Bob Amorosi says

Education of consumers and businesses partly the answer, and this article does some of this by reporting potential energy savings for each conversion method as an average typical percentage. A more meaningful approach for the public would be to equip consumers and businesses with electronic metering tools to measure their energy consumption and energy costs on a real-time basis, and ultimately on an appliance- or use-specific basis. Then any efficiency or conservation measures implemented can be readily measured with specific cost savings made readily known to the user.

I guess what I am suggesting in an ideal world is that every utility customer's house or building, every electric or natural gas consumer appliance, every industrial motor or machine, and every transportation vehicle should ideally be equipped with its own energy metering electronics that logs and communicates energy used and costs in real-time to the user.

Such electronics technologies exist in some forms already, for example smart meters that communicate a building's electrical energy use and costs to a real-time customer display or computer. Trouble is wide-spread implementation of this for any uses of energy is not viewed as "cost effective", so other forms of incentives are necessary to get consumers and businesses to invest in efficiency upgrades and more conservation measures. These typically take the form of government handouts and sometime mediocre economic incentives to invest in them.

Another approach is governments forcing manufacturers of appliances and vehicles through regulations to increase efficiencies on new products. But getting much of the public to replace many more expensive older products before their end-of-life with newer more efficient ones is still a big problem without any incentives, or electronic metering tools, described ab

Bob Amorosi says

If metering electronics were integrated into appliances and vehicles by their manufacturers, all it would take to get consumers and businesses to pay for its added costs is more clever marketing i.e. better selling of it as an added product feature. Just imagine the competition between manufacturers of say dishwashers or refrigerators that could result if manufacturers incorporated more metering electronics into them that also communicated energy costs to the user. Then instead of simply claiming to be Energy Star rated by government standards, they could boast that the buying consumer could actually measure and verify how much energy they are using and saving.

This would also enable a direct means of comparing one product's energy efficiency level against its competitors. Without this, consumers are faced with competing Energy Star products not knowing which one is actually the most efficient for any given usage habits.

Kevin Lawless says

Murray Duffin says

Malcolm Rawlingson says

So here are the consequences of what you propose. Let us say you see a dishwasher that uses 25% less energy. You will go to the store and buy it (capital expense). The store will then deliver it (energy cost of diesel truck). You will then install it or have someone come in and do that for you. If you choose the latter (most people will) then that person has to come to your house and he or she will get there in a truck or other utility vehicle incurring another energy cost. Of course your machine had to find its way from the factory to the store you bought it from and someone had to make it. Like most machines it was likely made of hundreds of parts from all over the world assembled in Mexico or China. Every single one of the parts that make the new efficient machine needed energy to make them and energy to transport them to the assembly plant. All the copper steel plastic electronics has an energy cost associated with it. The copper had to be mined, the plastic made in a petrochemical plant, the iron ore had to be mined and converted into steel using electric Bessemer converters.

So when you add it all up I think your conservation measure actually cost in energy a great deal more than the machine will save over its lifetime.

Here is the philosophy I use when it comes to energy use and it relates to Bob;s ideas above about re-educating people.

The cheapest form of conservation is ALWAYS the best. If you want to save on electric lighting use. Turn the lights OFF in the rooms you are not using. No need for expensive mini flourescents. They should ONLY be used where the lighting is continuously required and there are few places in a normal house where that is the case. Operating a light switch from the on to the off position takes less than a second and costs nothing. Do more of that and your electricity bill will fall and it will not cost you a dime.

If you want to save money on Laundry use a cold water detergent and ALWAYS run the machine full. New machines cost money and energy - much better to use your existing machine more effectively.

If your "inefficient appliances" are not broken just keep using them until they fail and THEN buy your new more efficient model. That make the overall process efficient - not just the user end of it.

I wonder how many of the people who contribute here actually turn their computers off at night. I do - always at work and at home. They work just fine.

The result of my philosophy is an electricity bill much less than a hundred bucks a month. I can often do it for 50 - 60 in the summer. I do not have air conditioning since I really only need it a few days in the year.

By driving carefully and using hyper miling methods I easily average 50 mpg and if I am really careful I can get more. The best I have managed from a 2.7 litre V6 is 62 mpg. All I did was take the junk out of the car and keep the speed down and avoid hard accelerations from lights. Very easy to do of course but only a few will bother.

The problem of course is people are always looking for the magic bullet. The gadget that is going to save all this money. In fact the savings are usually non-existent. Mini-fluorescent lights are an outstanding example. The do use less electricity but they cost 5 to 10 mimes more because they require a lot of energy to make. They are also imported all the way from China so moving containers full of these things half way around the world to my living room using diesel trucks and diesel ships and diesel trains hardly seems like energy efficiency to me. In addition they are designed for continuous use and when used that way their lifespan is longer than a regular bulb. However that is NOT the way most people use them which is on and off. Of course they fail after a year or two and then you have to import some more from half way around the world.

So if you REALLY want to conserve energy turn things off when you are not using them is the simplest and least cost method. Saving energy should cost you nothing or it is a waste of time.

An finally I am not aware of the safety issues you cite with respect to nuclear power stations that limit their use. Can you explain what they are. Since I have been working in nuclear power plants for the better part of 40 years I do not understand what you mean and have no recollection of ever feeling unsafe standing on under or at the side of an operating reactor.

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

I think all we need to do is educate our children and ourselves about energy but for this selfish self centred boomer generation that bleats about the environment at every turn and invented the NIMBY syndrome while getting in their Hummers to drive 500m to get a big Mac - there is no hope.

Fortunately for us Einsten and Fermi showed us how to get energy out of useless lumps of rock. So when all the fossil fuel is gone the lights will stay on and we'll figure out some way to fuel the Hummers and the Cameros

Malcolm

Don Hirschberg says

I haven't read all the comments above but I've read enough that they convey the message of family go light.

That's no longer an option. Family go light now means too many people on this planet and we have no solution.

Merlin C. Stansbury says

With regard to energy, the US has had wake up calls in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. It is time to act. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Many developed, developing and undeveloped countries are competing for the same limited resource. Vital and strategic oil and gas resources lie in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Take a look at their surrounding neighbors - Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Samalia, Yemen, etc. We in the US are paying a very high price for inexpensive gasoline at the pump!

To do this in the short term will require a move to energy conservation and efficiency. I still see much of the US populous driving around in large gas guzzling cars and truck, stuck in traffic, with one person in a 2-3 ton vehicle. This has to change. Advertising on TV, newpapers, radio, and magizines should be promotiing energy efficient instead of gas guzzling vehicles, mass transit, and car pooling. Our city infrastructures should be designed to support mass transit (trains, subways, buses, bicycles, and walking). Our building codes and regulations should mandate energy efficiency and alternative and distributed energy.

In the interim, we must move to domestic resources of nuclear, coal (clean technology), gas and hydro electric power. We must also move to altenatives such as wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.

Of course, to do this, the populous must be on-board and motivated. We will have to educate them to the need to change. Change does not come easily. Politically, this is sensitive. Both Republicans and Democrats will have to be on board to promote a win-win scenario. Regulations will have to change to ease siting and routing of facilities. That is not to say that we should compromise standards of safety, health, secuity, reliability, quality, and the environment. We should take the lead.

The move to a new energy economy will require an educated workforce. Children should be inspired to become proficient in math, science, technology, and engineering.

Best to all!

Merlin C. Stansbury PE (TX and LA) Stansbury Consulting LLC 6500 Fairview Road Hixson, TN 37343

423-842-7052 merlinstansbury@bellsouth.net

Bob Amorosi says

Providing education and detailed knowledge about their energy uses and costs, through technology if it is practical, could do wonders. These segments of the population already tend to go out of their way to save a few bucks. It is common for them to compare their spending habits on consumer goods with their friends and neighbors just to educate one another on where the best prices are, and whose products have the lowest operating costs. Energy in my humble opinion should be viewed like any other consumer product, e.g. which is “purchased” every time you throw a switch, or fill up your car's gas tank. At least gas stations (by law in many places) show the consumer using electronic metering displays on the pumps exactly how much gasoline you are buying in real time, but such is not the case when you throw a switch.

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Bob Amorosi says

It's amazing how fast word spreads in on-line product reviews, for if your product is viewed very poorly by the majority of buyers on-line, such bad publicity can literally blow it out of the water and it won't sell. And it’s all because of better consumer education using technology.

Bob Amorosi says

It's nice to dream sometimes.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Len would have the utility (almost certainly at MY expense) install some gadget that tells me what the real time price of electricity is so I can leap to my washing machine in a single bound when the price drops below 2c/kWatt hour. The gas company which likely deals with the similar ups and downs of price and supply as the electricity business would not require to do that. But then I suppose you can store gas but you can't store electricity. So that locks in my case for putting in a natural gas generator and disconnecting from the grid.

Only one connection charge lots of shale gas to keep the price down and stable pricing.

Bob is right though - people need to be educated in how to conserve electricity. My parents like many here I would guess, were depression era folks. They managed on very little and topped that experience off with a war where they were living on even less and bombed daily. But they taught me well and I keep my usage of everything to the lowest achievable. I have not taught my kids well enough though because they have not had the experience of not having everything they want (partly my fault I will admit). So while they will happily leave the bathroom light on all night Dad used to go around turning them off.

I think it is going to be very difficult to break these North American habits. But this is the age of persuasion so may be a few clever ad agencies can develop the message that many people need to hear.

But going back to IMEUC while it may be good for the grid - of one thing I am certain - it will not make my bill go down. Very likely, like all the other ideas it will make it go up.

Highly sceptical of "improvements" that cost billions to implement. Guess where the billions come from? Electricity bills of course.

I'll just stick to switching stuff off when its not needed. And if that doesn't keep things under control we'll throw the big black breaker in the corner, lock it up and shut it down for good. Then the grid can do whatever the grid wants to do - as long as I'm not footing the bill.

Malcolm

Bob Amorosi says

If I understand Len's IMEUC, you're correct, the customer would have real-time prices communicated to them all the time. The theory is there would be no need for manual leaping to one's washing machine to turn it on at the moment the price dropped to an acceptable level. It would be quite simple for a central home load controller to do this.

The central home load controller would simply monitors real-time grid prices from many local generation sources, and using customer programmed preset thresholds in software it merely communicates on-off signals to appliances equipped with remote controls. In other words lots of embedded electronics in appliances and in a controller that talks to real-time prices from the grid all automatically.

IMEUC more importantly allows for open competition between generators on the grid to sell energy directly to customers. In essence, the central home load controller monitors multiple generator wholesale prices in real-time, and say it spots a great deal from the nearby nuclear plant or from your local wind turbine that beats all other nearby generation source prices. IMEUC allows you to sign on to that generator's price, and other customers can follow suit too until its capacity is used up, at which point its price is no longer up for grabs. You then stay with that generator choice until you choose at a later time or date to switch to another.

This of course complicates the billing process tremendously since the TOU consumption of each customer will have different rates that vary not only in time but also on which generator was signed up to. There can obviously end up being many generators used by a single customer’s bill during a monthly billing period. This is one reason why Len firmly believes that smart meters should be owned by the customer himself and not by the local distribution utility. Another reason is to allow the customer to control software and hardware upgrades to his smart meter when needed for his own purposes, since the smart meter’s communications network is likely the most logical choice for the communication path with the grid. A software or hardware upgrade for example might be simply enabling the communications between his home load controller and the grid if the smart meter didn’t have it to begin with. Kind of like adding a modem to your home PC when you decide you need one.

I know what you’re thinking Malcolm, IMEUC would result in far more electronics technology in the grid and in customer’s homes at considerable expense. In principle however this extra cost would be offset because IMEUC would allow participating customers to at least “minimize” their electricity bills by automatically shopping for the best real-time generator prices. Too, if customers owned their smart meters, the customer would foot the bills for any upgrades to their own meters, not the utility company. This would be really no different than customers who buy home PC’s, and later buy upgrades from a computer store to add new features to their home PC.

In my opinion however, there are tremendous political hurdles to ever realize anything like IMEUC. It would virtually abolish customer price regulation as we have it now, and result in customers themselves buying their energy directly from generators. This represents a revolutionary change in the way local distribution-only utility companies financially operate and bill customers, and would be like pulling teeth to get their support of.

Bob

Bob Amorosi says

I should further point out that some of the necessary electronics are ALREADY appearing in smart meter systems and in consumer appliances that would be needed to implement Len's IMEUC. Smart meters are already being equipped with customer price communication links for future smart appliance load controls, known as "demand response" technology. Appliance manufacturers are also starting to implement the necessary wireless communications and remote control capability into them for this emerging technology.

The trouble is that most smart metering has been designed with severe bandwidth limitations in their communications network. IMEUC would require internet-like response speeds and much more software in the meters and their administrations systems to handle. Indeed from what I learned about smart meter electronics, they would all require much more memory for the extra software and probably dual processors because the one processor in them now is dedicated to performing real-time power and energy calculations 98% of the time. Not technically a big deal, but it would add considerable complexity and cost to the meters, which the current utility company business model wouldn't pay for unless forced to by governments on all customers.

Bob

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Bob Amorosi says

Your last comments to Malcolm now make me understand better why perhaps distribution utility companies would be opposed to IMEUC. They would be "sidelined" indeed since they would not be able to enjoy regulated rate-case increases as easily as they do now to charge their self-determined distribution fee portion of our bills.

Hmmmm,… I wonder if Malcolm does work for a distribution utility company. I always assumed he worked for a nuclear plant since he has been so strongly in favor of a lot more nuclear, but I may be wrong.

Malcolm BTW is not unlike many average consumers in their preference to maintain the status quo on a number of things. Many consumers despise the emerging smart meters, TOU billing, public money being thrown at renewable source generation in the form of massive subsidies in Ontario, and the emergence of expensive electrification of cars. These are all subjects that Malcolm ridicules vigorously on this website.

The bottom line is the government and the public should be looking fervently for ways to minimize their energy bills through conservation, efficiency upgrades, and especially technology that gives consumers more freedom of choices for their energy sources. Things like IMEUC, much more public education, and much more electronics technology in the hands of consumers would help achieve these things, which is what you and I have been preaching on this website for a long time now.

I have the answer Len - you or I should run for political office so we can become Ontario's next Minister of Energy. Then we would have some real influence over seeing these things adopted. I'm sure some of the others who write on this website would then be terrified if one of us actually became a Minister of Energy. But things have been worse in Ontario in the past when you consider distant past Ontario premiers have been former school teachers or former car salesmen.

Bob

Kent Wright says

Michael Keller says

Stop wasting money on the meters and redirect the resources towards significantly increasing energy efficiency. Mike Carter has it exactly right.

I’d go even further. There a millions of really inefficient heating and cooling machines and the net energy impact is huge – just look at the energy consumed in summer and winter. Because the government confiscates about 50% of our income, most consumers have great difficulty affording new very efficient equipment. Significantly increase tax credits to help quickly phase out the energy hogs. Not only would emissions be significantly reduced, but economic activity would be noticeably improved because the consumer would have more money to spend as they see fit.

Utilities may complain about “lost revenue”, but that’s too bad. Deal with it like all other businesses that are not “guaranteed” a profit. As far as the government is concerned – stop telling everybody what to do; we are quite capable of making our own decisions.

Jack Ellis says

For those who advocate conservation and object to higher bills, please help me understand how one motivates consumers to act in ways that are contrary to classical economic theory? The price of electricity is (or should be) directly related to its "scarcity". If it's not scarce, then why are we bothering to promote conservation? There will be some consumers who practice conservation because they have limited incomes, and others who will practice conservation because that's the way they are. It would seem most consumers, however, are only going to be motivated by sharply higher prices.

Don Hirschberg says

Even though I have an all-electric house and have a relatively low income my electric bill is quite minor compared to taxes: federal and state income taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, fuel taxes,and sales taxes. There are even several small taxes added to my monthly electric bill.

I don't know where most of tax payments go, I do know where my electric payments go.

I have always had good electric service and consider my present rates fair. I'm sure there is an application for smart meters but will hardly make a jnd for me.

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Regarding your tax bills, you in the US should simply straighten out your medical insurance system and reduce your military budget to something rational (did Isreal pay anything for those 1000 state-of-art fighter-bombers you recently "sold" to them? Many others.)

James Carson says

As for the article itself. I didn't get very far past "Another 40% is split equally between natural gas and coal. Since significantly increasing these energy sources is not likely." Has he never heard of shale gas?

I would also like to point out that the peak year for per capita energy use in the United States was 1979, and that energy consumption per dollar of real gdp has fallen dramatically since then.

Don Hirschberg says

Simply, he says. Aint nothing simple about these two problems. There are "simply" too many evil people using evil religions for us to do much defense cutting - even as this spending is sinking us. And we haven't seen anything yet as oil depletion progresses.

As to medical costs, starting decades ago as I witnessed the exponential growth of medical care I realized medical costs were on the path to becoming more than we, humans, can pay. Long ago I thought what will we do when it costs $100,000 before a preemie comes home. Well, that day is now. And I have a neighbor who is getting a series of cancer treatments at about my yearly income per pop.

Are we to spend a million dollars (it has to be tax money) to treat one person when millions of people are on the verge of dying of starvation. This is every day and it is getting worse, much worse.

Every year medical procedures become more costly. Although it is not called such - rationing is already in play. The arithmetic requires rationing. More rationing every year. So to speak of "straighten out your medical insurance system" as we have always know it is already impossible.

How much should people who want to save up to send their kids to college spend to treat me, to extend my life? Nothing.

Jack Ellis says

Please guys, energy is headache enough without dragging medical care into these discussions.

Don Hirschberg says

Len Gould says

Don Hirschberg says

Perhaps Canada's system is what you like and it just might be about as good a system that can be devised. but to call it "more democratic" is doublespeak, i.e.where the government decides for everyone.

Imagine a doctor being arrested on Monday for participation in an assisted suicide and on Tuesday for saving a man's life using a "not covered" procedure. Ought the untreatable dying man still be alive to suffer on a while longer, and ought the illegally treated man be dead? And the doctor punished?

Len Gould says

Bob Amorosi says

The first is simply not paying for some things which tend to be the newest procedures or newest drugs that emerge. Typically when a new drug comes out, especially patented ones where initial supply is extremely limited, the drug manufacturers get away with massive gouging by charging astronomical prices. In time if their prices in some cases drop, and especially if their effectiveness gains a track record, they then become more likely to be approved for coverage in Canada. Similar story for new medical procedures with few specialists initially trained to perform.

The second pathway is rationing by limiting the numbers of doctors or hospitals available to perform some procedures. They still get covered where no one is denied the procedure, but in reality the limitations on service points creates excruciatingly long waiting lists. These tend to be procedures to fix less life-threatening conditions, like hip- or knee-replacement surgeries, etc. Aside from limiting money spent, a result of this "time rationing" is greater numbers of wealthier patients who pt to travel to the US and buy it with money from their own pockets sooner. In fact some Canadian hospitals will actually partially pay to send patients to the US for cases that would have to wait much too long in Canada.

So Don, unlke in the US, no one really gets denied medicare for any ailment, it's just that we don't always get the state-of-the-art treatment in all cases, or don't always get timely access. These are tolerable by most Canadians as long as people don't die waiting for access, or as long as there is no prolonged endurances of pain and suffering.

James Carson says

Bob Amorosi says

Some may call this rationing of energy, but any way you want to look at it, the days of endless cheap energy supply on demand will gradually disappear in North America. These and other measures like load shifting under Time-Of-Use billing with the emerging smart meters will make it less painful on the pocketbooks of all consumers who choose to participate.

Bob Amorosi says

This is what I refer to as government market tinkering to get desired energy rationing, which BTW will often result in more expensive products much to the dissatisfaction of consumers who buy them.

Don Hirschberg says

The first sentence merely quotes Len to establish the subject.

My first sentence says perhaps the Canadian system might be as good a solution to the problem as there can be, but that it is not, as claimed, "more democratic".

My third and fourth sentences suggest the kinds of unintended consequences that can result from government bureaucrats (not necessarily Canadians) making all the rules.

Don Hirschberg says

This is a false statement about the US, but understandable because of all the political rhetoric during the so-called debate in the US.healthcare.

One of the most serious problems was that hospitals could not by law refuse to treat people who had neither insurance nor means to pay. So many millions jobbed the system, took their kids to emergency rooms because they had runny noses to get treatment from emergency staff at very high cost to the public, insurance buyers and tax payers. These people were advised to see their family doctor next time but they could not be turned away.

The fact is that most of the people who had no health insurance needn't have been worse off financially than many millions who did manage to have insurance. If you don't pay premiums it's like having a whole lot of money to spend every month - whee. These cheats 'votes count as much as yours do so elected officials don't want means tests for free benits - how inhuman.

True indigents got Medicaid, extra Social Security benefits and early (before 65) Medicare.

the most serious health problem among the "poor" is simply overeating and the ailments resulting..

Len Gould says

"Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most."

Or simply Google "Bancrupcy Medical Costs", a uniquely US problem.

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Don Hirschberg says

As for "underpopulation" , perhaps it's merely in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps it's a matter of what the definition of "underpopulation" is, is.

Victor Bush says

If you accept that premise, then the question becomes - do we need to raise the price of energy via a carbon tax to encourage conservation? I believe the answer is yes but that is political suicide in the current economic cycle so conservation probably won’t happen until it becomes painful.

Don Hirschberg says

In other words humans are so lacking in character, so venal. they will do the right thing only if you put their feet in the fire. If this is so, why bother?

God told us to multiply. We did that. Now what do we do? I don't think He planned this out very well.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

And Don, did you notice that poor Stan McChrystal wears his expert infantry badge, while his replace has as many ribbons on his jacket as those Russians that we used to laugh at. That's not the army we were in.

Len, so deregulation is causing you a problem. Interesting. I was at a conference in Brussels a few years ago, and except for the morons who work for the EU, I thought that just about everybody had gotten the message about electric deregulation. Of course they don't get it here in Sweden, which is why they might find themselves without any industry someday.

Don Hirschberg says

It doesn't rule me but my DNA is conservative. My father thought lying was about the worst crime people like us could commit. We did not lie. ( I have not the least doubt this handicapped the careers of him, my brother and me.) He hated FDR and Winnie because they were liars, consummate liars.

I am quite unhappy about McChrystal How he was so stupid, so unguarded How sad. But so did I think about McArthur. It hurts to say it but Truman and Obama were right. How fatuous and snobby but yet this 2nd Lt. feels something in common with them both.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

But knowing what happens in the great world of men and things, none of this was a mystery to Fred. Dugout Doug was furious with his superiors because they made him choose between his mistress (Scots-filippina) and his job. I don't blame him, but I wouldn't have gone off the deep end.

I still remember when Truman relieved Macarthur. I had my first drink of champagne after playing in an Army-Air Force Bowl game (2nd or 3rd team of course), and if I had thought of it when Truman made his announcement, , I would have bought a couple of bottles that day and consumed one of them on the streets while I was walking home.

Tom Lyons says

http://www.sunrisesolarnow.com

Rajon Mestra says