Electricity metrics: Driving the wrong behavior!

I am working on some energy reduction projects at work. One potential project is to improve the efficiency of some of our equipment, so it uses less electricity.

The problem is that the savings don't actually reduce our electric bill, but it does reduce the electricity that our energy provider would have to supply to us. Let me explain...

First, I am not an electrical engineer, so if I state something wrong, please go easy on me, as I'm attempting to speak in layman's terms.

This has to do with something called "power factor". Basically, the electricity provider has to generate more power for its customers, if the power factor on equipment and machines are lower than ideal (less than 100%).

Poor power factors are typically caused by older equipment, or over-sized motors, or equipment with internal problems or poorly designed. You can learn more here: Wikipedia: Power Factor or a simpler explanation at Washington State EnergyIdeas

Most people at at their home pay for the amount of kilowatt hours consumed per month. Same with companies. However, the electricity provider has to provide enough power to cover the "apparent" power, which is usually more than the actual kilowatt hours (KWH) consumed.

For example, let's assume I have a refrigerator that consumes 10 KWH per day in my home. If the power factor is poor, then I might actually be consuming more like 11 KWH, which is what the electricity provider has to supply to my house. The extra 1 KWH is released as heat into my house and essentially wasted.

So I pay for 10 KWH, but I actually used 11 KWH. I don't actually directly pay for the extra 1 KWH that I needed, due to my poor power factor. So if I fixed my refrigerator so the power factor was improved, and I now consume exactly 10 KWH (instead of 11), my electricity bill doesn't go down. There's no motivation for me to save electricity by investing in some upgrades to improve the power factor.

For large companies, there are extra fees that are charged if the overall power factor is too low (say below 85%), so the utility companies attempt to cover their costs that way. However, usually the fees are charged depending on what range of power factors they fall within.

For our company, we fall within the middle of the range, so we would have to invest in significant improvements to power factor in order to see a benefit on the bill (the point where the extra fees would be removed). Since it is unlikely that we will make that large of an investment, we have decided not to pursue those opportunities. Usually this involves installing a capacitor bank, which stores the energy and reduces the loss of energy.

So here's the issue: Because our company is not charged by the utility company for the actual amount of electricity we require, there is no financial incentive for us to do the right thing by improving the efficiency of our equipment (other than reducing our carbon footprint). The solution would be to charge us for the apparent power (11 KWH in our home), instead of the actual power used by our equipment (10 KWH).

Just another example of metrics driving the wrong behavior!

Environmentalist McKibben drives home urgency of climate change to Iowans

Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben spoke to a captive and energetic audience in Iowa City last night, courtesy of the Office of Sustainability at the University of Iowa. His message was both pessimistic and optimistic, but was most importantly honest.

McKibben started out with the current (and depressing) state of the environment. The earth has risen only about 1 degree in temperature, but already we are seeing the major impacts of that increase in glacier melting, increased floods, increased high temperatures, and increase in disease spread (through warmer climates). We are above the 350 parts per million limit that scientists believe is sustainable for the planet (currently at 390, see image below).

After establishing the current state of affairs, he next showed us his efforts to date with the recent 10/10/10 events, which is a part of the overall 350.org movement. I was amazed at how global this initiative has become, especially since I have not heard that much about his organization. He has made an impact on nearly every country in the world, and it continues to grow each year. He even self-admits that he is not a motivational person and knows very little about how to drive a grass-roots effort like this, but it is clearly working. It reaffirms that anyone can make a difference.
Finally, his message was that people have to make political changes to make dramatic reduction in our emissions. The technology is already here to do that (solar, geothermal, wind), but the policies and investment isn't there yet. He mentioned that 70% of your time should be spent on local actions and 30% on political action.

Video clips are available on the Daily Iowan website
Here is McKibben's latest book, Eearth: Making of Life on a Tough New Planet...






And here is the first book he wrote, which was widely popular, called "The End of Nature"

James Bond had solar, why can't we?

I haven't watched many James Bond movies in my life, but I'd like to someday. I just happened to catch one this weekend, called "The Man with the Golden Gun". It was made in 1974, almost 40 years ago, and it stars Roger Moore. What intrigued me most was this clip regarding solar energy, which is the "golden gun" the villian refers to. Watch the clip below (starts a couple minutes into the clip)...

The technology shown is available today I believe, but it wasn't that long ago that it has been around. After watching this clip, I feel a little frustrated that we haven't made more progress on solar. You have to consider the impact movies can have on society. How much easier was it to convince someone that we need to move to solar technology after watching this film? The movie practically sells it for them! If the movie hadn't been made, then you're left trying to sell solar through drawings, small prototypes and lengthy discussions. In other words, someone made the perfect sales pitch for solar, but we as a society didn't take full advantage. This isn't just a United States issue. James Bond is a British film, shown around the world. You couldn't have asked for a better film to spread the word globally.

I was actually born in 1974, and in 1979, we lived next door to a wonderful lady, who went around to the local elementary schools in Iowa City, and showed us solar-powered toys, and told us they would be used everywhere in the near future. That really made an impact on me, and I was only 5 years old. That was about the same time that the solar panels were on the White House during Jimmy Carter's presidental era.

Here's another example of movies and green technology. In the 1989 movie "Back to the Future", the time machine DeLorean vehicle uses garbage to fuel the vehicle. I've seen a few people try and replicate that, but you don't hear too much from major automotive companies about organic waste as fuel.

Are the movies so far ahead in thinking, that it just takes 40-50 years to implement these ideas? It didn't take us as long to reduce a computer from the size of a house, down to fit on a table. Other technology has seemed to pop up overnight without the aid of a movie plug. Maybe I'm just expecting a shorter time frame when there is a major motion picture that promotes the idea for free.

The only thing I can conclude from this lack of progress is that something happened in the 1980's to bring the progress of solar to a screeching halt. I don't know what it was (change in presidency, oil companies, politics, military, etc), but it would be worth it to understand what happened, so we don't make the same mistake!