Comments for EnergySavvy Blog http://www.energysavvy.com/blog Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Efficiency Program Q&A: When the in-home audit is the retrofit by Sam http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/12/01/efficiency-program-qa-when-the-in-home-audit-is-the-retrofit/comment-page-1/#comment-1434 Sam Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:04:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1637#comment-1434 $7K to $10K is generally not what anyone I know would consider a DEEP retrofit.  That is usually the range for a pretty simple upgrade, and is basically in line with the spending on a per house basis that the Low Income program spends.   The real question is... does cream skimming the most cost effective first steps at 100% subsidy get you to your goals, or are you actually making it more difficult to come in later and get people to go deeper and achieve closer to the realistic potential for their home? If you take the cost of giving away an audit and direct install of EE measures and try to scale that up with out engaging private dollars, can you really afford to be successful without just running out of money? $7K to $10K is generally not what anyone I know would consider a DEEP retrofit.  That is usually the range for a pretty simple upgrade, and is basically in line with the spending on a per house basis that the Low Income program spends.  

The real question is… does cream skimming the most cost effective first steps at 100% subsidy get you to your goals, or are you actually making it more difficult to come in later and get people to go deeper and achieve closer to the realistic potential for their home?

If you take the cost of giving away an audit and direct install of EE measures and try to scale that up with out engaging private dollars, can you really afford to be successful without just running out of money?

]]> Comment on Energy efficiency TV spots actually worth watching by Lindsey Taggart http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/10/24/energy-efficiency-tv-spots-actually-worth-watching/comment-page-1/#comment-1433 Lindsey Taggart Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:44:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1632#comment-1433 This is a commercial running in California to promote the Energy Upgrade California program.  It's pretty good! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02WU3V9y9po This is a commercial running in California to promote the Energy Upgrade California program.  It’s pretty good!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02WU3V9y9po

]]> Comment on EnergySavvy Announces Program Optix by john http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/09/26/energysavvy-announces-program-optix/comment-page-1/#comment-1432 john Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:53:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1621#comment-1432 This sounds like an outstanding product. It is so difficult to generate residential retrofits at enough scale to drive down customer acquisition costs. Awesome news! -John Asalone, Energy Analytics, Booz Allen Hamilton This sounds like an outstanding product. It is so difficult to generate residential retrofits at enough scale to drive down customer acquisition costs. Awesome news!
-John Asalone, Energy Analytics, Booz Allen Hamilton

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Alex Hn http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1431 Alex Hn Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:44:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1431 " If we bring more renewables like solar and wind online, then I would argue the market would then begin to drive innovation in energy storage technologies." Not necessarily. If the value of the alternatives is better, alternatives will be developped instead. If you build more Ladas, that dosen't mean people will buy more. Gas turbines backup is cheaper then storage. So, forget about batteries, it's cheaper using gas, the market will go into gas. Furthermore, if we weren't forced to use wind power, we could just use baseload gas turbines instead. Wind power with gas backup cost more then gas baseload. The reason is simple, gas backup is inefficient therefore gas baseload turbine are more economic. [1] Wind power and solar have their upsides, but setting to bar too high dosen't help, let's try 20% wind power first, we'll see after were we'll be. [1] http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/ "The general conclusion is clear: industrial wind power does not produce the claimed benefits of reductions in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when up-and-down backup generation inefficiencies are taken into account." ” If we bring more renewables like solar and wind online, then I would
argue the market would then begin to drive innovation in energy storage
technologies.”

Not necessarily. If the value of the alternatives is better, alternatives will be developped instead. If you build more Ladas, that dosen’t mean people will buy more.

Gas turbines backup is cheaper then storage. So, forget about batteries, it’s cheaper using gas, the market will go into gas.

Furthermore, if we weren’t forced to use wind power, we could just use baseload gas turbines instead. Wind power with gas backup cost more then gas baseload. The reason is simple, gas backup is inefficient therefore gas baseload turbine are more economic. [1]

Wind power and solar have their upsides, but setting to bar too high dosen’t help, let’s try 20% wind power first, we’ll see after were we’ll be.

[1] http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/

“The general conclusion is clear: industrial wind power does not
produce the claimed benefits of reductions in fossil fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions when up-and-down backup generation inefficiencies are
taken into account.”

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Alex Hn http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1430 Alex Hn Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:31:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1430 $41 billion is a wierd figure to trying to explain something. How about the $14-18 billion for two AP1000s? It's dead simple, either you use: Nuclear $14-18 billion for 17.3 billion kwh per year or you use: Retrofit $34.6 billion for 17.3 billion kwh per year What is bad is comparing money through different times frames because time change the value of money. The best way is to compare respective capital costs of both options. Retrofit is $2 per kwh and nuclear power is $0.81 to $1.04 per kwh. You can also compare operating cost, and life duration of the investment, but nuclear power comes really good into theses categories with 2 cents per kwh for operation and 40-60+ for lifespan. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html $41 billion is a wierd figure to trying to explain something. How about the $14-18 billion for two AP1000s?

It’s dead simple, either you use:

Nuclear
$14-18 billion for 17.3 billion kwh per year

or you use:

Retrofit
$34.6 billion for 17.3 billion kwh per year

What is bad is comparing money through different times frames because time change the value of money.

The best way is to compare respective capital costs of both options. Retrofit is $2 per kwh and nuclear power is $0.81 to $1.04 per kwh.

You can also compare operating cost, and life duration of the investment, but nuclear power comes really good into theses categories with 2 cents per kwh for operation and 40-60+ for lifespan. http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Anonymous http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1429 Anonymous Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:38:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1429 http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/08/12/profile-of-an-energy-revolution-japan/?feed=rss_home We are capable of making radical changes in our mainstream energy economy very rapidly. The conventional wisdom would suggest it takes years and probably decades to make such dramatic shifts. What Japan has managed to do in weeks suggests the conventional wisdom has dramatically underestimated society’s ability to tolerate sudden and severe shifts in our energy economy without having the sky fall. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/08/12/profile-of-an-energy-revolution-japan/?feed=rss_home

We
are capable of making radical changes in our mainstream energy economy
very rapidly. The conventional wisdom would suggest it takes years and
probably decades to make such dramatic shifts. What Japan has managed to
do in weeks suggests the conventional wisdom has dramatically
underestimated society’s ability to tolerate sudden and severe shifts in
our energy economy without having the sky fall.

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Anonymous http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1428 Anonymous Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:35:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1428 I see Jennifer's point.  Something to consider:  wind, but mostly solar is so abundant, that we cannot at this point store all the energy one could collect from a solar panel, say.  The limiting factor is not the energy source (i.e "what happens when its cloudy?" "what about when the wind stops blowing?")  Rather the limiting factor is in the storage.  If we bring more renewables like solar and wind online, then I would argue the market would then begin to drive innovation in energy storage technologies.    We have to have a paradigm shift in the way we think about energy.  From a baseload model to an abundance model.  Energy efficiency has a large role to play in our future, especially when it comes to rebuilding our economy and providing jobs.  Not to mention being cautious when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions and peak oil. I see Jennifer’s point.  Something to consider:  wind, but mostly solar is so abundant, that we cannot at this point store all the energy one could collect from a solar panel, say.  The limiting factor is not the energy source (i.e “what happens when its cloudy?” “what about when the wind stops blowing?”)  Rather the limiting factor is in the storage.  If we bring more renewables like solar and wind online, then I would argue the market would then begin to drive innovation in energy storage technologies.    We have to have a paradigm shift in the way we think about energy.  From a baseload model to an abundance model.  Energy efficiency has a large role to play in our future, especially when it comes to rebuilding our economy and providing jobs.  Not to mention being cautious when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions and peak oil.

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Gabriel Fair http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1427 Gabriel Fair Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:22:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1427 It would be great if we could like this on facebook or +1 it  It would be great if we could like this on facebook or +1 it 

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by Steve http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1426 Steve Tue, 09 Aug 2011 04:53:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1426 How is Paying the bill? it seems to me that all these numbers look impressive and I agree creating a more efficient home is always the best way to go not everyone has the 12k? to pay. I am not sure but I was thinking that the EPA required scrubbers would catch most of the pollutions. As for CO2 I was thinking that mother nature had us all beat. As for global warming being man made, I could be wrong but I  was thinking global warming started just before the Ice age ended. And wasn’t the earth covered densely with CO2 that animal life could not exist? I see a majority of this issue is being used to line peoples packets. It seems that in a day where people are not working and can’t afford to take money from the table, One would think we would focus on long term employment such as start buying American good, they are saver and in the long run greener. Bring back manufacturing and build power plants to support those jobs. This will lead to people having the money to invest in their homes.   One last note. If power companies only had 2 or 3 approved nuclear designs they would be save, cheaper and faster to build than every company submitting their own design. Have of the time and money is spent on soft cost and regulations. Better known as the great pay off to a bunch of stuffed shirts. Its time to think of the people first and not the special interest groups How
is Paying the bill? it seems to me that all these numbers look impressive and I
agree creating a more efficient home is always the best way to go not everyone
has the 12k? to pay. I am not sure but I was thinking that the EPA required scrubbers
would catch most of the pollutions. As for CO2 I was thinking that mother
nature had us all beat. As for global warming being man made, I could be wrong
but I  was thinking global warming started
just before the Ice age ended. And wasn’t the earth covered densely with CO2
that animal life could not exist? I see a majority of this issue is being used
to line peoples packets. It seems that in a day where people are not working
and can’t afford to take money from the table, One would think we would focus
on long term employment such as start buying American good, they are saver and
in the long run greener. Bring back manufacturing and build power plants to support
those jobs. This will lead to people having the money to invest in their homes.

 

One
last note. If power companies only had 2 or 3 approved nuclear designs they
would be save, cheaper and faster to build than every company submitting their
own design. Have of the time and money is spent on soft cost and regulations. Better
known as the great pay off to a bunch of stuffed shirts. Its time to think of
the people first and not the special interest groups

]]> Comment on A Ticking Atomic Clock: Nuclear Power vs. Efficient Homes by RussellLowes http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/2011/07/13/ticking-atomic-clock-nuclear-power-vs-efficient-homes/comment-page-1/#comment-1425 RussellLowes Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:02:00 +0000 http://www.energysavvy.com/blog/?p=1518#comment-1425     I also very much appreciate this approach. Nukes are going to cost a lot more than you have indicated. The last big batch of nukes in the U.S. was finished in 1988. According to the NRC's study on nuke costs, the average cost was about $3100 per kilowatt of installed net capacity (net design electrical rating). In 2010 dollars that's about $5714. In 2022 (the first year they might get one of these reactors completed), assuming a 4% inflation, that would be $9148. If you factor in 2 other data bases, which I have done, the 2022 dollar average is $8834 per kilowatt, a bit lower than the pro-nuclear government agency projection.     That $8834 times the average size of a new nuke at about 1,350,000 kilowatts, times 14% capitalization rate (fixed charge rate) gives a levelized cost per year of $1.67 billion per year for just the capital payback (principal, interest, fees and taxes). Over 30 years (the typical utility plant payback schedule) the costs would be $50.09 billion. Add to that the lower costs of fuel and operation and maintenance.     However, just the capital payback of $1.67 billion comes to 16.6 cents per kilowatt-hour over 30 years, or if you use the 40 year lifespan projection, 12.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. This projects an 85% average lifespan capacity factor, which is generous. That 12.4 cent capital payback plus 1.5 cents for fuel, 2.3 cents for fixed operating and maintenance and .5 cents for variable O&M give a production cost of 16.75 cents per kilowatt hour. Add to that transmission and distribution of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour and you get 23.7 cents per kilowatt-hour average price per customer.    The industry is doing the same low-balling it did in the 1970s and 1980s. Hence they project ridiculously low costs per kilowatt-hour, like 8 cents for production. That's how they get these things built. Don't fall into  that trap.    For more info on nuke and other energy costs, see www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org.     I also very much appreciate this approach. Nukes are going to cost a lot more than you have indicated. The last big batch of nukes in the U.S. was finished in 1988. According to the NRC’s study on nuke costs, the average cost was about $3100 per kilowatt of installed net capacity (net design electrical rating). In 2010 dollars that’s about $5714. In 2022 (the first year they might get one of these reactors completed), assuming a 4% inflation, that would be $9148. If you factor in 2 other data bases, which I have done, the 2022 dollar average is $8834 per kilowatt, a bit lower than the pro-nuclear government agency projection.
    That $8834 times the average size of a new nuke at about 1,350,000 kilowatts, times 14% capitalization rate (fixed charge rate) gives a levelized cost per year of $1.67 billion per year for just the capital payback (principal, interest, fees and taxes). Over 30 years (the typical utility plant payback schedule) the costs would be $50.09 billion. Add to that the lower costs of fuel and operation and maintenance.
    However, just the capital payback of $1.67 billion comes to 16.6 cents per kilowatt-hour over 30 years, or if you use the 40 year lifespan projection, 12.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. This projects an 85% average lifespan capacity factor, which is generous. That 12.4 cent capital payback plus 1.5 cents for fuel, 2.3 cents for fixed operating and maintenance and .5 cents for variable O&M give a production cost of 16.75 cents per kilowatt hour. Add to that transmission and distribution of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour and you get 23.7 cents per kilowatt-hour average price per customer.
   The industry is doing the same low-balling it did in the 1970s and 1980s. Hence they project ridiculously low costs per kilowatt-hour, like 8 cents for production. That’s how they get these things built. Don’t fall into  that trap.
   For more info on nuke and other energy costs, see http://www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org.

]]>