| User | Post |
|
10:43 AM
April 13, 2010
|
Samuel R. Avro
| | |
| |
|
|
Aggressive adoption of energy efficiency measures in the Southern portion of the U.S. would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower utility bills, conserve many natural resources and offset the amount of expected growth in energy demand over the next two decades, according to a new study released today by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute.
Although only 36 percent of the country’s population resides in the South, they consume a considerably larger share of energy per capita compared to the rest of the U.S.
The region “consumes 43% of the nation’s electric power, 40% of the energy consumed in residences, and 38% of the energy used in commercial buildings,” the report found.
The study listed the following reasons why the South is so much more energy consuming than the rest of the nation:
- the region’s historically low electricity rates,
- significant heating and cooling loads that characterize many southern states,
- relatively weak energy conservation ethic (based on public opinion polls),
- below average expenditures on energy-efficiency programs.
“An aggressive commitment to energy efficiency could be an economic windfall for the South,” according to the co-lead researcher of the study, Dr. Marilyn Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Such a shift would lower energy bills for cash-strapped consumers and businesses and create more new jobs for Southern workers.”
By committing itself to improving its energy efficiency in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors, the South’s economy would stand to create 380,000 new jobs while lowering utility bills by more than $40 billion. In addition, the projected jump in the region's energy demand of 13% within the next 20 years according to estimates released by the Energy Information Administration, would be offset by implementing policies requiring higher efficiency standards.
Improved energy efficiency policies include revamped appliance standards and building codes, as well as creating incentives to retrofit energy-guzzling buildings.
Among the three energy demand sectors in the American South, the potential for improved energy efficiency is greatest in the commercial building sector in terms of percent energy reductions, while the industrial sector has the largest absolute energy saving, according to the study.
"In addition," the report concluded, "it is estimated that 49 GW of new power plant capacity would not need to be built in the South, if aggressive Energy-Efficiency Policies were implemented instead. At the same time, Energy-Efficiency Policies could conserve 90 billion gallons of water that would otherwise be consumed in processes related to energy generation, in the year 2030."
The full report can be viewed here.
 Read original article
|
|
|
11:33 AM
April 13, 2010
|
Moiety
| | Netherlands | |
| |
|
|
Efficiency is a key point mentioned in the IEA world energy report 2008.
The report is available doing a google search but condensed presentations are here
http://www.iea.org/speech/2009…..erence.pdf
http://www.iea.org/speech/2009…..a_MEET.pdf
What is interesting is efficiency has not been mentioned by the IEA before as far as I am aware. Efficiency is goiing to be a key point in any strategy.
|
|
|
6:45 PM
April 13, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
Conservation and energy efficiency have
been personal ethical standard practiced my entire life. I just
wonder when it is going to become popular.
At our universities they use words like
'can' and 'could' like the rest of use 'do' and 'does'.
To start with, electric utilities
consider conservation and energy efficiency in resource management
plants but they look at what customers 'do' when deciding on new
power plants.
The first false assumption in this
study is that electricity is a significant part of a family budget in
the southeast. The second false assumption is that there is a
significant potential for economical efficiency gains. There is
nothing new in the study. I do not have a problem with creating jobs
doing low income weatherization other than that scam is getting a
little old.
The third false assumption in this
study is that producing electricity has a significant environmental
impact. I am not suggesting that we should waste electricity but
enjoying a good night sleep on a hot humid night is worth every
penny.
|
|
|
10:49 PM
April 13, 2010
|
Samuel R. Avro
| | |
| |
|
|
Kit P said:
The second false assumption is that there is a
significant potential for economical efficiency gains. There is
nothing new in the study. I do not have a problem with creating jobs
doing low income weatherization other than that scam is getting a
little old.
Residential efficiency upgrade potential accounts for the smallest of the 3 sectors mentioned in the study. The main sectors that stand to gain are the commercial and industrial sectors.
The third false assumption in this
study is that producing electricity has a significant environmental
impact. I am not suggesting that we should waste electricity but
enjoying a good night sleep on a hot humid night is worth every
penny.
What does one thing have to do with the next? It may be worth every single penny to sleep in comfort on a hot summer night, but it still can have a significant enviromental impact.
|
|
|
3:55 AM
April 14, 2010
|
Moiety
| | Netherlands | |
| |
|
|
Samuel R. Avro said:
Residential efficiency upgrade potential accounts for the smallest of the 3 sectors mentioned in the study. The main sectors that stand to gain are the commercial and industrial sectors.
Though the gains can still be significant! On the downside
implementing choices like passive housing require many inputs from both
regulatory and technological sides that are not always easily married
especially when there is the possibility of impinging on a citizens lifestyle.
|
|
|
8:40 AM
April 14, 2010
|
russ
| | |
| |
|
|
There are very few homes of more than a couple of years old around that can not:
1) cut their lighting by 1/3
2) cut their heating/cooling by 1/3
3) Many old appliances, beer fridges etc are horribly inefficient – if a person knows how much they are wasting they may be interested in changing
The problem is how to keep the scammers (siding salesmen, water treatment salesmen for example) out of the mess.
Refurbishing anything in a home is wide open to abuse when there are government funds involved.
|
|
|
11:17 AM
April 14, 2010
|
Moiety
| | Netherlands | |
| |
|
|
Savings on lighting I think will be minimum though heating savings (northern latitudes) and cooling (southern) are massive energy consumers. The electricity usage is also a large items that can be saved upon.
Sustainable Energy — without the hot air is worth a read (with a questioning mind) to give an overivew of potential savings.
|
|
|
11:41 AM
April 14, 2010
|
russ
| | |
| |
|
|
Sustainable Energy — without the hot air is interesting and well done -
Lighting is a small percentage of the overall home use – but relatively easy.
|
|
|
1:59 PM
April 14, 2010
|
S. Mark Florence
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
According to the Home Energy Saver website, the average American home wastes between 47% to 53% of the energy it consumes. And because many people tend to misunderstand energy efficiency measures, these same people seem to think making improvements to their home will prevent them from "enjoying a good night sleep on a hot humid night."
If your home is inefficient your simply throwing your money out the window. In addition, by improving your home's energy efficiency you'll also increase the safety and comfort within your home.
I think one of the biggest obstacles to implementing energy efficiency improvements throughout the United States, which would save consumers billions of dollars in waste each year, is the lack of information or overabundance of misinformation.
|
|
|
3:06 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
“The main sectors that stand to gain
are the commercial and industrial sectors.”
From what I read of the study it is
claptrap. The same old claptrap. I suspect I read more than anyone
else too. So Samuel take your best shot! On what page do you think
you could point me to to read to learn something new. Some new
concept that has not been around a long time.
“but it still can have a significant
environmental impact.”
Then Samuel you would be able to show
me where reducing electricity generation would improve the air
quality. Not where I live in the southeast for sure. Samuel if you
same something is a problem, the burden is on you identify the
problems. You have to convince people to change their behavior.
My air quality is 'good' what do you
want 'gooder'.
|
|
|
3:23 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
“by 1/3”
I do not think you can Russ. Not at my
house, not in my neighbors house, and not in my friends house with a
'beer fridge'.
You see you are wrong about things
being “horribly inefficient”.
“if a person knows how much they are
wasting”
What arrogance! Who defines waste?
I have 10 watts of LED path lighting.
I enjoy my decorative lights. I share a back yard with someone who
feels more secure huge street light tacked to the side of the garage.
My neighbor and I have discussed the idea of shooting out the light
but I suppose that will not help the widowed lady feel more secure.
That light did not jump onto the side of the house.
|
|
|
3:29 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Moiety
| | Netherlands | |
| |
|
|
Kit P said:
“The main sectors that stand to gain
are the commercial and industrial sectors.”
From what I read of the study it is
claptrap.
Why would it be claptrap; commercial space heating and air conditioning is expensive as can easily be seen by the potential savings from smaller spaces rovided by S.mark i.e. homes. Come on provide a refernece.
|
|
|
4:24 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
“Why would it be claptrap;”
Did you read the report?
“cooling (southern) are massive
energy consumers.”
Moiety must be a junior, junior
engineer. I would give him some slack for being from the Netherlands
but heat transfer is heat transfer. The heating bill for my all
electric house is about twice that for cooing. The reason is simple.
All you have to do in the Southeast is knock down the humidity and
lower the temperature 10 degrees. Ceiling fans, short sleeve shirts
and shorts make staying comfortable easy with a small amount of
energy.
In the winter you are looking 30 to 60
degrees difference. I am not complaining. When I lived farther
north, 90 degrees difference was not uncommon. The load appears
different because there are other sources of heating such as oil,
gas, coal, and wood.
|
|
|
4:54 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Moiety
| | Netherlands | |
| |
|
|
Yes I did and used referneces to back up some of the claims.
And perhaps I am a junior junior junior engineer but at least I reference my claims.
Another reference showing for example the lack of influence that lighting has. and again it is for the Netherlands.
http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library…..x06019.pdf
|
|
|
5:22 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
Mark
My typical southeast home exceeds all
the Home
Energy Saver website requirements except:
“Replace windows with
solar-control low-emissivity, argon-filled units”
One hallmark of junk science is the use
of absurd comparisons.
“Vintage: 1970s”
How many 40 year old houses do not
already have upgrades. Our 30 year old home is on its third heat
pump. It was expensive but I replaced my whole system with a very
efficient system. I do not think it has a good ROI but it is hard to
predict the future cost of energy.
Replacement windows are very expensive
and we have beautiful windows now. You can compensate for loss out
windows according to ASRAE (?) handbook using window treatment. We
have venetian blinds. In the summer I put up some radiant barrier on
south facing windows. It lowered the temperature in our bedroom 5
degrees.
I do recommend low-e glass for new
construction because the cost of very good windows is marginal over
cheap window over the life of the house. I built low energy house
house in California with a large window area facing south for solar
heating. It was built into the side of a hill so shade trees were
not an option and the view demanded beautiful windows. With no AC
the hottest it ever got in the house was 86 when it was 117 in the
shade. Stand in front of the French doors to the redwood deck and it
was cool but open the doors and it was like a blast furnace coming
off the deck. The deck was a beautiful place to be on a summer
morning or evening but very hot in the heat of the day.
My point here Mark is that people
either conserve or they do not. I do not like being lectured about
smoking or conservation. This is because the lectures are mostly
idiot who do not know what they talking about and the lecture is lost
on those who could use a good lecture.
Think of it this way. I can not save
$50/month because I already am. Those who can do not care about
$2/day.
|
|
|
6:17 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
“at least I reference my claims”
Moiety sounds like one of these young
kids whose parents did not teach him to turn off light.
Before I am too hard on you, is English
your native language?
Moiety we are talking about of study of
the Southeast UNITED STATES. When I check the work of junior
engineer I make sure he is using the correct reference. So please go
back and read the study for this discussion before getting
condescending.
I am being condescending with Moiety.
The climate of the location matters when you are building something.
If you put the title 'engineer' on beside your name you have an
obligation to not infer expertise in another topic.
I have a great deal of respect for the
energy work they are doing in the Netherlands especially
incorporating anaerobic digestion into the generation of making
electricity. However, the Netherlands and the Southeast UNITED
STATES have very different climates. I live in the Southeast and
have been to the Netherlands. They are different.
If Moiety would like to discuss passive
solar houses, I designed and built one of those more than 20 years
ago. Did have some issues with Title 24, California's energy code.
An example of stupid policy. Before moving back to California, I
lived in both Spain and Michigan. The state of California want to
save energy by building a Michigan house in California with limited
number of windows. This requires lots of AC on hot days. Hot
climates in Spain use thermal mass and lots of windows. At night
natural circulation cools the houses and then they close them up
during the day. It works great.
With the invention of low-glass, there
is no reason to limit the amount of glazing. I provided 37 pages of
alternate calculations and has my architect label south facing
windows on the drawings, to keep my windows. Another energy feature
of my California house and my present house is a walk out basement.
Try building the first basement in a county.
|
|
|
7:01 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Samuel R. Avro
| | |
| |
|
|
Kit P said:
From what I read of the study it is
claptrap. The same old claptrap. I suspect I read more than anyone
else too. So Samuel take your best shot! On what page do you think
you could point me to to read to learn something new. Some new
concept that has not been around a long time.
What specific portions and conclusions of the study do you disagree with?
As far as new facts brought up in the study, I don't think the overall concept of the importance of energy efficiency is anything earth shattering, nor do I think it was meant to be. What I found most interesting were the forecasted numbers and economics that would impact the South – most notably the fact that the EIA's projected increase in energy demand in the South during the next 20 years, to the tune of 13%, is capable of being offset by implementations of upgraded energy efficiency policies.
I think the public is lacking education and awareness regarding the impact and importance that efficiency measures can have on the nation's energy industry. Studies such as this one, which crunch the numbers and detail the potential benefits are definitely a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
7:13 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Samuel R. Avro
| | |
| |
|
|
Then Samuel you would be able to show
me where reducing electricity generation would improve the air
quality. Not where I live in the southeast for sure. Samuel if you
same something is a problem, the burden is on you identify the
problems. You have to convince people to change their behavior.
My air quality is ‘good’ what do you
want ‘gooder’.
You're not disputing the fact that generating electricity has an impact on the environment, or are you? Perhaps you should start here: http://www.epa.gov/rdee/energy…..index.html
Since the facts are that indeed it does, it stands to reason that a significant reduction in demand should have a positive effect on the environment.
Regardless, my interest in this study is not coming from an enviro angle. I'm a lot more interested in the economics and overall impact on the nation's energy grid.
|
|
|
8:44 PM
April 14, 2010
|
Kit P
| | |
| Guest
|
|
|
“You're not disputing the fact that
generating electricity has an impact on the environment, or are you?”
Of course, it is not a fact! Samuel
needs to be more precise in terminology. Samuel linked me to a site
the discusses the 'effects' of producing electricity. However, the
environmental impact of making electricity is regulated so that the
impact of those effects are insignificant.
“Since the facts are that indeed it
does, it stands to reason that a significant reduction in demand
should have a positive effect on the environment.”
If the impact is insignificant, the
positive can only be insignificant.
“I'm a lot more interested in the
economics and overall impact on the nation's energy grid.”
While I am more comfortable evaluating
the impact of ppb of something compared to a regulatory limit, I
would be happy to discuss the economics.
On the macro level, the southeast grid
is well managed and I am not aware of any of the utilities lack
foresight to maintain a good margin. This is not true of Cal ISO,
New York, and New England.
From Pg 11,
“Together,
energy efficiency and demand response can delay or completely avoid
the need for expensive new generation and transmission investments,
thus keeping the future cost of electricity affordable and freeing up
energy dollars to be spent on other resources to expand the Region's
economy.”
Have
you heard this before? California, New York,
and New England. So if you are looking for the policies that drove
business out of those places to the southeast, this is one place to
start. Sure power plants and transmission lines are expensive to
build but they last for a very long time.
I know what a efficient heat pump cost.
I know what that fancy washers cost. I know what improvements in
building and processes cost. The folks who are against building the
power plants see no problem with the cost of PV, the cost of BEV, ans
so forth.
I see not problem promoting energy
efficiency as longs as utilities keep planning for new demand.
|
|
|
1:03 AM
April 15, 2010
|
russ
| | |
| |
|
|
Kit P – İn my house İ would have trouble saving on energy – it is new and has most energy efficient items built in – it also is no typical. The article is talking about typical homes and not specific homes. Probably won't run the AC this summer even on the hottest of days and it does get warm here.
The air infiltration rate in the typical older home (as well as many newer homes) is high – easy improvement by sealing.
İ am happy to leanr that Kit P can read (comprehending is another thing) but read more than anyone else? Doubt it! İt is also what you read that counts. Reading what you don't agree with as well is an important part of the learning process – providing one does not know it all already.
Many older appliances are horribly inefficient – fact – how one can disagree with this is difficult to understand.
Arrogance? İ guess İ have to defer to Kit P on this as he is the master of the topic.
Waste – Yes, kWh that are not doing what the consumer intends for them to do are wasted. Leaving exterior lights on at night is such a waste and of use to the prowler more so than the homeowner. İt would take a bit of an ass to shoot it out though.
At least Moeity knows how to log in – better than some. Yes – cooling is a large energy consumer in the south for most homes. İ have also lived there.
Many 1970 homes don't have upgrades or very limited upgrades. İ can believe that Kit P hasn't seen them as İ don't expect he is welcome in all that many places.
Like or don't like being lectured to about conservation – Kit P you are the one that joined the thread – unless Robert somehow forced you to.
Your posts seem to become less coherent as they go along?
|
|
Login 
Register 
Forums
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Topic RSS 
Search 
