that if you wanted to come up with a name to motivate people to action, you would not use a term that describes something that is “normal.”
Peak Oil is an equally poor name for the problems that people are using it to describe. Peak oil, when used in the M King Hubbert sense, is a perfectly correct term. Hopefully we all know of the work of M King Hubbert, and his curves describing how oil fields age. The problem with the way that “Peak Oil” is now used is that it now means hundreds of different things to different people. From the simplest and obviously correct meaning, that a mathematical curve can be applied to the theoretical extraction rate of an oil province, Peak Oil is now also being used as a substitute term for we’re running out of oil, Malthus was right, all problems are caused by running out of oil, and the end is coming.
Economic crisis is also a very poor name for a widely varied set of symptoms. Economists originally called it “Sub-Prime” Crisis, then “Recession,” and now their favorite seems to be “Economic Crisis.” The names are likely to change as the symptoms of the end of the Industrial Age present themselves.
After studying the end of the Industrial Age for about five years, it all seems quite simple to me. These problems are all related, and must be contemplated and solutions proposed for the actual problems, not just the symptoms, and not with solutions that “feel good,” but rather solutions that fit the physics of the problem.
The problem is simple.
Man found a substance in Earth’s “basement” that allowed him to temporarily overcome the normal limit of living on Earth, that limit being: living on the energy that comes from the Sun. Man used the energy from this substance to continuously increase the amount of energy available from this substance. He also created an economic system that automatically creates more interest debt as time passes, and thus requires economic growth in order that it remain plausible that the interest accumulation could be repaid. As he used this substance, he put the undesired components into the atmosphere, hoping that it would be OK.
Now Industrial Man finds himself in the following situation.
1. The net energy (gross energy minus the energy used in the extraction) from fossil fuel is in decline.
2. His financial system is collapsing because repayment of the interest is not plausible, and the economy cannot grow enough without more energy to make it plausible.
3. The Earths formerly sequestered carbon is now in the atmosphere, and he is not sure exactly what it means. But most agree it’s probably not good.
So Global Warming, Peak Oil, and financial collapse are the same problem.
Maybe we should name the entire situation “DADESFFC” for Dying and Dysfunctional Energy System Feeding Financial Collapse. Ok, so maybe it’s not a sexy acronym. Or maybe it’s too complicated for some to understand. But the point is that without understanding the big picture, and without looking for solutions to the actual problems, we are left in the dark shooting at the symptoms.
Lately “Climate Change” has been in the news with the negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the activists seem to be advocating that we solve the problems with massive redistribution of wealth. Their solutions are simple–take money from the polluters and give it to the less fortunate. Problem Solved. If only it were anywhere near this easy.
The reality is that the technologies that are available to “replace” the current fossil fuel technologies are not drop-in replacements. A society created from alternative energy technologies will be profoundly different. Here are some of the technical challenges along with the implications of a post fossil fuel economy:
1. Renewable energy sources are powered by low density energy.
Low density means that the systems will be very large, and consume huge quantities of resources and labor in order to construct. In an economic sense, this by necessity means that the systems will be expensive.
2. Renewable energy sources have low energy return on energy investment (EROEI). Low EROEI means that renewable energy systems will have low profitability for their investors, and will take many years to return their initial investment. It also means that there is not room for mistakes in the implementation of these systems. Small mistakes in implementation that cause increased energy consumption, will convert low EROEI energy “production” systems into energy “sinks,” i.e., they cause consumption rather than provide energy.
3. Renewable energy systems are not a drop-in for fossil fuel technologies. This means that much of the most expensive equipment in our fossil fuel powered industrial economy must be replaced. A replacement society that is powered from renewable energy sources will be less wealthy, and have less complexity than a fossil fuel powered one. This may mean that there is no excess wealth to transfer from the former “wealthy” countries to the “developing” countries.
Simply transferring wealth from the “wealthy” fossil fuel consumers to the “developing” countries is very likely to aggravate the problems. It could leave the “wealthy” countries without enough surplus capital to develop renewable technologies, and it could just cause increased energy consumption in the “developing” countries.
Converting to a post fossil fuel era will not be easy. Resources will be scarce and financial systems very unstable. This means that in order to successfully accomplish it, we will have to understand what we are really up against, not choose one symptom and propose a “solution” for it that aggravates the real problem.
If we cannot solve the technical problems of operating a modern society from renewable energy, the only “deal” that we may be able to make is to lower our standard of living to their standard of living, if they agree not to try to raise theirs.
It goes without saying that this will be a difficult political sell, and I fear that those who are pushing these large redistributions aren’t as concerned about the environment as they claim, meaning that this would not be an acceptable solution, even though it may be the only one that is technically feasible with our current technology.
This whole notion of being “green” seems to be sweeping through every product line in the nation. Seeing a “green” product at any store is pretty common but, just a few years ago you had to search for “green” products. The fact that so many organizations are jumping onto the “green” bandwagon is both promising and troubling.
I like to see that companies are trying to improve things like, operating efficiencies of their products, reduce their company’s overall energy consumption, reduce materials used while packaging, among many other things. In addition to all of the positive environmental impacts, this is good and beneficial to everyone because, it costs the end user less to operate and it can cost less for the manufacture to produce/ship. Why suddenly are we seeing so many “green” products, well there are several reasons for this but the main reason is that consumers are demanding them. Energy costs have risen and because of this, consumers want devices that use less energy. For the very same reason companies are trying to reduce their energy consumptions.
The downside to seeing so many “green” products is being able to sort out the beneficial and non-beneficial products. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find products that actually have a positive affect both environmentally and in reducing energy. It seems the term “green” is being so over used that marketing departments are throwing the “green” label on anything they possibly can, in hopes of appealing to consumers. Whether the product is actually all that “green” or not is besides the question. Since “green” is the new favorite phrase of marketers, it is very important to be conscious of these tactics and to do some research for yourself. Don’t buy something just because it says that is “green.” Next time when you see a “green” product ask yourself some of the following questions:
What makes this product green?
How does this product compare to other products?
Does this green labeling have any actual positive affect on the environment or in reducing energy?
The United States Government is also getting on the “green” bandwagon. Some of the things the government is doing are good and some of the things it is doing aren’t so good. For example, the United States Government is planning on improving federal and state building efficiencies. This is a good thing and it will not only save the government (and taxpayers) money but it will also use less energy. Also, in order to reduce energy and environmental impact the government passed a bill that will end up phasing out incandescent light bulbs. This bill requires that light bulbs be 70% more efficient by 2020. As energy costs have gone up, people have been buying energy efficient products like compact fluorescent light bulbs (instead of incandescent light bulbs) without the government dictating anything. We are seeing similar behavior with the Cap and Trade bill. The Cap and Trade bill is going to try and force you to live a “greener” life by raising the costs of energy. The hope is that doing this will reduce energy usage and benefit the environment. Again, we are seeing an actual “green” change occur in all aspects of society already but, these changes are occurring because the market is adapting to higher energy prices.
So, Am I against going “green?” No. Am I against forcing people to go “green?” Yes.
I am fully in favor of trying to minimize the amount of natural resources we use and to use the resources we do use efficiently. Also, I am in favor of using products that are more efficient and in favor of replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient bulbs. I am not however, in favor of having someone else dictate to me what I have to do. If someone does not want to stop using incandescent bulbs then they should not be forced to. Instead of having big brother breath down our necks let the people and the market make the decisions. That is how things are supposed to work, after all aren’t we suppose to have freedom and be a capitalist society?
Tell me your thoughts; I would be very interested to discuss some of these topics further.
Earlier this year it dawned on me that the energy usage in my home had climbed dramatically when the weather got cold. This was somewhat puzzling to me because nothing had changed since it got colder so the hunt for the energy hog began.
Many of you are familiar with the Kill A Watt by P3 International (as shown above). This nifty device monitors your electricity usage and it even gives you estimates of how much money the device connected to the Kill A Watt will cost you to operate. I don’t have a Kill A Watt but I have a similar device from another company, called the PowerAngel. I used my PowerAngel monitoring device in order to go through my house and find how out much energy various devices in my house were using. This process can take a fair amount of time because, in order to get an accurate reading of electricity usage you may need to leave the device plugged into the monitor for an extended duration. For example, in order to get an accurate idea of electricity usage I left my entertainment center plugged into the PowerAngel for about a week. This gave me an accurate reading of how much energy is used per week; from this I can compute the cost and usage for any duration of time I wanted.
When going through my house I monitored my entertainment center, refrigerator, computer and many other devices. Along the way I found items that were large electricity users and I tried to find ways to reduce consumption. For my entertainment center I installed a Smart Power strip. I configured the Smart Power strip so that the TV and satellite receiver have power constantly and the TV and VCR draw zero power when the TV is off. For my bedroom entertainment system I configured it in a similar way. These configurations reduced the amount of electrical draw by up to 50%. I found my refrigerator to be comparable to most Energy Star rated refrigerators even though it is not Energy Star rated. The majority of my other devices in my home are Energy Star rated.
After going through my house I didn’t find any devices that seemed to be drawing an over abundance of electricity so, the hunt for the electrical hog was still on. My next location for my audit was the garage. I have a small shop that I keep above freezing during the winter. This shop is heated using an electric ceramic heater that is controlled using its built-in thermostat. After leaving my energy monitor on the ceramic heater for just a day I realized that the heater was using HUGE amounts of electricity. This ceramic heater was the reason behind my electric bill increase during cold months. The ceramic heater’s thermostat was not properly working which was causing this unit to run almost all the time. I quickly replaced this with a newer electric ceramic heater that i had in my home which, greatly reduced the electricity usage.
While doing the self-audit in my garage it also dawned on me that I should do something about an old freezer that looks like it is from the 70s. The freezer has got to go. I was debating to either replace it with a new Energy Star unit or to downsize. I am currently going to be taking the route of eliminating the old freezer without replacing it. This should reduce my energy usage substantially.
With roughly 97% of my lighting in my house already being fluorescent, there is no significant effecientcy gain that can be achieved here. This leaves HVAC and water heating as my next targets. Since I am heating my home using a wood stove, the only HVAC upgrade that I am currently looking at doing is my central air. I have looked at several different options and I am left liking either a heat pump system or a standard AC unit that is very effecient. To improve how effeciently my central air is operating and when it is operating, I have been researching several different Energy Star rated programmable thermostats as well.
In addition to all of the HVAC related items, I have also been considering a new water heating system. Currently I am using a gas water heater that is about 10 years old. If I decide to go the heat pump cooling route, which I doubt due to cost, I would also install a water heater that used the same system. Due to the cost of heat pump systems I am realisticly looking at either a gas condensing water heater or a solar water heating system. These systems will offer plenty of warm water as well as use less energy.
It is crucial that you learn the value of conserving and that you try to take steps to do so. I am currently in the beginning stages of doing that more extensively. For example, this past month the electric bill totaled 863kWh of electricity, which is 30 kWh per day. The same month last year 35 kWh were used per day. A 5 kWh per day reduction in electrical usage is a great start, I was very pleased with it. I hope to continue reducing the monthly electrical usage to point that my monthly home usage is at least 800 kWh but ideally 750 kWh. The more energy that we are able to reduce the better because it reduces the use of fossil fuels and the negative impact on our environment.
Any ideas or questions, feel free to leave a post.
Homes are one of the largest consumers of energy in the United States. The unfortunate part of home energy usage is that a large portion of this energy is wasted because of inefficiencies. Inefficiencies can range from air leaks to poor heating and air conditioning systems.
Increasing home efficiency will not only allow you to save money but it also reduces the amount of energy needed for your home. Before you can start reducing the energy used in your home, you need to have a basic understanding of where the majority of the energy is used within your home.
Courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy
Looking at the pie chart we see that the four largest users of energy are space heating, space cooling, lighting and water heating. These four segments account for roughly 66% of all the energy used in your home. We are going to take a look at these four segments specifically and then cover the remaining segments generally.
Lighting
Typically, a large portion of household lighting uses incandescent light bulbs. A very simple way to reduce your energy consumption is to use compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). CFLs use about 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and CFLs are designed to last ten times longer. With so many benefits why wait to start converting your lighting over to fluorescent. If you want more information on the available types of CFLs visit the Energy Star CFL search. Amazon.com also has a decent CFL webpage that contains some good information on CFL bulbs and it is an excellent source to purchase your bulbs too.
Now I know many of you out there probably don’t believe that CFL bulbs are actually cost beneficial so, in order to help get this point across let me do some math for you. I’m going to compute the total cost of each bulb which includes the cost of the bulb as well as the cost of the electricity used to run the bulb. Incandescent bulbs have a maximum life expectancy of roughly 1000 hours while compact fluorescent bulbs have a maximum life expectancy of roughly 10,000 hours. Since compact fluorescent bulbs last up to 10,000 hours I will compute the total cost of an incandescent bulb for the same duration of time, which will require the purchase of several incandescent bulbs.
Below is an example of how I computed this, following the example is the computation for each bulb type.
Example
(Bulb Wattage) x (Total Hours in Operation) = Watt-Hours
(Watt-Hours) / (1000) = Kilowatt-Hours
(Total Hours in Operation) / (Maximum Life Expectancy) = Number of Bulbs
(Kilowatt-Hours) x (Cost of Electricity per Kilowatt-Hour) = Cost of Electricity to Run Bulb
(Number of Bulbs) x (Cost of Bulbs) = Cost of Purchasing Bulbs For Duration
(Cost of Electricity to Run Bulb) + (Cost of Purchasing Bulbs for Duration) = Total Cost of Bulb
So if you look at the computed cost of each bulb you see that a incandescent costs $65 for 10,000 hours of operation and the compact fluorescent costs $30 for 10,000 hours. Even though the compact fluorescent bulb costs $15, it is still over half the price to own and operate.
Water Heating
Water heating is the third largest user of energy. Reducing the amount of energy consumed by your current water heater can be accomplished by:
Reducing the temperature of the water heater, as described here
Installing an insulating jacket over the water heater, as described here
Installing insulation on the hot water pipes, as described here
The other way to reduce water heater energy consumption is by purchasing a new efficient water heater. There are several different types of water heaters available today, which include:
High-Efficiency Gas Storage
Gas Condensing
Whole-Home Gas Tankless
Solar
Heat Pump
Gas Condensing and Heat Pump water heaters will have all-new models in 2009. Both of these water heater types offer an easy replacement and significant energy savings. A.O. Smith makes a gas condensing water heater that looks very promising, called the Vertex™ 100. This water heater looks like your typical tank water heater but it offers 96% efficiency and can be used to feed a radiant heating system.
You can also use geothermal heat pumps to heat your water, and as you will see later in this article, to heat and cool your home as well. A geothermal system that will heat your home, cool your home and heat your water typically cost several thousand dollars.
When you think about cooling systems, the first type you probably think about are air conditioners. Over the years, air conditioner manufactures have continually increased efficiencies. In addition to increasing efficiencies of traditional air conditioners, many companies have developed air conditioners that use solar panels or ice. Solar panel systems use the electricity from the sun to help offset the electricity used by the A/C compressor. Ice based systems will freeze water at night, when there is cheap excess energy, and then use the ice during the day to cool the air. This saves energy and money because the ice reduces the use of the A/C compressor and the ice is created during the night, typically, when electricity costs are lowest. For more information on air conditioner efficiencies visit the Energy Star Central Air Conditioners page.
Air conditioners are the typical cooling system but in addition to air conditioners there are several other alternatives that you could consider:
Ventilation
Evaporative cooling
Absorption cooling
Radiant cooling
Earth cooling tubes
For more information on the above cooling technologies visit Department of Energy cooling site here. A prime example of an air conditioner alternative is a geothermal heat pump system. We will discuss how these systems are beneficial and how they function very shortly.
Among these several cooling technologies there are also several methods that can be used to reduce energy consumption of your current cooling system:
Install a programmable thermostat
Sealing air ducts
Reducing air leaks
Shutting blinds during the day
Turn down cooling system, especially when your not home
Space Heating
Heating your home is vital during cold seasons and generating heat can be much more efficient than cooling your home. Typically improving efficiency in this category is accomplished by the following methods:
Purchasing and installing new heating systems
Sealing and insulating your home
Replacing your current furnace with an Energy Star rated furnace can help reduce energy usage and costs. If you are interested in looking at several alternative heating systems I suggest that you read a good article called, Alternative Ways To Heat Your Home on The Greenest Dollar blog.
The more that I learn about heating and cooling systems the more intrigued that I get with heat pump systems. Heat pump systems can heat and cool your home. These systems can either use outside air or groundwater as their heat source. The outside air heat pump systems are cheaper and easier to install than groundwater heat pumps but they are also less efficient. Groundwater heat pump systems, also known as Geothermal Heat Pump systems, offer excellent efficiencies as well as a combined heating and cooling system. Geothermal systems have a relatively high up-front cost, about $10,000 for a 1500 square-foot home, and require enough land in order to bury piping full of heat exchange fluid.
Geothermal systems offer high efficiencies for both heating and cooling. As an added bonus, many geothermal systems can also heat your water. If you can afford to go this route it allows you to increase your efficiencies in water heating, cooling and heating. For information on how geothermal systems operate visit California’s Consumer Energy Center site here.
Computers & Electronics, Appliances, Refrigeration and Other
The remaining four categories would seem like large energy users but when you add the percentage from each of these categories together they equate to 34%, which is only 3% higher than space heating alone.
The three easiest methods to reduce energy in these four categories is the following:
Use Energy Star rated products
Install smart power strips
Unplug or turn off unneeded devices
Computer & Electronics
One of the largest problems with computers and electronics is that they continue to use small amounts of power when they are turned off. Using smart power strips, like the Smart Strip LCG3, is an easy, relatively inexpensive method to reduce energy in the Computers & Electronics category. Purchasing Energy Star rated devices when purchasing future devices or replacing existing devices are also ways to reduce energy costs. When replacing existing devices it is crucial to compute how much your current device costs you per year and how much you could save with the purchase of a new device. Many times you do not experience savings for several years, in some cases, waiting until your current device is in need of replacement is the beneficial thing to do.
Appliances
This category includes items like dishwashers, microwaves and ovens.
These devices, like all electronic based devices, use small amount of electricity when not in use. Combating this is slightly harder in this category. Using smart power strips and turning off these devices are not as easy or convenient as with computers & electronics. You can unplug items like toasters but you can’t easily unplug a dishwasher. Typically the only method that can be used to reduce energy consumption in this category is the purchase of Energy Star rated devices. Replacing your current device may or may not be cost effective depending on the cost and savings of a replacement device, make sure you consider this.
Refrigeration
The refrigeration category does not allow you to reduce electricity consumption by turning off devices. Just because you aren’t using a refrigerator does not mean the refrigerator will not need electricity at some point to cool itself. With refrigeration, there are only two options for combating energy usage:
Purchase Energy Star refrigeration units
Consolidate and eliminate unneeded refrigeration units
Conclusion
Implementing practices that reduce energy waste like turning off lights, using smart power strips, installing CFL bulbs and purchasing only energy star rated products can greatly reduce your energy bill and usage.
Every small thing that you can do to reduce energy usage will save you money and will reduce the amount of energy used. With many tax incentives available it makes these efficiency upgrades even more affordable. All you need is a little bit of time and, in many cases, little money.
My next post will show you some of the things that I have done and am considering in order to reduce the energy usage in my home.
that contains some good information on CFL bulbs and it is an excellent source to purchase your bulbs too.
, is an easy, relatively inexpensive method to reduce energy in the Computers & Electronics category. Purchasing Energy Star rated devices when purchasing future devices or replacing existing devices are also ways to reduce energy costs. When replacing existing devices it is crucial to compute how much your current device costs you per year and how much you could save with the purchase of a new device. Many times you do not experience savings for several years, in some cases, waiting until your current device is in need of replacement is the beneficial thing to do.
