Category Archives: Negawatts

NY Times: Hydraulic Fracturing: “Cleaner than Coal”

Helicopter Cruising Greenland Ice Sheet

Helicopter Cruising Greenland Ice Sheet

To Make Fracturing Safer,” editorial, in May 11, 2012, begins “Gas … is cleaner than coal” and concludes “Oil and and gas drilling will always be a risky business; the administration cannot let pass this opportunity to make it safer.”

Clean and Green within 18 is the opportunity the Administration should not let pass. We should – MUST – shift to 100% sustainable energy in 18 years! Solar, wind and other sustainable energy systems do not require fuel and day-to-day operations do not create waste. Thus these “negafuelwatt” systems are clean; not just “cleaner than coal.” And they are also cleaner than oil, gas, and nuclear power.

Continue reading

LED Lamps – The Paradigm is Shifting

40 and 65 watt equivalents from CREE and Lighting SciencesI just bought some LED bulbs at Home Depot. The bulbs, from Cree and Lighting Sciences, are sold under the “ecosmart” ™ brand. The Lighting Sciences bulbs will go into my bathroom.  The CREE bulbs will go into the bedrooms, family room, and the kitchen. Over their 35,000 lifespan, each LED bulb will outlast 14 or 15 incandescents, or 4 or 5 compact flourescents and will use 16% of the power of the incandescent bulbs or 75% of the power of the compact flourescents. At $0.14 per kwh, the LEDs will consume $51.45 worth of power over their lifetimes, compared to $68.60 for the CFL’s and $318.50 for the incandescents. This is summarized in Table 1, below.

Comparison of LED, Incandescent Filiment, and CFL Light Bulbs
Description   Filiment         CFL         LED
Wattage 65 14 10.5
Bulb lifespan (hours) 875 8,000 35,000
Electricity (kwh) per 35,000 hours 2762.5 595 446.25
Electricity cost at $0.14 / kwh $318.50 $68.60 $51.45
Table 1

 

CREE LED High Hat, offCREE LED High Hat, onThese are “Dimmable.” They are also expensive – the 65watt equivalent, rated for 35,000 hours, costs $24.97; the 40watt-equivalent, rated for 50,000 hours, costs $9.97. Lowes and CostCo have similar units. The units from Lowes are currently more expensive. The prices are offset by the electricity savings and durability of the bulbs. These bulbs should last 15 to 20 years. If they are on 4 hours per day. If electricity prices don’t change, the LEDs will cost 3/4 the cost of a CFL and 1/6 the cost of an incandescent. In addition, since they use much less electricity, they will throw off much less heat. Thus, I will also save on air conditioning bills. Since 1 LED bulb will last as long as 4 CFL’s or 15 incandescents, I will also spend much less time changing bulbs – once installed, I expect to change the bulbs, every 15 to 20 years.

Like old fashioned incandescents, invented by Thomas Edison in the 1800’s, and unlike compact flourescents, or CFL’s, LED bulbs use no mercury or lead. They are easy to dispose of; if they break they do not create a toxic waste issue.

They offer three very clear advantages: They use much less power, they last much longer, they release no toxic wastes when they break.

The 65-watt equivalent bulbs, from CREE, produce 575 lumens of light on 10.5 watts of power.  They have a 3-year warranty, but as noted, are rated for 35,000 hours of use. They also feature an integrated housing to fit inside a 6″ can or “high hat.” These are dimmable. If on for an hour, each will consume 10.5 watt-hours, 0.0105 kwh.

LEDs from Lighting SciencesThe 40-watt equivalent bulbs, from Lighting Sciences, produce 429 lumens of light with 9 watts. Thus, if on for an hour, each will consume 9 watt-hours, or 0.009 kilowatt hours, as opposed to 0.04 kwh. The three used in my bathroom will consume 0.027 kwh, per hour as opposed to 0.12 kwh per hour from the bulbs they are replacing. These are for indoor use only, and should last 50,000 hours. I am concerned about heat dissipation in the fixture, and will probably replace the glass housings.

LED & CFL at turn-on This picture shows LED and CFL bulbs in the bathroom at turn-on. Note that there is no “warm-up” time for the LED bulb.

Cree, a $2.5 billion company, trades under the symbol CREE. Its price, at the close of trading, on 12/23/11, was $21.66 per share.  It’s 52-week range is $20.25 to $69.21. Cree has an EPS, or earnings per share of $0.92. a P/ E, or price / earnings ratio of 23.60, a debt to asset ratio of 0.00, and net operating margins of 17.08. Cree has 4,753 employees. Institutions own 78% of the company.

Lighting Sciences, a $284 million company, trades under the symbol LSCG. Its price, at the close of trading on 12/23/11, was $1.39 per share. The debt to asset ratio is 8.52. It’s 52-week range is $1.32 to $5.39. The operating margins are negative -122.84, and the EPS is negative: -$2.59. Lighting Sciences has 152 employees. Institutions do not own this company.

This is probably a good time to invest in CREE.  It might be a great time to speculate in Lighting Sciences.

The paradigm is shifting. Or, as Dylan once said, “The times, they are a-changin’.”

GOP Debate On CNN, with Questions by American Enterprise Institute & Heritage Foundation

GOP Candidates, 2011, Courtesy CBS News

Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet At the conclusion of the GOP debate, Wolf Blitzer thanked CNN‘s partners, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. This partnership explains the framing of the debate on energy as “Burn Baby Burn” or “Drill Baby Drill.”

No questions were asked on the potential for renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro. Nor were questions asked on climate change or on the pollution and cleanup costs from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

Energy policy and climate are linked, and could be addressed in one question:

This summer people in Texas experienced an extended drought and 100 days in which the temperature was over 100 degrees (CBS). Is this normal? Is this the ‘new normal?’ If this is triggered by burning so much carbon based fuel in the last 200 years that we have elevated the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from about 260 parts per million in 1800 to about 390 ppm today (350.org), and we have burned mountains of coal, lakes of oil and gas, is it prudent to continue to burn coal, oil, and gas, or should we embark on a plan to transition to non-fossil-carbon sources of energy, such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc? And if so, how quickly?

This could also be asked in a national security context:

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identified energy and climate change among the constraints which, in his words, “could place the United States at a strategic turning point…. Glaciers are melting at a faster rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia. Rising sea levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement similar to what we saw in Pakistan’s floods last year.  And other shifts could reduce the arable land needed to feed a growing population in Africa, for example. Scarcity of water, food and space could create not only a humanitarian crisis but create conditions that could lead to failed states, instability and, potentially, radicalization.” (NRDC / WWF) What does this mean for the USA in the next 4 to 8 years and what should the President do about it?
Continue reading

100% Clean Renewable Energy in 25 Years

Dolphins surfing
Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet The  observable fact that dolphins surf is something we humans need to think about.

Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, coined the term “Negawatt” when he said “The cheapest unit of energy is the one you don’t have to buy.” The next cheapest, the “Nega-Fuel-Watt” is the unit of energy that doesn’t require fuel.

  • Insulation Nega-Watts allow less power to heat or cool a given space.
  • Solar Nega-Fuel-Watts transform photons into electricity or heat.
  • Wind Nega-Fuel-Watts transform moving particles of air into electricity.
  • Geothermal Nega-Fuel-Watts transform the heat of the earth into heat or electricity, or use thermal gradients to cool a space.
  • Hydro Nega-Fuel-Watts transform moving particles of water – currents – to generate electricity.
100% Clean Energy
100 Gigawatts Wind $300 Billion
100 GW Marine Hydro $300 B
50 GW Solar $200 B
50 GW Geothermal $200 B
200 GW Equiv Efficiency $200 B
A Smart Grid $100 B
500 GW or GW Equiv. $1.3 Trillion

I’m not sure if Lovins first public use of the term Negawatts was in Montreal in 1989 (here) or in Foreign Affairs in 1976 (abstract here), whether 22 or 35 years ago. Regardless, our current energy paradigm today is the hard fuel based path Lovins criticized 35 years ago. While we are turning away from nuclear, as documented by Mycle Schneider in the WorldWatch Report (here) – the latest radioactive nail in the radioactive coffin being the fatal explosion at a reprocessing facility in France on Monday, Sept. 12, 2011 (here) – we burn literally mountains of coal and oceans of oil and gas (According to the DoE, in 2010 we burned 1,085,281 thousand short tons of coal and 15,022 thousand short tons of coke (here). And there are consequences.  We suffer oil spills, polluted water, mercury, coal mine disasters, nuclear power plant melt-downs, we fight wars …

Wind and solar don’t burn fuel. The winds blow, the sun shines, you put a widget in the path of those moving particles in the air or those photons of light and you get electricity – without greenhouse gases, radioactive wastes, toxic wastes, and it costs less. So the question is not ‘Can we meet our energy needs with clean, sustainable renewable energy technologies?” The real question are How? How Much? And How quickly?

We could do it in 25 years if we wanted to.  And we should, for our children, our grandchildren, the cetaceans with whom we share our oceans, and other charismatic megafauna with whom we share our world.

"Beyond Fuel" at the Space Coast Green Living Festival

Space Coast Green Living Festival

Green Living Festival

Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet I am presenting “Beyond Fuel: From Consuming Natural Resources to Harnessing Natural Processes,” a discussion of the hidden costs, or “economic externalities,” of nuclear power, coal, and oil, and the non-obvious benefits of wind, solar, marine hydro and efficiency at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sept 17, 2011.

The festival  is sponsored by the Cocoa Beach Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. It will be at the Cocoa Beach Courtyard by Marriott.

Continue reading

Clean Energy, Good Jobs, and a Vibrant Economy … But

 

Earth from Space, courtesy NASA (our tax dollars at work)

courtesy NASA (our tax dollars at work)

Follow LJF97 on Twitter  Tweet  It sounds too good to be true:

*   100 gigawatts of offshore wind, $300 Billion,
*   100 gw of landbased wind, $200 Billion,
*   75 gw of solar, $300 Billion,
*   75 gw of geothermal, $200 Billion.
*   200 gigawatt equivalents of efficiency – $200 Billion.
*   100 & Clean, Renewable, Sustaianble Energy: 1.2 Trillion.
*   2.7 Million New Jobs and a Healthy Economy: Priceless!

This is happening, slowly, inexorably, by the “invisible hand of the market.” But it will happen faster if the “invisible mind of the community” acts. This means the government!

Continue reading

Brookings, SAP, NRG, and the City of New York on our Energy Future

NRG Energy charging station.

NRG Energy

Follow LJF97 on Twitter  Tweet Will moving to the new energy future – deploying Solar, Wind and other sustainable alternatives create 2.7 Million New Jobs?

At “How Cities and Companies Can Work Together to Operate in the New Energy-Constrained Economy” a panel discussion (press release), Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, said “2.7 million new jobs” will be created in moving to the clean energy / low carbon economy.

Mr. Katz also noted that two out of three Americans – 200 million people – live in the 100 biggest metropolitan areas, and those 200 million people are responsible for 75% of our GDP. High carbon energy is no longer cheap. The people in those metropolitan areas, and elsewhere, therefore, must act. Continue reading

Renewable Energy & Efficiency Expo + Policy Forum

Taken from the web site:

The Sustainable Energy Coalition, in cooperation with Members of the U.S. House and Senate Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucuses, invites you to the 14th annual Congressional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EXPO + Policy Forum. This year’s EXPO will bring together more than 50 businesses, sustainable energy industry trade associations, government agencies, and energy policy research organizations (see list below) to showcase the status and near-term potential of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Members of the U.S. Congress, Obama administration, and exhibiting organizations will give presentations on the role sustainable energy technologies can play in stimulating the economy, strengthening national security, protecting the environment, and saving consumers money. Click here for video and other details from last year’s EXPO.

This event is free and open to the public. No RSVP required.

Agenda

More details:

Continue reading

NegaWatts Save MegaBucks

Tweet
Follow LJF97 on Twitter

The Newark Star Ledger reported (here and here) that Public Service Electric and Gas, PSE&G, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, is installing a  2,700-ton chiller the University of Medicine and Dentristy of New Jersey, UMDNJ. This an $11.4 million investment in negawatts. The Star Ledger reported that UMDNJ will save $1.3 million per year on energy costs.What’s the payback? An $11.4 million investment will save $1.3 million per year. That means the system will pay for itself within 9 years, assuming the price of energy remains constant.  I think it’s a much more reasonable to assume that the price of energy will go up, so the payback will be higher and the system will pay for itself sooner.

The system will work long after it is paid for. It will save $13 Million over the next 10 years and $26 Million over the next 20 years – assuming electricity costs are constant.  Assuming electricity costs increase an average of 5% per year, this will save $16.35 Million over the next 10 years, and $42.99 over the next 20 years.

  • Projected Savings of $11.4 Million investment.
  • After 1 Year: $1.3 Million, a return on investment of 11.4% in one year.
  • After 5 Years: Save $7.18 Million, for a total ROI of 63%, assuming a 5% annual increases in cost of energy.
  • After 10 Years:  Save $16.35 M; total ROI of 143.4%).
  • After 15 Years: Save $28.05 M; total ROI of (246%)
  • After 20 Years: Save $42.99 M; total ROI of 377%).

We have Governor Corzine to thank. as well as Governors Whitman, McGreevey, Codey, and Christie.

Continue reading