Tag: efficiency

Interview: Energy Innovation

  • European consumers have been quicker to adopt new technologies, like hybrids and efficient diesel cars. Energy Discovery -Innovation Institutes might change that. (Photo by Michael Pereckas, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:

Transcript

Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:

Gary Was: Energy is a very complex topic. It’s a social issue as much as it is a
technological issue. In addition to the technological challenges of coming up with
new energy sources and proving energy efficiency, we also have a lot of social issues
involved as well. The business sector is heavily involved. Economics is a big issue.
Social behavior and social preferences are big factors in our energy use patterns and
our habits.

Lester Graham: Give me an example of that.

Was: Well, one example is plug-in hybrid electrics. There’s a lot of questions to
how these plug-in hybrids are going to function, and whether they’ll be successful. A
lot of that depends upon people’s preferences. The idea of plugging in, when you
can plug in, how long you have to plug in, how complicated or how difficult it is –
can make a big difference. We’ve seen examples of that with diesel. In Europe, half
the cars are diesel powered. We have the same technology here. There are no diesel
powered cars here. It’s a social issue, not a technological issue.

Graham: Steven Chu, the new Energy Secretary, has spent a good deal of his career
in research. What do you expect his reaction will be to your suggestion of tying
together this energy research?

Was: I think it will be quite positive. Dr. Chu has a background both in the
academic setting as well as in the National Laboratories, and I think he appreciates
well the capabilities of each institution. The meat of this whole proposal, and of this
whole concept, is that the National Laboratories alone, or universities alone, or
industry alone – the three principal research institutions in the US – really aren’t
prepared to handle a challenge of this breadth, and depth, and complexity. And that
we need a new paradigm. We need a new way to be able to take basic science,
accelerate it into development, and push it through technology, transfer it to the
private sector. None of these institutions alone can do that really highly successfully.

Graham: What is this going to do require? Is this government money to get this
launched? Is this going to be another scientific layer of bureaucracy when we get
finished? How do you handle this to make sure it’s effective?

Was: One of the problems we have with energy in the country is that, overall,
regardless of these institutes, this institute concept, its terribly underfunded – in terms
of its comparison to the impact on the economy. The energy business is a 1.5 trillion
dollar business in the US. It’s comparable to healthcare. In healthcare, there is
approximately ten times the amount of federal funds going into research than there is
in energy. So in comparison to the impacts on our lives, it’s underfunded by almost
a factor of ten.

Graham: If we’re to invest in these kinds of institutes, and invest in more research
into energy and how we use it, what kind of return might we see on our tax dollars
that we shovel over to you guys?

Was: Well, that’s a very good question. These discovery institutes, these will be
regionally situated, and each one might be on the order of 200 million dollars a year
funding, and so the entire price tag would be maybe 5 billion dollars. So what do
you get for 5 billion dollars? We expect that the transformation will be much more
rapid, it will be with fewer false starts, and left turns, or dead ends, and it will be
much more efficient than we’re able to do right now. Right now, the system is such
that technology advancements tend to sort of diffuse through society in an uncharted
and undirected way. The objective here is to sharpen that diffusion so that we can
pull these technologies out, translate them into useful products much more quickly.

Graham: Gary Was is the director of the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University
of Michigan. Thanks for coming in.

Was: Thanks very much.

Related Links

Will Green Collar Jobs Pay Off?

  • Obama delivering the American Recovery and Reinvestment speech on Thursday, January 8, 2009 (Photo courtesy of the Obama Transition Team)

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Transcript

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Just as computers and the information age defined the economy many business leaders believe alternative fuels and energy conservation will define the green economy.

During a recent speech at George Mason University, President-elect Barack Obama indicated he wants to encourage that growth in green collar jobs.

“Jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

There’s no doubt that much of President-elect Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is green.

The AFL-CIO has its own Green Jobs for America Program. The union wants 100-billion dollars of government money to be invested in the kind of jobs Mr. Obama talked about.

Pat Devlin is with the AFL-CIO’s Michigan Building Trades Council. He says he hopes Congress moves on the Obama plan soon.

“We’re hoping ASAP. Were looking to get something kicked off in the next six months. And like I said, we’ve got the projects. We just need the infusion of the investment behind it and we’re ready to go. We got to be smart when we do get the dollars, too. That they’re spent in the right place to get people back to work, get our economy headed in the right direction.”

The AFL-CIO has been talking to the Obama administration… and the union likes what it’s hearing.

President-elect Obama says making buildings and homes more energy efficient will mean jobs now and save billions in natural gas and oil in the future making us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels… and reducing greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming.

But the government has a nasty habit of screwing these things up. Members of Congress want the money for their states even if they don’t have the kind of shovel-ready plans that will mean those kind of long-term benefits and that could sabotage the effort.

“You just can’t throw money at the problems and somehow magically it’s going to work.”

Eric Orts directs the Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, part of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He says the investments should go to projects that mean more energy and economic efficiencies in the future have long-term benefits that will benefit the economy. Otherwise it’s wasting an opportunity.

“You might create short-term jobs for some time, but that’s not going to lead to the long-term foundation growth that I’m talking about. That’s going to require some intelligent allocation of the funds so you get the payoffs.”

The Obama administration will have to be picky the jobs, very cautious about how the taxpayer money is invested if we’re going to see those payoffs.

For The Environment Report. I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Big Nuke Company Seeks Co2 Cuts

  • The Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois (Photo by Lester Graham)

US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:

Transcript

US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:

Recently I dropped in on a corporate meet-and-greet in Chicago.

I waded through through computerized presentations, and loads of free pastry and coffee,
and heard executives from Pepsi, IBM, and Staples talk about cutting their carbon
emissions.

The company most eager to talk was Exelon.

“We’re a very large power generator, we are also a very large utility company and
given our size, we have a special responsibility to help address the implications of
climate change.”

Ruth Ann Gillis is an executive Vice President at Exelon.

The company’s prepping for the day when the government makes them pay when they
put carbon into the atmosphere.

Gillis says Exelon is starting early, and plans to cut carbon emissions by fifteen million
tons a year by 2020.

“The reduction, the offset, the displacement of fifteen million tons is the equivalent
of taking three million cars a year off our roads and highways. And for nothing
more, everyone should be hopeful we are indeed successful, because it will make a
difference.”

To make that difference, Exelon will promote efficiency, cut the coal used in some of its
power stations, and slash its own energy use in buildings and vehicles.

I head to one of Exelon’s power plants to learn another way Exelon might cut its carbon
output.

Plant Manager Brian Hanson says the idea is to squeeze more power out of existing
nuclear power stations.

Brian Hanson: “One of our strategies of our 2020 Carbon iniative is to increase
power in some of our reactors, to take advantage of some of the flexibility built into
the power plants.”

Shawn Allee: “When you say flexibility what do you mean by that?”

Hanson: “They were built with extra pumps and systems that would let us operate
at higher power.”

Allee: “Do you need somebody’s permission to do that?”

Hanson: “As part of our license to operate the facility we’re only allowed to operate
at a certain power level, but to go above that we have to submit a formal
engineering study to the nuclear regulatory commission.”

But why upgrade? Why squeeze more power out of old plants? Why not build new
nuclear power plants, too?

Well, Exelon would like to. But it’s not easy.

Tom O’Neil is Vice President of New Plant Development at Exelon.

He says Exelon wants a new nuclear power plant in Texas.

But no one’s licensed a nuke plant for a dozen years and it’s common for projects to get
canceled.

So Exelon’s got some blanks to fill in.

“How much will it cost, can we finance it, what’s the political support, what do we
think the regulatory environment will look like. Those are all factors that generate
risk. Can we mitigate the risk and move forward with what would be a very
expensive construction project with some confidence that we can get it done, on time
and be profitable at the end.”

If the company pulls that off, it would make more electricity, but emit almost no new
carbon.

And its overall carbon footprint would shrink. Helping reduce emissions that cause
global warming.

But, even Exelon – the country’s biggest nuclear power company – might not be able to
turn to its core business to save the world.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

New Central Air Units Save Energy

  • John Proctor in his workshop (Photo by Amy Standen)

It happens every year. Temperatures
get hot, and people crank up the air conditioning.
That means using more electricity from the
power grid. It means creating more greenhouse
gas emissions. And that could lead to global
warming and warmer temperatures. That means,
even more air conditioning! There are a few
ways to halt this vicious cycle, one of which
starts with a makeover for the air conditioner
itself. Amy Standen reports:

Transcript

It happens every year. Temperatures
get hot, and people crank up the air conditioning.
That means using more electricity from the
power grid. It means creating more greenhouse
gas emissions. And that could lead to global
warming and warmer temperatures. That means,
even more air conditioning! There are a few
ways to halt this vicious cycle, one of which
starts with a makeover for the air conditioner
itself. Amy Standen reports:

“Hi there! This is Al.”

Temperatures were expected to hit 105 degrees on the day I visited Al Mason’s Northern
California bungalow. But, standing in his very cool living room, he wasn’t too concerned.

Al Mason: “During the summer without the air, it was miserable.”

Amy Standen: “What’s it like now?”

Mason: “Oh it’s wonderful.”

That’s because Mason just bought himself a $10,000 central AC and heating system.

(sound of motor starting up)

Installer Jeff Scalier of the Blue Star Heating and Air Conditioning Company takes me
outside to show off the motor.

“This particular unit, I call it the Cadillac. It’s an HDL is the name of the unit, it’s side
discharged.”

New units like this are about twice as energy efficient as those sold thirty years ago.
That’s when the 1970s oil embargo inspired a slew of federal efficiency rules.

But Al Mason’s brand-new AC system still uses a lot more electricity than it needs to. At
least, that’s what John Proctor says. He’s an air conditioning entrepreneur in San Rafael,
just north of San Francisco.

“Air conditioners are designed one size fits all for the whole country. So you have a
hammer where you really would like something a little more precise.”

In other words, different climates require different air conditioners. For example, the day
I met John Proctor, it was about 75 degrees outside, maybe 25% humidity.”

“There’s a reason why we live here!” (laughs)

Meanwhile, about 3,000 miles east, residents of Tampa, Florida were wiping their brows
in 80% humidity. In other words, a completely different climate, where air conditioners
have a different job to do.

“In South Florida you have to do a lot of dehumidification, whereas in California, you
don’t have to do any dehumidification at all. So what they’re doing is taking moisture
out of the air and dumping it down the drain.”

In other words, because air conditioners are built for all climates, they don’t work
perfectly in any climate.

That fact inspired Proctor – with funding from the state of California – to design AC
systems for three different climates – the hot dry west, the soggy southeast, and the more
temperate Midwest. So that’s one model for Phoenix, another for Tampa, and a third for
St. Louis. He built them in an attic workshop upstairs from his office.

“So where does that data point show up on the graph?”

Proctor says these climate-specific units can use as much as 20% less electricity than the
one-size fits all models. But that doesn’t mean we can expect manufacturers to start
making them any time soon.

“From a manufacturing perspective, if you can just make lots of one air conditioner,
it’s easier, it’s cheaper. And that’s how they’re set up to do it.”

That’s why Proctor, along with California energy officials, went to Washington earlier
this year. Their goal was to get Congressional support for new, regional AC standards.
And it worked.

But putting these standards into law is another step. That’ll take a ruling from the Federal
Department of Energy – something, Proctor believes, is unlikely to occur until next
administration takes the White House.

For The Environment Report, I’m Amy Standen.

Related Links

Energy Tax Credits for Next Year

  • Tucked away in the bailout package were energy tax cuts for Americans (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

We’ve all heard about the 700-
billion dollar bail-out for Wall Street.
Getting a lot less attention was another
17-billion dollars for energy tax credits.
Lester Graham reports you can take advantage
of some of that money for your house:

Transcript

We’ve all heard about the 700-
billion dollar bail-out for Wall Street.
Getting a lot less attention was another
17-billion dollars for energy tax credits.
Lester Graham reports you can take advantage
of some of that money for your house:

Starting in January you can earn as much as $500 in tax credits for home
improvements that save energy. The credit will be taken right off the top of taxes you’ll
owe for 2009.


Ronnie Kweller is with the group Alliance to Save Energy. She says the credits can
cover a lot.


“Energy Star windows. It also includes lower-cost products like additional insulation,
sealing and caulking and weather-stripping – all those kind of things to tighten up your
home and make it energy efficient. As well as highly-efficient heating and cooling
equipment.”


Kweller says her group has details on the new consumer tax credits on its website:
ase.org.


Keep your receipts, and you’ll have to remember to file the right IRS form to take
advantage of the tax credits.


For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cellulosic Ethanol Breaks Ground

Getting fuel from plants like corn
and sugar cane is not that efficient. That’s
why researchers are working on so-called
cellulosic biofuels. The process turns things
like corn stalks, wood chips, and grasses into
fuel. As Mark Brush reports, some new
cellulosic refineries are breaking ground:

Transcript

Getting fuel from plants like corn
and sugar cane is not that efficient. That’s
why researchers are working on so-called
cellulosic biofuels. The process turns things
like corn stalks, wood chips, and grasses into
fuel. As Mark Brush reports, some new
cellulosic refineries are breaking ground:

The new refineries are being built with money from the federal government. The hope is
to perfect a fuel source that a) doesn’t come from food, and b) is much more efficient
than corn-based ethanol.

The problem is it’s hard to get at the sugars inside the
plants. But the payback could be big. For every one unit of energy going in,
cellulosic ethanol could spit out about five to ten units of energy.

Brian Davidson is with the BioEnergy Science Center. He says industry officials are
hopeful, but he thinks these new refineries are just a first step.

“They believe that those technologies will be more widely applicable, but I actually
believe that we’re going to need further technology improvements to go from these first
few handful of plants, handful of bio-refineries, to make them widespread.”

Davidson says scientists still have not perfected ways to break down the plants in a
cost-effective way.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

A New Bulb on the Block

  • imothy D. Sands, at left, director of Purdue's Birck Nanotechnology Center in Discovery Park, and graduate student Mark Oliver, operate a "reactor" in work aimed at perfecting solid-state lighting, a technology that could cut electricity consumption by 10 percent if widely adopted. Purdue researchers have overcome a major obstacle in reducing the cost of the lighting technology, called light-emitting diodes. (Photo by David Umberger, courtesy of Purdue News Service)

Unless you like to live by candlelight,
you have to buy lightbulbs. But the options
out there aren’t that great. Jessi Ziegler reports how all that might change soon:

Transcript

Unless you like to live by candlelight,
you have to buy lightbulbs. But the options
out there aren’t that great. Jessi Ziegler reports how all that might change soon:

Plain-old incandescent lightbulbs are not efficient. That’s
old news.

And fluorescents? The color is funny and they have toxic
mercury in them.

So, what option is left?

LED lights. They’re as efficient as compact flourescents
minus the mercury.

The problem? They’re one-hundred-dollars-a-bulb
expensive.

But scientists at Purdue have been working on a way to
cut that cost.

Researcher Timothy Sands says in about 5 years, LEDs could
cost the same as the other bulbs.

“So, the nice thing about it is you can save energy, and
actually save money over the long haul – even though the
initial cost is very high right now, without changing what
you’re used to, or without lowering your standards for
lighting.”

And Sands says another big advantage of LEDs is you’d only
have to change the bulbs every 15 years.

For The Environment Report, this is Jessi Ziegler.

Related Links

Honey, I Shrunk the Cow

  • Today’s cattle are much bigger than they were back in the 1920s. They’ve been bred to big and beefy. But, it turns out, you can actually produce more meat with the smaller cattle. (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)

Because of feed and energy prices,
some cattle farmers are scaling back.
They’re not reducing the size of their
herd. They’re reducing the size of their
cows. Kinna Ohman reports:

Transcript

Because of feed and energy prices,
some cattle farmers are scaling back.
They’re not reducing the size of their
herd. They’re reducing the size of their
cows. Kinna Ohman reports:

Today’s cattle are much bigger than they were back in the 1920s. They’ve been bred to
big and beefy. But, it turns out, you can actually produce more meat with the smaller
cattle.

Richard Gradwohl has been breeding miniature cattle for more than forty years. He
says with today’s larger beef cattle on five acres, you can produce 2400 pounds of
meat. He can raise as much as 7000 pounds of beef on that same five acres.

“It’s surprising to me how many large cattle breeders call me almost every day
because they’re interested in reducing the size of their animals to achieve more
feed efficiency.”

Gradwohl thinks the emphasis on breeding large cattle might be reversing.

For The Environment Report, I’m Kinna Ohman.

Related Links

Fuel Economy Standards So Unreal

  • CAFÉ standards are based on fuel economy tests from the 1970s. (Photo by Ed Edahl, courtesy of FEMA)

Congress recently increased the Corporate Average

Fuel Economy standards, or CAFÉ standards. The new standard calls

for a car company’s entire fleet to average 35 miles per gallon

by 2020. But Mark Brush reports – there’s a problem with these

standards:

Transcript

Congress recently increased the Corporate Average

Fuel Economy standards, or CAFÉ standards. The new standard calls

for a car company’s entire fleet to average 35 miles per gallon

by 2020. But Mark Brush reports – there’s a problem with these

standards:

CAFÉ standards are based on fuel economy tests from the 1970s.

But the way people drive has changed a lot since then.

Engines are more powerful, people drive faster, and more cars use air conditioning.

That means these old tests don’t reflect the gas mileage we get today.

Experts say car companies are really averaging anywhere from 20 to 30% less than the
standards called for.

Jim Kliesch is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says the system should
change.

“If your representative is standing on Capitol Hill and telling you that they’ve raised
standards to 35 miles per gallon, you’d like to go out and buy a vehicle that can average
35 miles per gallon. Not one that averages 26, 27, 28 miles per gallon.”

There is a more accurate test available today.

Kliesch says it could be used to set CAFÉ standards if members of Congress require it.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Energy Efficiency Often Overlooked

  • A new report says energy efficiency is often overlooked (Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)

A new study suggests we could reduce our
energy use by 15% a decade. But Lisa Ann
Pinkerton reports many people don’t realize it’s
an option:

Transcript

A new study suggests we could reduce our
energy use by 15% a decade. But Lisa Ann
Pinkerton reports many people don’t realize it’s
an option:

Experts call energy efficiency the invisible powerhouse. They say people and policy
makers don’t notice efficiency as an energy solution, because its impacts aren’t
tracked. Plus, it’s an option that’s built into things like energy efficient windows and
appliances.

“Energy efficiency is imbedded in all of the products that we use every day that we don’t
generally see it.”

That’s Karon Ehrhart-Martinez, co-author of a new report from the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

She compiled data from 2004, the most recent available, and found 300 billion
dollars of investment saved the same amount of energy that 40 power plants could
generate in a year. Ehrhart-Martinez says that’s just a fraction of the energy we
could save, if we chose more energy efficient options when we buy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links