Greenovation: Low-Flow Toilets

  • Rudy Wilfong, on the left, distributes Coroma toilets. Matt Grocoff, right, is with Greenovation TV. (Photo by Thore Bergman)

The Environmental Protection Agency has
a new water saving program called Water
Sense. It’s similar to the Energy Star label
for electronics. To get the Water Sense
program’s endorsement, toilets must use less
water. But, people have been complaining
about the old style low-flow toilets since they
were first required in the mid-1990s. Lester
Graham reports on what’s changed since then:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency has
a new water saving program called Water
Sense. It’s similar to the Energy Star label
for electronics. To get the Water Sense
program’s endorsement, toilets must use less
water. But, people have been complaining
about the old style low-flow toilets since they
were first required in the mid-1990s. Lester
Graham reports on what’s changed since then:

The problem with those old low-flow toilets is the companies didn’t really re-design them – they just made the tank smaller. Some of them just didn’t do the job.

Hugh Maquire has one in his home. He’s had a bad experience with his.

Maquire: “I had to flush my low-flow toilet six or seven times. What is that saving you?”

Graham: “ Doesn’t save you much water that way does it?”

Maquire Doesn’t save you much water at all. Plus it’s annoying. It’s embarrassing, ‘cause everybody’s hearing you flush the toilet six or seven times, wondering what the heck’s going on in there.”

So, we asked Matt Grocoff with Greenovation TV to set up a demonstration for us. Behind the Bgreen Retail Store in Ann Arbor, Michigan three different models of these new Water Sense low flow toilets are set up on five-gallon buckets so we can see what gets flushed… and what comes out.

Grocoff: “I always joke there were three things that set back the environmental movement: there was the original low-flow shower head, the original low-flush toilet and Jimmy Carter’s sweater. ‘Cause what that said to everybody was ‘You’re going to pay more for it; it was going to be less comfortable and you were going to have to sacrifice and it wasn’t going to perform as well.’ And with these new generations of redesigned toilets, you’re getting a higher quality product than even the existing one-point-six gallon or even a three gallon per flush toilet”

Graham: “Let’s see it.”

These toilets all have dual flush capabilities. A full flush is 1.28 gallons. A half flush – just 0.8. To prove how well they work, he’s just using the point-eight gallon flush. Matt’s got tennis balls, potatoes, and little rubber duckies.

Grocoff: “We got three duckies.” (flush sound)

Graham: “ Well, that seemed to work. No duckies. What’d you think of that, Hugh?”

Maquire: “I felt sorry for that ducky, but it was a great demonstration.”

And, again, that was the half-flush at 0.8 gallons, half of what the old low-flow standard was. Matt upped the ante.

Grocoff: “Two tennis balls and two potatoes. This is going to be the real challenge.” (flush sound)

Then more potatoes.
(flush)

And more duckies.
(flush)

Now, Matt’s demonstration is hardly scientific, but of the three brands we tested – a Kohler, a Toto and a Coroma – it appeared to me the Coroma worked best, at flushing duckies and potatoes anyway.

Rudy Wilfong is a dealer for Coroma. The toilet is made in Australia. He says Australia has had one-gallon-per-flush restrictions for 30 years, so they’ve designed them to work.

Wilfong: “And they don’t plug. They flush better than the 1.6 gallon toilets with half the water.”

And compared to the old low-flow toilets, you can expect to save about 1,000 gallons, per person, per year. They do cost more, but the pay back compared to a regular low-flow is about 2 to 2.5 years. If you’ve got one of those three-gallon-per-flush models, or even an old 6 gallon model, your payback will be a lot faster.

Graham: “Alright, Matt, I’m going to give you one more chance to impress me. What have you got here?”

Grocoff: “Alright. So, here we’ve got a full t-shirt. (flush) Very nice.”

Maquire: “Hey, Matt. I had a black t-shirt. Do you see it anywhere?” (laugh)

Graham: “Well, this was pretty impressive. Where can I get some more information about this?”

Grocoff: “Of course, you can go to Greenovation-dot-TV and you can see a video and some photographs of some of these toilets.”

Graham: “ Alright. Matt Grocoff of Greenovation-dot-TV. Thanks very much.”

Grocoff: “Alright. Thanks, Lester.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Climate, Health Care Bills Connected

  • The climate change bill is currently in the Senate, awaiting the Senators when they return from August recess. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:

The climate change bill squeaked through the House of Representatives. And now it’s waiting for action in the Senate. But the Senate has full plate right now with health insurance reform.

And some experts are saying the fate of the health care bill will have a big impact on the climate change bill.

Nicky Roy with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

He says if the Obama Administration manages to do well in the health care debate, that will carry over to the debate on climate change.

“On the other hand, if the health care rallies succeed in fatally wounding the whole healthcare process, I think that’s going to make it tough for energy and climate because it’ll show that that tactic has worked.”

Some lobbying groups are using the same tactics being used in the health care debate. We’re already starting to see some anti-climate change legislation rallies in big energy states of Texas and Colorado.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Is It Grassroots or Astroturf?

  • President Barack Obama speaks at a townhall meeting on healthcare reform. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)

Big industry is planning to target several
key US Senators who’ll vote on a climate
bill this fall. Lester Graham reports an
industry-funded group plans to hold 19
rallies at Senators’ townhall meetings:

Transcript

Big industry is planning to target several
key US Senators who’ll vote on a climate
bill this fall. Lester Graham reports an
industry-funded group plans to hold 19
rallies at Senators’ townhall meetings:

Rallies on health insurance reform can be pretty rowdy at times. It looks like you can expect the same over climate change legislation.

The American Petroleum Institute, and other big industry types formed a group called “Energy Citizens.”

They say the current climate change bill will mean higher energy prices and the loss of millions of jobs. A video on their website portrays everyday folks opposed to the idea.

“The principle of the government trying to help the environment is a good thing, but I don’t think this legislation is the best way to go about it.”

A memo from the American Petroleum Institute to oil company execs encourages getting those kind of people to townhall meetings. Environmental groups say it’s a fake grassroots movement.

A spokesperson for the Petroleum industry says oil companies are not against climate change legislation, just the climate legislation being considered by Congress.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Your Power Bill in the Future

  • The Energy Information Administration says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology. (Photo source: Frank C. Muller at Wikimedia Commons)

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

Transcript

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

The Energy Information Administration is the federal government’s crystal ball when it comes to energy policy.

The EIA looked at the House version of a big climate change bill. The Senate takes it up next month.

Forecast director John Conti says new regulations could cost each household between $12 and $227 more each year within a decade.

Conti says there’s a range because it’s not exactly clear how much it’ll cost to switch to low-carbon power sources, like nuclear.

“For most technologies, you have a good idea of how much they’re going to cost. Of course, we haven’t built a nuclear plant in twenty or so years and, as a result, there’re varying cost estimates and people can debate, I think, for a large extent, until that first plant is indeed built.”

Conti says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Investigating the Organic Label

  • Some organic watchdog groups say the National Organics Program has been too loose with its rules. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Congress wants to dig deeper into an ongoing investigation of the National Organics Program. The program puts the little green “USDA Organic” label on products. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Congress wants to dig deeper into an ongoing investigation of the National Organics Program. The program puts the little green “USDA Organic” label on products. Mark Brush has more:

Congress passed a bill that will put more money toward investigating the USDA’s organic program.

Some organic watchdog groups say the National Organics Program has been too loose with its rules.

Mark Kastel is with the Cornucopia Institute. He’s one of those critics.

“They have been accused by reputable independent auditors of having ignored the will of Congress in how they are managing the organic program – favoring large factory farms – favoring unscrutinized products being imported from China – all this competing with our family farmers here in the United States.”

Kastel says that’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

But he says the USDA organic label is still the gold standard. And most producers follow the law.

He and some leaders in Congress say an expanded review of the program will make sure that little green label keeps its credibility.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Legislation to Make More Efficient Homes

  • The bill would require new homes to immediately be 30% more energy efficient. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

This session of Congress has pledged to take on
the issue of climate change. A bill in the Senate
is already awaiting action. But the House has
already passed the sweeping Clean Energy And
Security Act. One piece of that bill could change
the way homes are built in this country. In short,
they’d use a lot less energy. Tamara Keith has more:

Transcript

This session of Congress has pledged to take on
the issue of climate change. A bill in the Senate
is already awaiting action. But the House has
already passed the sweeping Clean Energy And
Security Act. One piece of that bill could change
the way homes are built in this country. In short,
they’d use a lot less energy. Tamara Keith has more:

The bill would require a re-write of building codes. New homes would immediately have to be 30% more energy efficient. And the requirements would keep getting tougher from there.

The idea is controversial. But for Alex Dean, building efficiently is just the way he does business.

“It’s building to a higher standard. And we really enjoy building fine projects for people who want it done right.”

Dean is the CEO of the Alexander Group, a home design, build and renovation firm in Maryland. He’s showing me around a green remodel.

(sound of key in door)

“This is the entry from the garage into the new addition.”

Dean and his team are putting an addition on a home in an upscale Washington, DC suburb.

He’s designed every detail with an eye to energy efficiency, starting with the insulation. He used a spray foam. It costs about twice as much as the insulation required by current building codes.

“You know, it’s worth it, and in the overall scheme of building the house, it’s not that much money.”

On this hot humid day, you can feel the difference the fancy insulation makes.

Keith: “It’s cooler than it is outside.

Dean: “Yeah, yeah.”

Keith: “And there’s no AC running in here right now.”

Dean: “No, not at all. And this building is directly in the sun. But that’s how effective this is. This is keeping some of the coolness from last night when it was in the 60s.”

That means he can install smaller heating and air conditioning units that use less energy.

The windows are double paned. The lights, all compact fluorescents or super efficient LEDs.

It’s projects like this one that make Bill Fay confident home builders will be able to handle greener building codes. Fay is the executive director of the Building Energy Efficient Codes Network.

“We know it’s achievable. And we know it’s achievable using affordable technologies. It’s just now a matter to have the resolve to do it.”

Past efforts at greening the building codes met with stiff opposition from home builders and failed to make it through congress.

Koteri Callahan is president of the Alliance to Save Energy and she says the stakes are high. Buildings are huge energy wasters.

“Every house and every office building that goes in the ground today is going to be around for decades and decades and in some cases centuries.”

But these days, the ground isn’t being broken on very many homes. The industry is in a serious slump.

Bill Kilmer is the head of advocacy for the National Association of Home Builders and he doesn’t want members of congress to forget about the industry’s struggles.

“Consumers certainly in the last year are stepping back and said, ‘what can we afford.’ And so we’re trying to take a mainstream, if you will, that says, ‘people want this.’ How can we get to that point, and how can we get there reasonably, and take afford-ability into account.”

Kilmer says the building industry is taking environmental issues seriously, and recently created a voluntary green building certification program.

But, he says the House bill moves too far too fast. He says builders would like until 2012 to meet the 30% efficiency goal.

“You really don’t have the equipment or the materials that are ready and ramped up to make the adjustments in the marketplace to bring those things to bear, without a tremendous cost burden that’ll be added on to the production of the housing and that obviously is going to be passed on to someone, and that’ll be the consumer.”

This question of affordability is a big one. And it seems like everyone has a statistic to make their point.


For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

The Energy Hog: You or Your Neighbor?

  • Some power companies are sending out charts and graphs that compare you to your neighbors. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Air conditioners are running full-blast
in much of the country right now.
Shawn Allee reports some
utilities are sending out info that might
get you to turn them down a bit:

Transcript

Air conditioners are running full-blast
in much of the country right now.
Shawn Allee reports some
utilities are sending out info that might
get you to turn them down a bit:

Ever wonder if you’re an energy hog compared to your neighbors?

Well, some power companies are sending out graphs and charts to tell you.

Commonwealth Edison is a utility in Illinois.

It’s sending energy comparison letters to 50,000 customers this August.

Val Jensen runs the company’s program.

Jensen hopes competition will get people to conserve, because power bills alone don’t work.

“Despite pretty compelling economic reasons for customers to become more efficient at using energy, a lot of them don’t do it. Despite what they teach you in Economics 101, most customers don’t behave in the traditional, rational way.”

Jensen says, if enough people conserve energy, utilities can avoid building expensive new power plants.

Commonwealth Edison is just the latest utility to try energy comparison reports.

Power companies in New York and other eastern states will try them this year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Concentrating Solar Thermal

  • (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Whenever solar power is mentioned,
critics are quick to note – when there’s
no sun, there’s no power. Lester Graham
talked with the author of a report who
says one type of solar power can store
energy:

Transcript

Whenever solar power is mentioned,
critics are quick to note – when there’s
no sun, there’s no power. Lester Graham
talked with the author of a report who
says one type of solar power can store
energy:

Lester Graham: Concentrating solar thermal, or CST, can store power. Basically, mirrors are used to concentrate solar rays, heat up water, generate power. The heated water can be stored as heat in tanks – like coffee in a thermos – and produce electricity when needed. Britt Staley is with the World Resources Institute. She’s the lead author of a new report on concentrating solar thermal. So, you found, if it’s done right, CST could be built instead of coal-burning power plants. How practical is that?

Britt Childs Staley: We think that concentrating solar thermal is a very exciting renewable energy technology precisely because of this potential for storage. If you incorporate thermal energy storage, or fossil fuel backup, with your concentrating solar thermal, you can actually use the power of the sun around the clock.

Graham: Now, the CST plants are expensive – they’re more expensive than building a coal-burning power plant. So, why build them if that’s the case?

Staley: With climate change as a major concern in the US and around the world, we are going to need to reduce our dependency on coal in the power sector. And currently, as you said, concentrating solar thermal power is more expensive than coal, but in this report we’ve identified several policy interventions that could help reduce costs. For example, a price on carbon such as the cap-and-trade mechanism in the current Waxman-Markey Bill, and then some solar-specific policy interventions would help as well.

Graham: Now, when you say ‘policy interventions’, really you’re talking about government subsidies, right?

Staley: Yes. Support for R-and-D, for deployment such as the investment tax credit that’s currently in place.

Graham: Obviously, the most sunny places would be the best location for a concentrating solar thermal plant.

Staley: Mm-hmm.

Graham: And the most sunny places are often in arid places, such as the US Southwest. So, they’re the driest places, and CST relies heavily on water. So, in the long term, what’s the solution?

Staley: There are several alternative cooling technologies that are available and that can cut water by up to 95% to 98% in places where that is a concern.

Graham: Is this completely experimental, or have we seen this done anywhere in the world successfully?

Staley: It’s absolutely been done successfully. Here in the US, we have some of the longest operating CST plants. And Spain is another good example of where CST deployment has been particularly successful to date.

Graham: How long would it take to build one of these, and how soon could they contribute, and how likely is it to happen, given the cost?

Staley: A lot of the plants that we see on the drawing board right now are expected to be in operation in the next 2 to 5 years. With climate change concerns, with climate change legislation working its way through the House and Senate, coal plant investments are not particularly attractive right now. And investors are very wary of putting their money into something that’s going to be significantly more expensive in the coming years. Concentrating solar thermal, on the other hand, is a zero-emissions power resource. Also, it has zero fuel costs.

Graham: Britt Staley is the lead author of a report on concentrating solar thermal power plants. She’s an associate researcher with the World Resources Institute’s Climate Policy Team. Thanks very much for talking with us.

Staley: Thank you.

Graham: I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Climate Bill Debate Starts in the Senate

  • Democratic leaders are expected to bring a draft bill to the Senate before the August recess. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The giant climate change bill
squeaked through the House of
Representatives. Now the battle’s
beginning in the Senate. Rebecca
Williams has more on the debate:

Transcript

The giant climate change bill
squeaked through the House of
Representatives. Now the battle’s
beginning in the Senate. Rebecca
Williams has more on the debate:

Republican Senator Kit Bond said the climate change bill will be destructive to Americans.

“Impose new energy taxes on them, kill their jobs, punish the Midwest and South, help China and India and construct a new bureaucratic nightmare.”

The Obama Administration says doing nothing will cost us more.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu pointed out a recent MIT study predicting, with global warming, temperatures could rise as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

“During the last Ice Age, when Canada and United States, down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, were covered year round in a glacier the world was only 11 degrees colder. A world 11 degrees warmer will be a very different place.”

Democratic leaders are expected to bring a draft bill to the Senate before the August recess.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Using Inaccurate Statistics Against Climate Bill

  • Opponents in the House argued last Friday that the climate change bill would make energy much more expensive. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The climate change bill heads to the Senate. In all likelihood, so will some inaccurate statistics. Lester Graham reports some opponents of the climate change and energy bill are still using numbers they’ve been told are wrong:

Transcript

The climate change bill heads to the Senate. In all likelihood, so will some inaccurate statistics. Lester Graham reports some opponents of the climate change and energy bill are still using numbers they’ve been told are wrong:

Opponents in the House argued last Friday that the climate change bill would make energy much more expensive.

For example, Congressman Paul Broun, a Republican from Georgia, said it would hit low-income people especially hard.

“People who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by – MIT says, by over $3100 per family.”

Several opponents used that $3100 figure. But, that’s just not correct.

In April we talked to the author of that MIT study, John Reilly.

“They’re really kind of just misinforming the debate and trying to scare people with numbers that really aren’t accurate.”

Reilly says he’s told the Republicans they’ve got the numbers wrong.

“The right number is actually $340 not $3100 or something.”

And a Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates the cost could be even lower.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links