The BP/Gulf disaster was a watershed moment for me. It broke my tenuous belief that companies and governments would generally do the right thing. Clearly no oil company was ready to drill below 5,000 feet, and future leases should reflect that reality. BP has done the world a favor by consistently using phrases like "Never before has this been attempted at depths below 5,000 feet" to reduce the public expectations for positive outcomes. Logically if that is true, then why the heck are we allowing oil exploration to continue below those depths?
"We must be the change we wish to see", said Gandhi. Not only does this point out that change must begin within each of us -- our actions and attitudes must change before we can expect others (companies and governments too) to change. But it also implies that each of us, as an individual, holds incredible power to change the world.
Be the change you wish to be. Turn up your AC temperature this summer, or simply open the windows and use a fan. Change out your lights to more efficient CFL or LED lamps. Drive less. Change yourself first, then demand that our government change its energy policy to one that is clean and sustainable.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
L-Prize about to be won?
Maybe you have heard of the X-Prize -- a contest to spur the public to get involved with space flight (not just governments)? Burt Rutan won that prize in 2004 with his SpaceShipOne.
Well there is a similar prize for Lighting called the L-Prize. It was designed to "spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb". Philips applied for the prize late last year. The competition continues, but they have already won the Time "The 50 best inventions of 2009" award. Philips isn't selling this lamp at the moment, nor do they even have a name for it, but Philips is a recognized leader in LED lighting technology.
The key requirement for the L-Prize is "solid-state" -- in other words LED. There is an fantastic potential for these devices. They last a long time (75,000+ hours), have higher energy efficiency than the best available CFL lamps, come in colors (many 'shades' of white as well), and can be dimmable through a full range (1% is no problem).
They do suffer from three key disadvantages (at the moment). Heat management is an issue (hard to believe since they draw a total of about 6 to 10 watts compared to 'burn-your-fingers-off incandescent lamps' at 40 to 100 watts). Totally spherical light output is hard to achieve (light mostly comes from the top of the lamp, not the bottom). And the killer is cost, which ranges from about $20 to $60. Those prices are what early adopters will pay, and will become lower over time, just as CFLs once sold for $30 and now can be bought in Walmart for $2.
However, even at crazy high prices, the lamps tend to pay for themselves in about 2-3 years due to increased energy efficiency and relamping savings. And prices are already on the way down. Enter the LSG A19 429 lumen (40 watt equivalent) lamp, soon to be marketed through Home Depot, lamp for $20.
Another entry at a much higher price point in that same market is the Pharox III marketed through Amazon.com as a '60 watt' equivalent. That 60-watt equivalent is a technical specification error on Amazon's part (the lamp efficiency is 60 lumens per watt, not 60 watts). Note that the rated 336 lumen output it doesn't even stack up to the light output of a 35 watt equivalent, let alone 500 lumens for a 40 watt, or the 850 lumen for a 60 watt incandescent lamp).
GE, never to be outdone in the lighting marketplace, is introducing their 40-watt replacement GE Energy Smart® LED bulb later this year at $40 to $50. They are marketing their lamp as closer to the spherical light output characteristics than other manufacturers. GE is wonderful at marketing their name and has the retail shelf space to prove it. That means they can most likely beat a no-name brand sold at half the price, even if it that brand is made in the USA (GE lighting products are often not made in the USA). How well they will stack up against the more useful Philips product (there are a lot more 60 watt lamps sold each year than 40 watt lamps), given that companies reputation as a leader in LED technology remains to be seen.
A few words of caution, with the exception of the LSG lamp listed above, if it costs less than $30, you can bet it is NOT DIMMABLE. Always check for this key ability if you need it. If it doesn't say dimmable, it isn't!
Well there is a similar prize for Lighting called the L-Prize. It was designed to "spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb". Philips applied for the prize late last year. The competition continues, but they have already won the Time "The 50 best inventions of 2009" award. Philips isn't selling this lamp at the moment, nor do they even have a name for it, but Philips is a recognized leader in LED lighting technology.
The key requirement for the L-Prize is "solid-state" -- in other words LED. There is an fantastic potential for these devices. They last a long time (75,000+ hours), have higher energy efficiency than the best available CFL lamps, come in colors (many 'shades' of white as well), and can be dimmable through a full range (1% is no problem).
They do suffer from three key disadvantages (at the moment). Heat management is an issue (hard to believe since they draw a total of about 6 to 10 watts compared to 'burn-your-fingers-off incandescent lamps' at 40 to 100 watts). Totally spherical light output is hard to achieve (light mostly comes from the top of the lamp, not the bottom). And the killer is cost, which ranges from about $20 to $60. Those prices are what early adopters will pay, and will become lower over time, just as CFLs once sold for $30 and now can be bought in Walmart for $2.
However, even at crazy high prices, the lamps tend to pay for themselves in about 2-3 years due to increased energy efficiency and relamping savings. And prices are already on the way down. Enter the LSG A19 429 lumen (40 watt equivalent) lamp, soon to be marketed through Home Depot, lamp for $20.
Another entry at a much higher price point in that same market is the Pharox III marketed through Amazon.com as a '60 watt' equivalent. That 60-watt equivalent is a technical specification error on Amazon's part (the lamp efficiency is 60 lumens per watt, not 60 watts). Note that the rated 336 lumen output it doesn't even stack up to the light output of a 35 watt equivalent, let alone 500 lumens for a 40 watt, or the 850 lumen for a 60 watt incandescent lamp).
GE, never to be outdone in the lighting marketplace, is introducing their 40-watt replacement GE Energy Smart® LED bulb later this year at $40 to $50. They are marketing their lamp as closer to the spherical light output characteristics than other manufacturers. GE is wonderful at marketing their name and has the retail shelf space to prove it. That means they can most likely beat a no-name brand sold at half the price, even if it that brand is made in the USA (GE lighting products are often not made in the USA). How well they will stack up against the more useful Philips product (there are a lot more 60 watt lamps sold each year than 40 watt lamps), given that companies reputation as a leader in LED technology remains to be seen.
A few words of caution, with the exception of the LSG lamp listed above, if it costs less than $30, you can bet it is NOT DIMMABLE. Always check for this key ability if you need it. If it doesn't say dimmable, it isn't!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
There is hope...
In 10 years time, America has increased wind generation capacity by a factor of almost 13, one third of that coming in the last year alone. With cheaper and more abundant sources of equipment and expertise, this trend will certainly continue. With 35 GW of capacity at the end of 2009, that represents about 22% of the world's total installed wind power (about 160 GW), so we are catching up fast. We are now #1 on the list of countries (unless you consider the entire EU a single country, in which case they generate twice as much in total). America's total power generation capacity is 101,050 GW, so that means wind has increased from about 0.25% to 3.3% of our total capacity in the last decade. If the trend continues over the next decade, wind power could represent 30% of our total electrical capacity. Who says renewable energy is just a dream?!?
Visual aspects of wind power generation aside, we can't continue our reliance on fossil fuels to generate power for us. It is bad for the air we breath, the water we drink, and the fish we eat. Far too many people die defending the supply line, mining the earth, or in well explosions -- and the disasters of late simply drive this home. Yet our political leaders both current and past have done NOTHING to move us forward. Please just give us a Kennedy-like challenge to become green and sustainable by the end of this decade. This is a solvable problem if we just have the courage to accept it and bear the pain for the short time that will be required to move us to a better place.
Visual aspects of wind power generation aside, we can't continue our reliance on fossil fuels to generate power for us. It is bad for the air we breath, the water we drink, and the fish we eat. Far too many people die defending the supply line, mining the earth, or in well explosions -- and the disasters of late simply drive this home. Yet our political leaders both current and past have done NOTHING to move us forward. Please just give us a Kennedy-like challenge to become green and sustainable by the end of this decade. This is a solvable problem if we just have the courage to accept it and bear the pain for the short time that will be required to move us to a better place.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Insane Energy Policy?
This isn't my usual sort of blog entry, but the recent mining deaths in W VA, and the pending environmental disaster (and deaths) due to the BP oil-well failure in the Gulf really just points out that America's energy policy is out of touch with reality.
Forty years ago, we could have taken a much cleaner and safer path to nuclear energy, but instead we listened to fear-mongers and their dire predictions of nuclear disaster. That has kept us forever tied to fossil fuels. The irony of all of this is the real disasters that have befallen the planet over and over again as oil is spilled, wells fail, and coal mines explode.
Our lakes and rivers are so polluted with mercury (byproduct of burning coal) that people are warned not to eat fish more than once per week and pregnant women are told not to eat it at all.
Compare the growing stack of bodies lost harvesting traditional energy sources to the number of people that have died in nuclear incidents and the imagined damage to the environment planet wide that simply didn't happen to the magnitude of what appears to be acceptable collateral damage caused by our current energy policy.
All energy sources pose some danger, some just have far less than others. America got hood-winked into picking the worst of the lot.
But there is hope. Renewable energy supplies are poking their heads above the ground and attempting to spring to life. If we keep going, maybe 40 years from now we might be in a sane place.
Forty years ago, we could have taken a much cleaner and safer path to nuclear energy, but instead we listened to fear-mongers and their dire predictions of nuclear disaster. That has kept us forever tied to fossil fuels. The irony of all of this is the real disasters that have befallen the planet over and over again as oil is spilled, wells fail, and coal mines explode.
Our lakes and rivers are so polluted with mercury (byproduct of burning coal) that people are warned not to eat fish more than once per week and pregnant women are told not to eat it at all.
Compare the growing stack of bodies lost harvesting traditional energy sources to the number of people that have died in nuclear incidents and the imagined damage to the environment planet wide that simply didn't happen to the magnitude of what appears to be acceptable collateral damage caused by our current energy policy.
All energy sources pose some danger, some just have far less than others. America got hood-winked into picking the worst of the lot.
But there is hope. Renewable energy supplies are poking their heads above the ground and attempting to spring to life. If we keep going, maybe 40 years from now we might be in a sane place.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
How much does your cable box suck?
I did some power monitoring our our entertainment equipment. I had been concerned about the "vampire" load of our high-def cable box, and was not surprised to find that it pulls 68 watts in BOTH the on and off state (my only surprise was that they bothered to put a power button on it at all since it appears to do nothing of value). At our current electrical rate the set-top box costs us $107 per year to operate.
Unfortunately, it is a particularly bad candidate for turning off because it takes many hours to recover all the channel information after a power-cut.
Also in the "ungood" news department, our 50 inch HDTV is pulling 225 watts, well above the 153 watt Energy Star 4 rating which goes into effect in May. "Honey, we are killing the environment, can I buy a new TV that will save us 72 watts per hour?" (AYOOYM? It will take us
139,000 hours of viewing just to break-even. That's 16 years if we leave it on 24/7.)
Unfortunately, it is a particularly bad candidate for turning off because it takes many hours to recover all the channel information after a power-cut.
Also in the "ungood" news department, our 50 inch HDTV is pulling 225 watts, well above the 153 watt Energy Star 4 rating which goes into effect in May. "Honey, we are killing the environment, can I buy a new TV that will save us 72 watts per hour?" (AYOOYM? It will take us
139,000 hours of viewing just to break-even. That's 16 years if we leave it on 24/7.)
Saturday, January 23, 2010
My Desktop used HOW much power last year?
Well it shouldn't come as a surprise, but I left a power monitor attached to my primary computer (a high-end quad core beast, with a large 26 inch LCD display). I remembered to check the meter today and discovered I had been logging power use for 9,500 hours (which is almost exactly 13 months). The figures worked out like this:
So why do I bring this up? Pretty much to make the point that PCs need to be turned off when not in use -- especially high-end desktops, which consume huge amounts of power. It also makes me ponder the viability of a desktops in the first place.
My new MacBook Pro consumes less than 85 watts of power when it is on, and has pretty impressive graphic performance (good enough for all but the leading-edge games). If I were to simply dock that to a large monitor I would have a computing experience that was almost identical at a fraction of the power (probably 1/5). So that would be $190 a year in my pocket in terms of power savings.
Now the power consumption I am reporting is for the Monitor and Desktop itself. I did NOT measure the power consumed by the UPS, which as I have mentioned before, depending on model, can be quite inefficient -- especially on stand-by. Another advantage of a laptop is that a UPS is no longer required (the battery in the laptop performs that roll). So the laptop avoids the first cost of purchase of a UPS and saves just about another $50 a year.
- 9,500 hours of monitoring
- 1,440 KWH of power consumed
- $262 expended
- Average of 152 watts/hour
So why do I bring this up? Pretty much to make the point that PCs need to be turned off when not in use -- especially high-end desktops, which consume huge amounts of power. It also makes me ponder the viability of a desktops in the first place.
My new MacBook Pro consumes less than 85 watts of power when it is on, and has pretty impressive graphic performance (good enough for all but the leading-edge games). If I were to simply dock that to a large monitor I would have a computing experience that was almost identical at a fraction of the power (probably 1/5). So that would be $190 a year in my pocket in terms of power savings.
Now the power consumption I am reporting is for the Monitor and Desktop itself. I did NOT measure the power consumed by the UPS, which as I have mentioned before, depending on model, can be quite inefficient -- especially on stand-by. Another advantage of a laptop is that a UPS is no longer required (the battery in the laptop performs that roll). So the laptop avoids the first cost of purchase of a UPS and saves just about another $50 a year.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What a difference a recession can make!
Boy, it's been almost a year since my last post. Seeing as how the entire planet came unglued during that time, it isn't too surprising. Like many folks I was hunkered down weathering the storm, and not focusing much time on energy conservation, other than installing predictive thermal controls on my heating system (measures outside temperature, inside demand, and sets the boiler temperature accordingly -- plus it automatically runs the circulator pumps during the summer to ensure the seals stay lubricated). Honeywell Outdoor Temperature Compensator The claim is that by using these control the total heat bill can be reduced about 15% WITHOUT lowering thermostat temperature.
Just for the record, my comments on energy saving items are presented without sponsorship of any kind. If I try it and like it, I let you know. If it is garbage, I'll let you know that too! But as always this is just one Greener Geek's comment.
Just for the record, my comments on energy saving items are presented without sponsorship of any kind. If I try it and like it, I let you know. If it is garbage, I'll let you know that too! But as always this is just one Greener Geek's comment.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tis the season...
...to pay big electric bills. Fa La La La La, La La, La, Ouch!
Feel like you need a personal nuclear reactor just to light your Festivus lights? You might not be far from the truth. You face three choices:
As an example, our backyard display consists of 6 strands of Garlands wrapped around our deck (1,800 bulbs), and three strands wrapped around a small pine tree (300 bulbs). I measured 420 watts for those 2,100 bulbs, or about 0.2 watts each. Expressed another way, you can divide the bulb count by 5 to come up with the wattage.
Our front display consists of 6 strands of Garlands wrapped around two tall bushes (1,800 bulbs), 15 sets of Net Lights on our bushes (2,250 bulbs), and 2 simple strands outlining Bambi, or fake deer (200 bulbs). I measured the total power consumption of our front yard display (4,250 bulbs) at 855 watts.
Our total homage (6,350 bulbs) to the Chrismahanaquanzika season is a wallet-numbing 1,275 watts per hour, which costs just about $0.25. We run the lights from 4 PM until 10 PM, or 6 hours a day, 7 days a week for about 5 weeks. That means the total cost to run our holiday lights is about $105.
Now let's look at using LED lights.
The good news is that the LED bulb itself lasts much longer. The bad news is that it still uses the same sort of cheap socket connections which quickly fail. You are going to be pulling your hair out year after year keeping your expensive LED light strings working. But at least you won't land-fill them because they cost too much.
Speaking of cost, LED lights run about $50 for a set of 150 bulbs. The bad news is that is 16 times more than I spent on the same number of traditional lights. The good news is costs are coming down each year. Maybe we can afford them in another 5 years?
Well at least LED lights save money on power, right? That's the very good news. Yes they do! They use 1/14th the power. So divide the bulb count by 70 and you will have your power consumption.
So let's compare. My 6,350 traditional bulbs consume 1,275 watts, and cost me $105 to run for the season. If I changed over to LED bulbs, then my power bill would be $13, saving $92. But LED lamps would cost me $2,116 to purchase. Even if the strands lasted 10 years (wildly optimistic given build-quality), I would still be about $1,200 in the hole if I used LED technology.
The real bad news is that current LED technology is just a fun experiment. The economics are not even close to there yet.
Maybe the most green approach would be to use five 200 watt solar panel (an array size of about 8x10 feet) to capture enough sunlight during the day (8 hours) to generate the power used for the lights. That panels would cost about $4,500 and require a $1,500 grid-tied inverter (you sell the power to the electric company during the day, and draw power from the grid at night to run your lights). So for $6,000 out of pocket, you can offset your $105 power bill for your lights (and put another $900 or so in your pocket during the rest of the year).
Of course those solar panels will generate zero power if we have a white Christmas -- Bah humbug!
Feel like you need a personal nuclear reactor just to light your Festivus lights? You might not be far from the truth. You face three choices:
- Go without in the spirit of being a GreenerGeek
- Installing the traditional tiny lights and pay the electric company through the nose
- Buying LED lights, paying through the nose for high-tech, and ignore your power bill
As an example, our backyard display consists of 6 strands of Garlands wrapped around our deck (1,800 bulbs), and three strands wrapped around a small pine tree (300 bulbs). I measured 420 watts for those 2,100 bulbs, or about 0.2 watts each. Expressed another way, you can divide the bulb count by 5 to come up with the wattage.
Our front display consists of 6 strands of Garlands wrapped around two tall bushes (1,800 bulbs), 15 sets of Net Lights on our bushes (2,250 bulbs), and 2 simple strands outlining Bambi, or fake deer (200 bulbs). I measured the total power consumption of our front yard display (4,250 bulbs) at 855 watts.
Our total homage (6,350 bulbs) to the Chrismahanaquanzika season is a wallet-numbing 1,275 watts per hour, which costs just about $0.25. We run the lights from 4 PM until 10 PM, or 6 hours a day, 7 days a week for about 5 weeks. That means the total cost to run our holiday lights is about $105.
Now let's look at using LED lights.
The good news is that the LED bulb itself lasts much longer. The bad news is that it still uses the same sort of cheap socket connections which quickly fail. You are going to be pulling your hair out year after year keeping your expensive LED light strings working. But at least you won't land-fill them because they cost too much.
Speaking of cost, LED lights run about $50 for a set of 150 bulbs. The bad news is that is 16 times more than I spent on the same number of traditional lights. The good news is costs are coming down each year. Maybe we can afford them in another 5 years?
Well at least LED lights save money on power, right? That's the very good news. Yes they do! They use 1/14th the power. So divide the bulb count by 70 and you will have your power consumption.
So let's compare. My 6,350 traditional bulbs consume 1,275 watts, and cost me $105 to run for the season. If I changed over to LED bulbs, then my power bill would be $13, saving $92. But LED lamps would cost me $2,116 to purchase. Even if the strands lasted 10 years (wildly optimistic given build-quality), I would still be about $1,200 in the hole if I used LED technology.
The real bad news is that current LED technology is just a fun experiment. The economics are not even close to there yet.
Maybe the most green approach would be to use five 200 watt solar panel (an array size of about 8x10 feet) to capture enough sunlight during the day (8 hours) to generate the power used for the lights. That panels would cost about $4,500 and require a $1,500 grid-tied inverter (you sell the power to the electric company during the day, and draw power from the grid at night to run your lights). So for $6,000 out of pocket, you can offset your $105 power bill for your lights (and put another $900 or so in your pocket during the rest of the year).
Of course those solar panels will generate zero power if we have a white Christmas -- Bah humbug!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Wait, wait, help me understand...
With the Big Three begging for money from Congress, I have seen many folks publishing comments along the lines that the American car producers need to build tiny, inexpensive fuel efficient cars that "Americans want".
Wait, wait, help me understand. As I recall that is EXACTLY what they were doing in the past, making large SUVs and trucks to the tune of 16 million units per year (record breaking sales). The further reality is that with the energy costs on the upward side of the spiral and a credit market crisis, Americans actually are buying NO cars of any kind. How exactly does this translate into the Big Three needing to build crappy econo-boxes in order to survive?
True, to survive they must build cars that Americans want to drive, but extrapolating that to mean tiny gas sippers is ridiculous. Detroit has tried that numerous times and found out that Americans don't buy small gas sippers from American car companies, only from Nissan, Toyota, Kia, etc. Those companies, unencumbered by labor unions and benefit costs (health care and pensions for retirees) are in a much better position to be able to make a profit on small cars that American manufacturers ever will be (unless they go bankrupt and shed their contracts and liabilities).
The ONLY way for American car companies to survive is to rapidly retool themselves to make mid-size and large cars that Americans will buy. That means they will need to dramatically increase the fuel economy of those cars to be positioned for the next upward energy spike (which will be back within a few years). And to do that they need to be developing entire families of plug-hybrid vehicles. Something like the Volt is a baby-step in the right direction, but needs to be sold at 10 times the volume GM is planning (which would help to reduce the absurd $20K premium the Volt is expected to cost over a traditional power-train). Detroit needs to be bold and do this across the board -- in all makes and models -- in order to differentiate themselves from other producers.
If tiny econo-boxes are what Americans want, then write off the big three today and end the suffering now.
Wait, wait, help me understand. As I recall that is EXACTLY what they were doing in the past, making large SUVs and trucks to the tune of 16 million units per year (record breaking sales). The further reality is that with the energy costs on the upward side of the spiral and a credit market crisis, Americans actually are buying NO cars of any kind. How exactly does this translate into the Big Three needing to build crappy econo-boxes in order to survive?
True, to survive they must build cars that Americans want to drive, but extrapolating that to mean tiny gas sippers is ridiculous. Detroit has tried that numerous times and found out that Americans don't buy small gas sippers from American car companies, only from Nissan, Toyota, Kia, etc. Those companies, unencumbered by labor unions and benefit costs (health care and pensions for retirees) are in a much better position to be able to make a profit on small cars that American manufacturers ever will be (unless they go bankrupt and shed their contracts and liabilities).
The ONLY way for American car companies to survive is to rapidly retool themselves to make mid-size and large cars that Americans will buy. That means they will need to dramatically increase the fuel economy of those cars to be positioned for the next upward energy spike (which will be back within a few years). And to do that they need to be developing entire families of plug-hybrid vehicles. Something like the Volt is a baby-step in the right direction, but needs to be sold at 10 times the volume GM is planning (which would help to reduce the absurd $20K premium the Volt is expected to cost over a traditional power-train). Detroit needs to be bold and do this across the board -- in all makes and models -- in order to differentiate themselves from other producers.
If tiny econo-boxes are what Americans want, then write off the big three today and end the suffering now.
Ah, sweet relief !
National Grid, the company that supplies electricity to Rhode Island, has filed for a rate DECREASE. The current rate for delivered electricity is 19 cents per KWh. Effective January 1, that rate will decrease to 16.1 cents. Perhaps that will remove RI from the dubious distinction of having the highest rate in the country? Of course other states will probably be following in RI's footsteps, so we shall see.
This cut will save the average electrical consumer about $13 per month, and comes despite the fact that RI power suppliers generate very little of their electricity from oil. (Suppliers have a clause that ties the value of their energy to the price of oil and gas. So as oil and gas go up or down, so would the value of solar or wind.)
Finally, the retail cost of gasoline continues to drop, having reached $1.79 per gallon right before Thanksgiving. With crude prices below $45 a barrel (gasoline at $1.05 wholesale), I suspect that gasoline will be at $1.50 or less per gallon by the new year. That said, the New England area is transitioning over from gasoline storage to heating oil, which means the price of gasoline may not drop as low as it will in other parts of the country due to reduced supply in the region.
This cut will save the average electrical consumer about $13 per month, and comes despite the fact that RI power suppliers generate very little of their electricity from oil. (Suppliers have a clause that ties the value of their energy to the price of oil and gas. So as oil and gas go up or down, so would the value of solar or wind.)
Finally, the retail cost of gasoline continues to drop, having reached $1.79 per gallon right before Thanksgiving. With crude prices below $45 a barrel (gasoline at $1.05 wholesale), I suspect that gasoline will be at $1.50 or less per gallon by the new year. That said, the New England area is transitioning over from gasoline storage to heating oil, which means the price of gasoline may not drop as low as it will in other parts of the country due to reduced supply in the region.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
What a difference a quarter makes ...
Well it was during June/July of this year that gasoline in RI was selling for $4.30 a gallon. Yesterday I paid $2.15. So in four months, the price has been cut in half, with no bottom in sight.
You have to go back to Spring of 2005 to find similar low prices. An in case you forgot, gas was selling for $1.25 a gallon back in December of 2001 (when I bought my current truck).
Will we see another halving of prices? Depends on how deep the recession goes.
With GM on the verge of going bankrupt, I feel their only chance of survival (short of the ever popular taxpayer funded bailout) is reinventing themselves as a hybrid company (as in Chevy Volt). But with fuel costs dropping so low I suspect the American consumer is not going to be very interested in paying more money for a car that uses less gas.
Sigh.
You have to go back to Spring of 2005 to find similar low prices. An in case you forgot, gas was selling for $1.25 a gallon back in December of 2001 (when I bought my current truck).
Will we see another halving of prices? Depends on how deep the recession goes.
With GM on the verge of going bankrupt, I feel their only chance of survival (short of the ever popular taxpayer funded bailout) is reinventing themselves as a hybrid company (as in Chevy Volt). But with fuel costs dropping so low I suspect the American consumer is not going to be very interested in paying more money for a car that uses less gas.
Sigh.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
A "Home" Sized Nuclear Generator?
Not quite, but how about small community sized? A company called Hyperion is now fabricating self-contained nuclear "power-modules" that are about 3 meters tall and 2 meters around. The power unit is unconditionally stable (you can't cause it to melt-down or go critical).
It produces about 25 Megawatts of energy, enough for a community of 10,000 to 20,000 homes. The initial cost is approximately $2500 to $1250 per home. The produced energy costs approximately $0.10 per KWh.
It's designed to be buried deep underground which makes it pretty inconvenient to steal (unless you have weeks to do the job), it produces little waste (a softball sized fuel pile replaced every 7 years or so), it's safe (reactor breach shuts down the reaction by physical design). And best of all there are no emissions of any kind.
Fascinating technology. Website A story about it
It produces about 25 Megawatts of energy, enough for a community of 10,000 to 20,000 homes. The initial cost is approximately $2500 to $1250 per home. The produced energy costs approximately $0.10 per KWh.
It's designed to be buried deep underground which makes it pretty inconvenient to steal (unless you have weeks to do the job), it produces little waste (a softball sized fuel pile replaced every 7 years or so), it's safe (reactor breach shuts down the reaction by physical design). And best of all there are no emissions of any kind.
Fascinating technology. Website A story about it
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Technology marches on...
There was an interesting post about new Hybrid technology being used in UPS trucks:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/10/28/ups.hybrid.trucks/index.html
UPS is buying seven new "Hydraulic Hybrid" trucks that use diesel motors to run hydraulic pumps that actually turn the wheels. Slowing the vehicle stores hydraulic pressure. Studies found the trucks use 40% less fuel and emit 1/3 less pollution. The biggest "complaint" is the motor is so quiet the drivers think it has stalled!
Now if only that could be reworked for taxis in big cities.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/
UPS is buying seven new "Hydraulic Hybrid" trucks that use diesel motors to run hydraulic pumps that actually turn the wheels. Slowing the vehicle stores hydraulic pressure. Studies found the trucks use 40% less fuel and emit 1/3 less pollution. The biggest "complaint" is the motor is so quiet the drivers think it has stalled!
Now if only that could be reworked for taxis in big cities.
Everything old is new again...
Nope, not a Bob Fosse musical, but life repeating itself. For good or bad I've seen the same energy cycle repeat itself three time in the 70's, 80's and now again. Energy prices soar, become a noticeable part of the family budget, then crash back down. Each run-up in energy prices has been followed by a deep economic downturn that lasts several years.
So here we are today in RI with gas selling for $2.51 or lower. It's the first time that prices today are lower than they were a year ago too, so the fall has been fast and steep.
Now of course that is good news with winter around the corner. But --- the local utility is refusing to cut their budget breaking energy prices (already the highest in the nation and set to go up to $0.19 per KWh in two weeks). They want to wait to ensure the reductions "will last". And many oil customers have found themselves locked into oil prices of $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon, when the spot market price of home heating oil has dropped below $3. So the energy costs won't be reflected in anyone's bill except natural gas customers (projected to be about 40% lower than last winter).
Of course the relaxed energy costs have followed the loss of trillions of dollars in the financial system. I understand that the "core" of the financial meltdown was the housing market in North America -- a well intentioned social program that backfired when the Fed started raising interest rates and sub-prime borrowers could no longer pay off their loans. However, it appears that energy costs may have been grain of sand that tilted us over and caused everything to crash down.
That said, the real tragedy of this entire situation may be the focus will shift from America's long-term energy policy to short-term fixes for the financial system. Falling energy costs take pressure off our need to develop additional stop-gap traditional sources and newer emerging technologies. For the most part this guarantees that America will be ill positioned yet again a decade from now rather than being energy independent. More money is guaranteed to flow out of the country to balance the trade deficit, and more lives will be put in harms way as rouge nations are empowered to do harm as a result of their control of petro dollars.
I'm happy that people may pay less this year to stay warm, but I'm saddened to think that we will be in this same position in the year 2020.
So here we are today in RI with gas selling for $2.51 or lower. It's the first time that prices today are lower than they were a year ago too, so the fall has been fast and steep.
Now of course that is good news with winter around the corner. But --- the local utility is refusing to cut their budget breaking energy prices (already the highest in the nation and set to go up to $0.19 per KWh in two weeks). They want to wait to ensure the reductions "will last". And many oil customers have found themselves locked into oil prices of $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon, when the spot market price of home heating oil has dropped below $3. So the energy costs won't be reflected in anyone's bill except natural gas customers (projected to be about 40% lower than last winter).
Of course the relaxed energy costs have followed the loss of trillions of dollars in the financial system. I understand that the "core" of the financial meltdown was the housing market in North America -- a well intentioned social program that backfired when the Fed started raising interest rates and sub-prime borrowers could no longer pay off their loans. However, it appears that energy costs may have been grain of sand that tilted us over and caused everything to crash down.
That said, the real tragedy of this entire situation may be the focus will shift from America's long-term energy policy to short-term fixes for the financial system. Falling energy costs take pressure off our need to develop additional stop-gap traditional sources and newer emerging technologies. For the most part this guarantees that America will be ill positioned yet again a decade from now rather than being energy independent. More money is guaranteed to flow out of the country to balance the trade deficit, and more lives will be put in harms way as rouge nations are empowered to do harm as a result of their control of petro dollars.
I'm happy that people may pay less this year to stay warm, but I'm saddened to think that we will be in this same position in the year 2020.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Alternatives to CFLs in the not-so-distant future
My 10 year old daughter did a science project on the real energy savings in a home by using CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) last year. She even covered the typical "anti-green" arguments against using CFLs (Mercury and Total Life Cycle Energy Costs). To no ones surprise, CFLs are the way to go.
The future looks bright (don't you hate lighting nerd puns) for emerging technology. About six month ago a milestone was passed when OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) efficiency surpassed that of the most energy efficient fluorescent lamps. While that article stressed energy efficiency, developments continue to be made on other fronts, namely utility and cost to produce.
In the not so distant future, our walls or ceilings may glow with gentle diffuse white light that can be adjusted for color or brightness on a whim, all the while producing that light efficiently and in an environmentally friendly way.
Maybe it is a good time to sell your stock in table lamp companies?
The future looks bright (don't you hate lighting nerd puns) for emerging technology. About six month ago a milestone was passed when OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) efficiency surpassed that of the most energy efficient fluorescent lamps. While that article stressed energy efficiency, developments continue to be made on other fronts, namely utility and cost to produce.
In the not so distant future, our walls or ceilings may glow with gentle diffuse white light that can be adjusted for color or brightness on a whim, all the while producing that light efficiently and in an environmentally friendly way.
Maybe it is a good time to sell your stock in table lamp companies?
Monday, October 6, 2008
So your truck really IS bigger than mine...
And I thought my fuel consumption was high. Turns out the average 18 wheeler consumes about $9000 in fuel idling each year during rest stops to keep the cab cool. Turns out there is a gizmo (imagine that) out there to eliminate that. It's called 'Blue Cool' and it essentially chills a chemical mix (300 pounds of it) while the truck is going down the road -- when you pull off for a bite or a break, the engine goes off and the Blue Cool supplies the chill for 10 hours!
Similar solutions are starting to show up in commercial buildings which form ice during night hours (when it is cooler outside and power is MUCH cheaper). Then during office hours when there is peak power demand, the air conditioning comes from the ice, not electricity.
Similar solutions are starting to show up in commercial buildings which form ice during night hours (when it is cooler outside and power is MUCH cheaper). Then during office hours when there is peak power demand, the air conditioning comes from the ice, not electricity.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Gasp -- Another rate increase for Rhode Island
At least RI continues to strive toward #1 in one area -- the utility announced another 4% rate increase for this November. That will bring our delivered rate to somewhere near 19 cents per KWh.
Rate increases are inevitable (sort of like death and taxes). However you can choose to reduce your demand. After calling 'battle stations' to the family this past month, our power bill was reduced by $120 off the peak of the month before. We are expecting similar reductions in use over the next few months as well.
Rate increases are inevitable (sort of like death and taxes). However you can choose to reduce your demand. After calling 'battle stations' to the family this past month, our power bill was reduced by $120 off the peak of the month before. We are expecting similar reductions in use over the next few months as well.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Its not all about electricity, you know!
The Greener Geek remembers decades ago when his grandfather told him an off-color joke attributed to LBJ. According to President Johnson, a smart man never passed up an opportunity; which, in his mind, was an offer of a free meal, the love of a woman (clearly NOT LBJ's more colorful words), and a chance to go to the bathroom.
As the Greener Geek has gotten older, he understands the imperative to find a bathroom all too well (especially at 3 AM), and has recognized that pain tends to lead one to seek comfort. That applies to the current Geek-mobile -- it's a great ride, looks as new as the day it rolled off the assembly line eight years ago, and sucks (gas) like a Hoover (The person that said "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux" clearly hasn't paid to fill-up my Avalanche).
Given that I drive very little these days (a perk of working out of my home office), and frequently drive a different vehicle when I do, the thought of getting rid of my truck seemed both environmentally foolish and economically crazy. Since I hope to be driving it for another decade, I wanted to see if there wasn't something I could do that would have a significant impact on the gas consumption (running 14 MPG average for the past several years).
Enter the Scan Gauge II. It's a small screen that plugs into the diagnostic connector on every car and light truck sold in American (typically located near the steering wheel or fuse box). Once connected, it is capable of reading all sorts of diagnostic and performance data from your engine. In my case I was seriously interested in fuel consumption. It tells me how many gallons of gas I am burning per hour, my miles per gallon, the cost of a trip, the cost to refill my tank, etc.
Simply plugging in the Scan Gauge doesn't save money by itself, but it does make you very aware of how much you are using and spending ALL THE TIME. I've never seen anything that encourages better driving habits than knowing the last trip to the local GeekMart cost you $11.23.
Following that old maxim "If you measure it you can control it", I have found that my average MPG has increased from 14 to 17 MPG in the last two months. All I did was try to keep my speed to the posted limit and drive without a lead-foot. By following hypermiling techniques, I've seen gas mileage on trips increase to about 25 MPG (I used to get 17).
Now as they say, I'm sure your mileage will vary, but this might be the best $160 you've ever spent.
As the Greener Geek has gotten older, he understands the imperative to find a bathroom all too well (especially at 3 AM), and has recognized that pain tends to lead one to seek comfort. That applies to the current Geek-mobile -- it's a great ride, looks as new as the day it rolled off the assembly line eight years ago, and sucks (gas) like a Hoover (The person that said "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux" clearly hasn't paid to fill-up my Avalanche).
Given that I drive very little these days (a perk of working out of my home office), and frequently drive a different vehicle when I do, the thought of getting rid of my truck seemed both environmentally foolish and economically crazy. Since I hope to be driving it for another decade, I wanted to see if there wasn't something I could do that would have a significant impact on the gas consumption (running 14 MPG average for the past several years).
Enter the Scan Gauge II. It's a small screen that plugs into the diagnostic connector on every car and light truck sold in American (typically located near the steering wheel or fuse box). Once connected, it is capable of reading all sorts of diagnostic and performance data from your engine. In my case I was seriously interested in fuel consumption. It tells me how many gallons of gas I am burning per hour, my miles per gallon, the cost of a trip, the cost to refill my tank, etc.
Simply plugging in the Scan Gauge doesn't save money by itself, but it does make you very aware of how much you are using and spending ALL THE TIME. I've never seen anything that encourages better driving habits than knowing the last trip to the local GeekMart cost you $11.23.
Following that old maxim "If you measure it you can control it", I have found that my average MPG has increased from 14 to 17 MPG in the last two months. All I did was try to keep my speed to the posted limit and drive without a lead-foot. By following hypermiling techniques, I've seen gas mileage on trips increase to about 25 MPG (I used to get 17).
Now as they say, I'm sure your mileage will vary, but this might be the best $160 you've ever spent.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Coming soon - All UPS units are NOT created equal !
The cheap part of me overruled my brain and I made the grave mistake of buying a lesser know (but still popular brand) UPS. Being a good little Geek, I dutifully left the unit plugged in over night to charge the batteries. The next day I was shocked to discover that the case of the UPS was hot to the touch. Heat means power loss. What I discovered made me hot under the collar, and I'll never buy a cheap UPS again.
Data on this is coming up.
Data on this is coming up.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Another inexpensive to operate home server: HP EX470
I had mentioned earlier that I was using a Thecus N5200 as a home server to provide power efficient 24/7 storage for all my photographs, videos and music files. After almost four years of use I had amassed so many photographs (sports photography is a hobby and a typical game will consume 700 or so photographs) that I was starting to worry about losing the entire Thecus box (not to a single disk failure which the RAID array would recover from, but losing the disk controller or box -- recovering files from dead RAID arrays borders on the impossible).
As luck would have it, HP had announced their MediaSmart Server based on Windows Home Server. The 500 GB EX-470 seemed a perfect entry vehicle to start with. I purchased one from Newegg and populated it with two additional 1 TB drives.
Performance testing indicated that the throughput of the HP box was about 2x the speed of the Thecus, with almost no difference between read and write speeds. Finally I had a server that was taking advantage of my Gigabit Ethernet network.
In addition to being a darned fast storage device the server also acts as an automatic backup device for all my windows based machines. Finally I don't have to nag my wife and kids about backing things up to the server -- it all happens automatically. With our desktop and laptop computers taken care of, the only thing missing is support for our two Macs (which can't use the automatic backup).
Add the fact that the box is setup for media sharing, and has full time virus scanning, and you have a winner product.
Power monitoring indicates that the EX-470 pulls about 70 watts 24/7, slightly more than the Thecus consumption of 60 watts. However there is a good reason why. Microsoft has determined that RAID arrays are too difficult for the average home user to maintain -- especially when something goes wrong (like a controller crash). They designed the Windows Home Server to store all the files in a fashion that allows you to plug the drive into a standard controller should the need arise and easily find the files. They also provide automatic "mirroring" of the files to another disk should you enable that feature for a directory (so you mirror just what you need, not an entire disk).
These two features require a bit more disk access on the part of the EX-470, which may need to move a file to balance storage, or to duplicate it if it is mirrored. That translates into a bit more power consumption over time.
The cost to operate the HP EX-470 with three drives is $0.31 a day or $9.53 a month.
As luck would have it, HP had announced their MediaSmart Server based on Windows Home Server. The 500 GB EX-470 seemed a perfect entry vehicle to start with. I purchased one from Newegg and populated it with two additional 1 TB drives.
Performance testing indicated that the throughput of the HP box was about 2x the speed of the Thecus, with almost no difference between read and write speeds. Finally I had a server that was taking advantage of my Gigabit Ethernet network.
In addition to being a darned fast storage device the server also acts as an automatic backup device for all my windows based machines. Finally I don't have to nag my wife and kids about backing things up to the server -- it all happens automatically. With our desktop and laptop computers taken care of, the only thing missing is support for our two Macs (which can't use the automatic backup).
Add the fact that the box is setup for media sharing, and has full time virus scanning, and you have a winner product.
Power monitoring indicates that the EX-470 pulls about 70 watts 24/7, slightly more than the Thecus consumption of 60 watts. However there is a good reason why. Microsoft has determined that RAID arrays are too difficult for the average home user to maintain -- especially when something goes wrong (like a controller crash). They designed the Windows Home Server to store all the files in a fashion that allows you to plug the drive into a standard controller should the need arise and easily find the files. They also provide automatic "mirroring" of the files to another disk should you enable that feature for a directory (so you mirror just what you need, not an entire disk).
These two features require a bit more disk access on the part of the EX-470, which may need to move a file to balance storage, or to duplicate it if it is mirrored. That translates into a bit more power consumption over time.
The cost to operate the HP EX-470 with three drives is $0.31 a day or $9.53 a month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
