Category: energy policy

Zero Energy Buildings: They May Be Coming Sooner Than You Think

Buildings account for approximately 40 percent of the energy (electrical, thermal) used in the U.S. and Europe, and an increasing share of energy used in other parts of the world. Most of this energy today is fossil-fuel based. As a result, this energy use also accounts for a significant share of global emissions of carbon dioxide.

image
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Buildings Energy Data Book

These simple facts make it imperative that buildings, along with transportation fleets and power generation, be primary targets of reduced global energy and fossil fuel demand. This blog post discusses one approach in buildings that is gaining increasing visibility and viability, the introduction of net zero energy buildings and the retrofit of existing buildings to approach net zero energy operation. A net zero energy building (NZEB or ZEB) is most often defined as a building that, over the course of a year, uses as much energy as is produced by renewable energy sources on the building site. This is the definition I will focus on. Other ZEB definitions take into account source energy losses in generation and transmission, emissions (aka zero carbon buildings), total cost (cost of purchased energy is offset by income from sales of electricity generated on-site to the grid), and off-site ZEB’s where the offsetting renewable energy is delivered to the building from off-site generating facilities. Details on these other definitions can be found in the 2006 NREL report CP-550-39833 entitled “Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition”.

The keys to achieving net zero energy buildings are straight forward in principle: first focus on reducing the building’s energy demand through energy efficiency, and then focus on meeting this energy demand, on an annual basis, with onsite renewable energy – e.g., use of localized solar and wind energy generation. This allows for a wide range of approaches due to the many options now available for improved energy efficiency in buildings and the rapidly growing use of solar photovoltaics on building roofs, covered parking areas, and nearby open areas. Most ZEB’s use the electrical grid for energy storage, but some are grid-independent and use on-site battery or other storage (e.g., heat and coolth).

A primary example of what can be done to achieve ZEB status is NREL’s operational RSF (Research Support Facility) at its campus in Golden, Colorado, shown below.

image

It incorporates demand reduction features that are widely applicable to many other new buildings, and some that make sense for residential buildings and retrofits as well (cost issues are discussed below). These include:
– optimal building orientation and office layout, to maximize heat capture from the sun in winter, solar PV generation throughout the year, and use of natural daylight when available
– high performance electrical lighting
– continuous insulation precast wall panels with thermal mass
– windows that can be opened for natural ventilation
– radiant heating and cooling
– outdoor air preheating, using waste heat recovery, transpired solar collectors, and crawl space thermal storage
– aggressive control of plug loads from appliances and other building equipment
– advanced data center efficiency measures
– roof top and parking lot PV arrays

image

U.S. ZEB research is supported by DOE’s Building America Program, a joint effort with NREL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and several industry-based consortia – e.g., the National Institute of Building Sciences and the American Institute of Architects. Many other countries are exploring ZEB’s as well, including jointly through the International Energy Agency’s “Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings” Implementing Agreement (Solar Heating and Cooling Program/Task 40). This IEA program has now documented and analyzed more than 300 net zero energy and energy-plus buildings worldwide (an energy-plus building generates more energy than it consumes).

image

An interesting example of ZEB technology applied to a residential home is NREL’s Habitat for Humanity zero energy home (ZEH), a 1,280 square foot, 3-bedroom Denver area home built for low income occupants. NREL report TP-550-431888 details the design of the home and includes performance data from its first two years of operation (“The NREL/Habitat for Humanity Zero Energy Home: a Cold Climate Case Study for Affordable Zero Energy Homes”). The home exceeded its goal of zero net source energy and was a net energy producer for these two years (24% more in year one and 12% more in year two). The report concluded that “Efficient, affordable ZEH’s can be built with standard construction techniques and off-the-shelf equipment.”

image

The legislative environment for ZEB’s is interesting as well. To quote from the Whole Building Design Guide of the National Institute of Building Sciences:
“Federal Net Zero Energy Building Goals
Executive Order 13514, signed in October 2009, requires all new Federal buildings that are entering the planning process in 2020 or thereafter be “designed to achieve zero-net-energy by 2030”. “In addition, the Executive Order requires at least 15% of existing buildings (over 5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015, with annual progress towards 100% conformance”.
Two milestones for NZEB have also been defined by the Department of Energy (DOE) for residential and commercial buildings. The priority is to create systems integration solutions that will enable:
Marketable Net Zero Energy Homes by the year 2020
Commercial Net Zero Energy Buildings at low incremental cost by the year 2025.
These objectives align with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which calls for a 100% reduction in fossil-fuel energy use (relative to 2003 levels) for new Federal buildings and major renovations by 2030.”

A word about cost: ZEB’s cost more today to build than traditional office buildings and homes, but not much more (perhaps 20% for new construction). Of course, part of this extra cost is recovered via reduced energy bills. In the future, the zero energy building goal will become more practical as the costs of renewable energy technologies decrease (e.g., PV panel costs have decreased significantly in recent years) and the costs of traditional fossil fuels increase. The recent surge in availability of relatively low cost shale gas from fracking wells will slow this evolution but it will eventually occur. Additional research on cost-effective efficiency options is also required.

To sum up, the net zero energy building concept is receiving increasing global attention and should be a realistic, affordable option within a few decades, and perhaps sooner. ZEB’s offer many advantages, as listed by Wikipedia:
“- isolation for building owners from future energy price increases
– increased comfort due to more-uniform interior temperatures
– reduced total net monthly cost of living
– improved reliability – photovoltaic systems have 25-year warranties – seldom fail during weather problems
– extra cost is minimized for new construction compared to an afterthought retrofit
– higher resale value as potential owners demand more ZEBs than available supply
– the value of a ZEB building relative to similar conventional building should increase every time energy costs increase
– future legislative restrictions, and carbon emission taxes/penalties may force expensive retrofits to inefficient buildings”

ZEB’s also have their risk factors and disadvantages:

“- initial costs can be higher – effort required to understand, apply, and qualify for ZEB subsidies
– very few designers or builders today have the necessary skills or experience to build ZEBs
– possible declines in future utility company renewable energy costs may lessen the value of capital invested in energy efficiency
– new photovoltaic solar cells equipment technology price has been falling at roughly 17% per year – It will lessen the value of capital invested in a solar electric generating system. Current subsidies will be phased out as photovoltaic mass production lowers future price
– challenge to recover higher initial costs on resale of building – appraisers are uninformed – their models do not consider energy
– while the individual house may use an average of net zero energy over a year, it may demand energy at the time when peak demand for the grid occurs. In such a case, the capacity of the grid must still provide electricity to all loads. Therefore, a ZEB may not reduce the required power plant capacity.
– without an optimised thermal envelope the embodied energy, heating and cooling energy and resource usage is higher than needed. ZEB by definition do not mandate a minimum heating and cooling performance level thus allowing oversized renewable energy systems to fill the energy gap.
– solar energy capture using the house envelope only works in locations unobstructed from the South. The solar energy capture cannot be optimized in South (for northern hemisphere, or North for southern Hemisphere) facing shade or wooded surroundings.”

Finally, it is important to note that the energy consumption in an office building or home is not strictly a function of technology – it also reflects the behavior of the occupants. In one example two families on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts lived in identical zero-energy-designed homes and one family used half as much electricity in a year as the other. In the latter case electricity for lighting and plug loads accounted for about half of total energy use. As energy consultant Andy Shapiro noted: “There are no zero-energy houses, only zero-energy families.”

Oil Spills and Our Inability to Clean Them Up Properly

While preparing my latest blog (on zero energy buildings – to be posted shortly) I read the attached piece on the Washington Post’s OpEd page for March 29, 2014: “We Still can’t clean oil spills”. It was authored by Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and because I think it is a very important article I am reprinting it here to facilitate its distribution. BP, Exxon and other oil companies can advertise all they want about their commitment to safety, but advertising doesn’t substitute for investments in safety research and deployment of safety equipment and practices in an industry that will inevitably experience accidents. Reduced dependence on oil is the long-term strategy that we also need to pursue aggressively.

“25 years after Exxon Valdez, we still haven’t learned to limit oil drilling

By Frances Beinecke, Published online on March 28

Frances Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She was a member of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

Twenty-five years ago this month, the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. The public was shocked by photos of oil-soaked otters and reports that coastal residents had lost their livelihoods. The cleanup effort was so vast it required 11,000 people, some of whom scooped up oil with buckets. People were outraged.

Two decades later, the Macondo well beneath the Deepwater Horizon blew out, killing 11 and sending 170 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and I saw firsthand the oil-drenched beaches and the anxiety of coastal residents. It was hauntingly familiar. Many lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill had not been applied, and the country was once again struggling with an industry ill-prepared to respond.

Flash forward four years, and oil spills continue to endanger our waters. A week ago , a barge and ship collided and spilled about 168,000 gallons of thick, viscous oil into Galveston Bay near a vibrant bird sanctuary.

An even greater potential disaster looms. Shell Oil plans to drill in Alaska’s next frontier — the Arctic Ocean, a region even more pristine and remote than Prince William Sound. The company’s initial attempts were plagued by failed emergency equipment, a 32-mile-long ice floe and a grounded drill rig. If this last unspoiled ocean isn’t put off-limits in a hurry, we could witness a spill of far greater proportions.

Our country can learn from experience. Preserving marine riches for generations to come makes more sense than trying to bring them back from the brink of the latest disaster.

Here is what we know and must act on today:

The oil industry is still using the same ineffective technology to clean up oil in water as it was 25 years ago. Exxon was woefully ill-equipped for cleaning up Prince William Sound, and the industry vowed to invest in better technologies. Yet when the Deepwater Horizon spill occurred, the industry showed up with the same tools: containment booms and dispersants. Companies spent billions of dollars to advance drilling technology but only a fraction on cleanup research. They had nothing new to offer. And those booms managed to pick up just 3 percent of the oil spilled in the Gulf.

Since the BP spill, companies have increased the number of available well caps, ships and booms, but they have had few breakthroughs in cleanup ability. That is alarming for the Arctic, since booms have not proved capable of cleaning up oil in an Arctic environment shrouded most of the year in ice, fog and gales.

This is particularly important since we now know that oil lingers for decades. In 2003, researchers found that more than 21,000 gallons of oil from the Exxon Valdez tanker remained in Prince William Sound, and some is still present. A recent study concluded that the region’s harlequin duck and sea otter populations have rebounded — but that took 24 years. Pacific herring have reached only 15 percent of pre-spill levels, gutting what was once a $12 million fishery in Prince William Sound. And while one pod of orca whales hit hard by the spill is recovering slowly, the other is headed for demise.

In Louisiana, oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to wash ashore, and researchers are just beginning to understand its effects on the food chain. It’s clear that oil spills cannot be wiped away in a matter of months or a few years, and they can imperil wildlife for generations. Our remaining polar bears and some of our last beluga whales must not be exposed to the same dangers in the Arctic Ocean.

Congress has failed to strengthen safeguards for offshore drilling since the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Just one year after the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act and generated important improvements in tanker safety. Yet in the aftermath of the larger spill in the Gulf, Congress hasn’t passed a single law to rein in an industry known for reckless operations and resistance to oversight.

It is long past time for Americans to hear what oil disasters keep telling us: Our safeguards and cleanup equipment aren’t sufficient, and our oceans and coasts remain vulnerable to long-term damage.

The oil industry and Congress must fill the holes in our safety net and recognize that some places should be off-limits to drilling. The fragile and beautiful Arctic Ocean is one of them. I do not want to mark the 25th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon spill by reflecting on an oil disaster in the Arctic. Let us learn from history and create a safer, clean energy future.”

image
Exxon-Valdez Alaska oil spill

image
BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Subsidies For Energy Technologies: Are They Fair?

Subsidies for energy technologies is a complicated and contentious issue and one that a few studies have tried to illuminate for the rest of us. For what I consider informative and balanced discussions I would refer you to
– ‘Reforming Fossil-Fuel Subsidies to Reduce Waste and Limit CO2 Emissions while Protecting the Poor’, Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), September 2012
– Ken Silverstein’s October 23, 2013 piece in the e-journal energybiz entitled ‘Fossil Fuels and Green Energy Feed Mightily at the Public Trough’
– ‘Analysis & Projections: Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010’, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August 1, 2011
– ‘Federal Financial Support for the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies’, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), March 2011.

There are many other useful sources of information as well. Of course vested interests on all sides of the energy debate have taken their shot at this topic. For example, the views of the fossil fuel industries can be found in the publications of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and often in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Supporters of subsidies for renewable energy technologies are active as well in expressing their views via statements by trade associations such as the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association. All in all, a difficult subject to get one’s objective hands around, but I will try (foolishly?) in this blog post. Admittedly a strong advocate for rapid progress toward a renewable energy future, I will try to be as balanced as I can in my discussion, as I truly want to better understand this subject and believe that informed public opinion is the long term prerequisite to a sustainable energy future. I will let you judge how successful I have been.

I start with a few definitions and some ‘facts’ that all sides in this debate can hopefully agree upon.
– “Subsidies are one of many policy instruments used by governments to attain economic, social and environmental objectives.” (iisd)
– “Energy subsidies, in particular, are often used to alleviate energy poverty and promote economic development, by enabling access to affordable modern energy services.” (iisd)

The EIA, in its analysis, refers to ‘energy subsidies and interventions’ in five categories: direct cash expenditures to energy producers and consumers, tax expenditures via provisions in the tax code, R&D expenditures for increasing energy supplies or improving energy efficiency, loans and loan guarantees for certain energy technologies, and electricity supply programs targeted at specific geographical regions (e.g., TVA and BPA). The discussion in this blog post touches on the first four.

U.S. tax code energy incentives were first established in 1916 and until 2005 were focused on stimulating domestic production of oil and natural gas. Incentives for improved energy efficiency and renewable energy (solar, wind, ….) were introduced starting in 2006 and by 2011 accounted for 78% of a substantially increased amount of federal energy-related tax expenditures in that year. However, it is important to recognize that this large support for ‘clean energy’ was due to passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and did not imply a reduction in tax code incentives for fossil fuels or nuclear energy. To put some numbers into this discussion, CBO estimates that tax preferences (“..special deductions, special tax rates, tax rates, tax credits, and grants in lieu of tax credits..”) in 2011 amounted to $20.5 billion. An additional $3.4 billion was provided in FY 2012 by DOE in R&D support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

CBO also points out that of the four major tax preferences operative in 2011, only four were permanent parts of the tax code (the energy efficiency part of ARRA expired at the end of 2011 and the tax preferences for renewable energy were scheduled to expire by 2013), of which three were directed at fossil fuels and one at nuclear energy.

image

A quick word about nuclear energy: the Atomic Energy act of 1946, following the end of WWII, created a framework for government control of civilian nuclear power plants for electricity generation. Industry was concerned about potential liability in the event of a nuclear accident and the limited amounts of liability coverage initially offered by the insurance market, so in 1957 Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law the Price-Anderson Act, which has been renewed several times since, and “..governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear accidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public.” (Wikipedia). In its latest incarnation the Act requires the nuclear industry to cover the first $12.6 billion of damages, with costs above that to be covered by retroactive increases in nuclear utility liability or the federal government. Regardless of one’s view of nuclear energy, I believe it is fair to say that a U.S. civilian nuclear power industry would not exist without the Price-Anderson Act.

What is my take on all this, an issue I followed closely through my many years in federal service and still follow? Energy is clearly a driving force in economies, and prominence of nations at various points in history have reflected their energy sources – e.g., the Dutch with wind power in the 1600’s, the British with coal in the 1800’s, and the U.S. with oil in the 20th century. So energy is critically important and U.S. policies to encourage oil, natural gas and coal production were central to America’s emergence as a leading economy and nation. However, the context has changed – we now have well-established fossil fuel industries, supplying approximately 80% of global energy today, and we now understand that combustion of fossil fuels puts large amounts of pollutants and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These carbon emissions, which mix into the global atmosphere regardless of where they are generated, cause global warming as they change the earth’s energy balance with the sun and create climate change that seems irrefutable and which we are struggling to better understand. So the world has a conundrum: use of fossil fuels helps improve human welfare in lots of ways, but that use is creating a problem that is a severe threat to the planet’s health. These considerations have led to major efforts to develop and deploy clean energy technologies – improved energy efficiency to reduce our need for carbon-emissive fossil fuels, and renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, ocean) that do not emit carbon dioxide during power generation. Nuclear power is also a non-carbon-emitting power source that is receiving increased attention.

image

Some people, including President Obama, have called for a phase-out of oil industry incentives, especially in light of unusually high profits recorded by major oil companies such as Exxon and Shell. This seems reasonable, as high oil prices today are providing adequate incentive to these companies. A complicating factor is that smaller, independent producers drill most of the onshore U.S. oil wells today, and are responsible for creating the wells that are delivering increasing amounts of home-grown shale oil and gas that are reducing consumer costs, creating domestic jobs, and bringing some factories back to the U.S. from overseas locations. If jobs and national security are our immediate priorities, then incentives for this domestic production by small producers should be maintained. The hitch is that this should not slow down national investment in clean energy technologies which are critical to our long-term economic and national security interests. This is where Congress has to exercise wise judgement as it sets national energy policy – taking care of today’s needs while investing in the future. The transition from today’s fossil-fuel-dependent world will take time, but it would be irresponsible to not look down the road and make necessary investments today that put us firmly on the road to a sustainable energy future. Without government intervention of this type, “..households and businesses do not have a financial incentive to take into account the environmental damage or other costs to the nation associated with their choices about energy production and consumption…unless the government intervenes, the amount of research and development (R&D) that the private sector undertakes is likely to be inefficiently low from society’s perspective because firms cannot easily capture the ‘spillover benefits’ that result from it.” (CBO). Our current energy pricing system does not take into account the ‘externalities’ of energy use such as public health effects and dependence on other countries for part of our energy needs.

In the end it comes down to values, as reflected in policy and budgets. When I first came to Washington, DC and worked on Capitol Hill I was told quickly that ‘budgets are policy’. I feel strongly that we lack a forward-looking national energy policy, which I ascribe to a failure by Congress to do its job of looking to the future, anticipating issues that will face the country, and taking the necessary steps to begin addressing those issues. When such a policy vacuum exists in Washington states often take the lead out of necessity, and that is happening now. We can clearly do better at the federal level to serve our long-term national interests.

Lighting: A Revolution In Progress

An energy revolution is underway before our very eyes – the replacement of traditional incandescent light bulbs with much more energy efficient and longer lasting light-emitting diodes (LEDs). It is a significant revolution because, according to NYSERDA, lighting accounts for 22% of electricity consumption in the U.S.. Other sources put this number at 19% on a global basis. It is estimated that LED use could cut the U.S. number in half by 2030.

At this point it may be fair to ask: What about CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps), which had been gaining market share for many years. A few words about lighting technology before we answer this question.

An incandescent light bulb, the most common type today in households and the least expensive to buy, produces visible light from a glowing filament wire (tungsten) heated to a high temperature (several thousand degrees) by an electric current passing through it. It was not invented by Thomas Edison, as is often stated (many earlier inventors had experimented with hot filament lamps), but he did invent the first commercially practical incandescent bulb. It was introduced into residential use more than 125 years ago. Its principal shortcoming is that more than 90% of the energy used by the traditional incandescent bulb escapes as heat and less than 10% goes into producing light. Filaments also burn out and are fragile, and a typical bulb lifetime is about 1,000 hours.

mimage

Halogen lamps, also in common use today, are incandescent lamps with a bit of halogen gas (iodine or bromine) added to the bulb. The chemical reaction between the halogen and the tungsten wire allows the filament to operate at a higher temperature and increases the bulb’s efficiency and lifetime.

image

A fluorescent lamp or fluorescent tube is a low pressure mercury-vapor gas-discharge lamp that uses UV-stimulated fluorescence of a phosphor to produce visible light. It is more energy efficient than an incandescent lamp but does require a ballast to regulate the current through the lamp, increasing its initial cost.

image

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) fold a fluorescent lamp tube into the space of an incandescent bulb with a ballast in the base. They use 3-5 times less energy than incandescent bulbs of the same light output and have much longer lifetimes. They do contain a small amount of mercury, creating a disposal problem.

image

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are monochromatic, solid-state semiconductor point light sources. First appearing as practical electronic components in 1962, early LEDs emitted low-intensity red light, but modern versions are available at visible, ultraviolet, and infrared wavelengths with very high brightness. Today they are used in applications as diverse as aviation lighting, automotive lighting, advertising, general lighting and traffic signals. They are also used in the infrared remote control units of many commercial products including televisions, DVD players and other domestic appliances. Their high switching rates are useful in advanced communications technology.

image

LEDs have many advantages over incandescent light sources including lower energy consumption, longer lifetime, improved physical robustness, smaller size, and faster switching. However, LEDs powerful enough for room lighting are still relatively expensive (but costs are coming down) and require more precise current and heat management than compact fluorescent lamp sources of comparable output. Their advantages over CFLs are greater efficacy (i.e., more light output in lumens per watt), longer lifetimes, smaller size, directionality of the light produced, and very importantly they contain no mercury which has to be disposed of. These factors will limit CFLs’ time in the ‘limelight’ (I know, bad pun).

(Note: LEDs are based on inorganic (non-carbon-based) materials. OLEDs are organic (carbon-based) solid-state light emitters which are made in sheets that provide a diffuse-area light source. They are still in an early stage of development and several years away from broad commercial application. Interesting potential applications include TVs, computer and cell phone screens, wall coverings that allow changes in color, and automobile skins that allow you to change the color of your car.)

It is useful to compare these different lighting technologies, as white light emitters, in terms of their current efficiencies (efficacies), lifetimes, and color temperatures (measured in degrees Kelvin, as an indicator of the warmth or coolness of the light emitted). Efficacies for monochromatic LEDs are higher but are not listed here.

Technology Efficacy Lifetime Color Temperature
(lumens/watt) (hours) (K)
…………………………………………………….
Incandescent 12-18 750-1,500 2,400-2,900
CFL 60-70 6,000-10,000 2,700-6,500
Fluorescent tube 80-100+ 20,000 2,700-6,500
Halogen 16-29 2,000-4,000 2,850-3,200
White light LED 20-50. Up to 100,000 2,700-6,500

A quick calculation will help to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of lighting sources that may be more costly to buy but save energy and money over extended lifetimes (and don’t forget that not replacing bulbs as often also saves money by reducing labor costs). I will use CFLs as my example.

Assume we buy a 15 watt CFL bulb that today costs $6 and replaces a 65 watt incandescent bulb that costs $1. We further assume that the CFL will last 6,000 hours, the incandescent 1,500 hours (clearly a worst case for CFLs and a best case for incandescents), and that electricity costs 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. Over 6,000 hours the CFL will consume (0.015 kW)x(6,000h)=90 kWh for a total cost (purchase + energy use) of $15. The incancandescent will have been replaced four times in 6,000 hours and consumed (0.065kW)x(6,000h)=390 kWh for a total cost of $43. You save lots of money ($43-$15=$28) despite the higher initial cost for the CFL, and this is per bulb. In addition to this reduced cost the reduced energy consumption will be reflected in fewer carbon emissions from power plants supplying the needed electricity.

Finally, a word about the claim that the U.S. Congress has outlawed use of the incandescent bulb. This is not true, although other countries have done so. What the U.S. Congress has done is pass the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which set performance standards for all general service incandescent lamps producing 310-2,600 lumens of light. The efficiency standard will start with 100-watt bulbs and end with 40-watt bulbs. Light bulbs outside of this wattage range are not covered, along with several classes of specialty bulbs (e.g., stage lighting). Thus, if bulb manufacturers can develop an incandescent bulb that meets the specified performance standard it can be marketed and sold in the U.S. Some are even beginning to appear. This is the same approach that is taken with respect to reducing the electricity consumption of many other household appliances such as refrigerators and dish washers.

Balancing Environmental Interests and Our Energy Future: Often A Difficult Call

I may be dipping my toe (foot?) in doo-doo by taking on this issue with my natural constituency – environmentalists – but here goes. Two articles in today’s (17 January 2014) Washington Post got my attention and stimulated this blog post.

The first piece, ‘Green groups assail Obama on climate’ (digital edition tile: ‘Environmental groups say Obama needs to address climate change more aggressively’), starts off as follows: “A group of the nation’s leading environmental organizations is breaking with the administration over its energy policy, arguing that the White House needs to apply a strict climate test to all its energy decisions or risk undermining one of the president’s second-term priorities.” It goes on to list a number of ways in which the Obama administration has taken steps to limit carbon dioxide emissions, but the environmentalists’ letter takes issue with the administration for “..embracing domestic production of natural gas, oil and coal under an “all of the above” energy strategy.”

The other Washington Post piece that got my attention was a brief reference to the draft of the soon-to-be-released IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report on global warming (‘U.N. cautions against delay on climate change’). It states: “Delaying action on global warming will only increase the costs and reduce the options for dealing with the worst effects of climate change…global warming will continue to increase unless countries cut emissions and shift quickly to clean energy.”

If one reviews my earlier posts in this blog it will be clear that I support a rapid transition to a clean energy future based on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Having devoted my professional career in government to that end, I believe that President Obama ‘gets it’ re global warming and the need for renewables. In fact, I chose not to retire from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009, when I was more than old enough to do so, because we had finally elected a President who I believed did ‘get it’, after the frustrating years of Bush 43. I believe my trust was well founded based on President Obama’s subsequent behavior, in word and in action, and it bothers me that some of my environmental colleagues apparently see it differently. I may be getting old and you can say that I am getting more cranky and conservative in my dotage, but I don’t think so. I see myself as more aware of the realities of governing, especially after a long career in Washington, DC, and think Obama is doing a good job under very difficult circumstances (yes, I am referring to a dysfunctional Congress). I do see value in keeping the pressure up on a sometimes-too-political White House, but let’s at least acknowledge more often that the guy is doing a good job, and a much better one than Clinton and Gore did in the 1990’s when they faced similar political problems. Obama is finally getting us started on the path we should have been on twenty years ago.

To be more specific: I recognize and regret that the U.S. does not yet have an energy policy that creates the economic environment for a rapid transition to a clean energy future, as is true of a few other countries (e.g., the EU). It is critically needed, but the reality is that creating such a policy ultimately is the responsibility of our legislative branch. All the Executive Branch’s rhetoric can’t change that, although it has to keep pushing as much as it can and implementing as much as it can through executive orders.

One impact already is a significant reduction in power generation in the U.S. using coal, due to its replacement as a fuel by natural gas. This is due to the large amounts of shale gas released by fracking, a technology that I believe is unstoppable (see my blog entitled ‘Fracking: The Promise and the Problems’) and needs careful regulation. Many environmentalists oppose fracking because of the real risks it poses to water supplies, and I share those concerns, but the important upside is that using natural gas instead of coal for power generation puts much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If renewables were ready soon to assume the power generation burden, and our transportation infrastructure was electrified and ready to use hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles (for which the hydrogen was generated from renewables-based electrolysis of water), then down with fracking for natural gas and oil. But that is not where we are today, and fracking and its economic returns will be with us for a while. Lots of work to prepare the way to our inevitable clean energy future still needs to be done. For similar reasons I do not oppose the Keystone Pipeline – I recognize its risks and wish we could avoid its extension, but stopping it is not going to stop Canada from exploiting its tar sands resources. I’d rather have that oil coming to the U.S. and reducing our continuing dependence on imports from other, less friendly countries. Imports are going down but will still be with us for a while until we introduce greater electrification of our transportation fleets.

Lots of other issues come into this discussion, for which I have no time in this blog if I am to keep it to a reasonable length. The bottom line in my head is that we (clean energy advocates, environmentalists) have to do a better job of educating the public about the long-term advantages of a clean energy society (including jobs) and elect representatives in both the House and Senate who ‘get it’ and feel the pressure from home to move us more rapidly in this direction. Ultimately, politicians understand the power of the ballot box if they understand nothing else. One of our tasks is to use that power effectively.