Efficiency

[mainemac]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Efficiency-Maine-Is-bigger-better_2011-06-05.html

This seems like a win win. Yes all users pay a bit more, 75 cents a month. But we all benefit because
small and medium business use this to become more efficient, therefore decreases the need for the Utility company to build expensive new plants.

Also interesting comment that any individual that replaces 100 watt bulb with a CFL will give you the payback of the 75 cents.

Always makes more sense to become more efficient rather than building more plants so we can waste more
whatever (oil, gas, electricity)

Tom

 

[webbie]

It does make sense - one wonders why forces are against it and using it as political fodder......such as "they" want to take away your light bulbs, etc...funny stuff!

It would be a great national goal to cut 1/3 off our energy use using just efficiency - and it could be done! In fact, it will be done - but slower than it should be.

 

[mbcijim]

Pennsylvania has this program in place already. I'm usually against these types of things, but I do support this program.

I've done over 500,000 square feet of retrofit, and probably close to 1,000,000 sft of industrial lighting. Mostly switching metal halide lighting to florescent.

The efficiency gains most people get today is in the order of 3-4 year payback. 24 hour plants are 1-2 years. It's not rocket science. It's really pretty simple. There's been a federal subsidy in place for a while (at least five years). It pays about a 1/3 of the cost. Most of my replacements were done with just that subsidy. In addition there is now the state subsidy, which is a big payback also. Between the state and federal subsidy, they now directly pay 60-70% of the cost. Payback for the owner is now less than 1 year for switching from metal halide to florescent lighting in an industrial setting.

What I find mind-boggling is that many, many owners don't want to do it! My solar installer still does the lighting retrofits. We trade war stories all the time and he tells me how hard it is to convince owners to switch. The 2 largest plants in our area are still metal halide and both work 24 hours a day. Both would have their system paid for in a matter of 3-4 months. But they won't switch. You do still have to use your own money and then wait to get the money back from the government and then the savings but come on! Who DOESN'T make that investment? It's not a cost it's an investment.

 

[semipro]

The current administration has been pushing investment in efficiency for all sorts of things (transportation, hydroelectric, power generation, etc.). It really makes sense.

During the presidential campaign Obama made the claim that if everyone would just inflate their tires properly we'd save more fuel than what we'd gain if the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve was opened for drilling. Though McCain's team had a lot of fun putting that down as Obama's "energy policy" it turns out that Obama was right.

Right now efficiency gains in buildings, transportation, and energy production are where are efforts should go.

 

[mbcijim]

The current administration has been pushing investment in efficiency for all sorts of things (transportation, hydroelectric, power generation, etc.). It really makes sense.

During the presidential campaign Obama made the claim that if everyone would just inflate their tires properly we'd save more fuel than what we'd gain if the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve was opened for drilling. Though McCain's team had a lot of fun putting that down as Obama's "energy policy" it turns out that Obama was right.

Right now efficiency gains in buildings, transportation, and energy production are where are efforts should go.

You can't compare oil fuels used for transportation to utility savings in electric. Almost no oil (less than 1%) of electricity is generated by oil. So my manufacturing plant using less electric will have no affect on oil used or produced.

 

[semipro]

The current administration has been pushing investment in efficiency for all sorts of things (transportation, hydroelectric, power generation, etc.). It really makes sense.

During the presidential campaign Obama made the claim that if everyone would just inflate their tires properly we'd save more fuel than what we'd gain if the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve was opened for drilling. Though McCain's team had a lot of fun putting that down as Obama's "energy policy" it turns out that Obama was right.

Right now efficiency gains in buildings, transportation, and energy production are where are efforts should go.

You can't compare oil fuels used for transportation to utility savings in electric. Almost no oil (less than 1%) of electricity is generated by oil. So my manufacturing plant using less electric will have no affect on oil used or produced.

I was just saying that, in general, efficiency improvements make a lot of sense and that the feds are currently pushing them. I wasn't trying to link petroleum usage with power plant efficiency.

 

[begreen]

Actually, there is a link in transportation. It takes fuel to mine, store and transport coal to the powerplant. Oil and particularly diesel at high prices affects coal costs and many other areas. People don't think about the downstream costs very much, but high fuels prices are now affecting things like styrofoam clamshells and plastic grocery bags, fertilizer and farming costs, etc. Higher oil costs will force efficiency throughout the production chain. It's become a matter of staying competitive.

 

[mbcijim]

Actually, there is a link in transportation. It takes fuel to mine, store and transport coal to the powerplant. Oil and particularly diesel at high prices affects coal costs and many other areas. People don't think about the downstream costs very much, but high fuels prices are now affecting things like styrofoam clamshells and plastic grocery bags, fertilizer and farming costs, etc. Higher oil costs will force efficiency throughout the production chain. It's become a matter of staying competitive.

I'll give you that, but with Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Renewable's making up a little over 50% of our power (and almost no diesel) that leaves coal at 45%. Diesel is not a primary cost, it's equipment and labor. I've been to the big mines, the cranes at least are electric and some of the power plants are located at the mine. I'll agree too that efficiency (locating the power plant at the coal mine) is a very good thing. We have one hear proposed locally, and that is the case.

 

[coolidge]

In my area of the state we have a $150 million dollar power plant(NG) sitting idle, a paper mill that can produce electricity and a hydro dam. These three combined could power half the state. Granted the NG plant would use fossil fuels, the other two would do a fine job, but NO they are sending it all out of state and want to put up wind farms with no benefit too the towns there in. I am in no way against wind, solar or any other natural way to produce electricity but i like my mountain tops with trees and the critters would like them too.

" Damned if we do, Damned if we don't"