Buyer Beware: Green Energy Power Companies Mislead Public

Posted on 07. Jan, 2010 by Robert Holdsworth in Energy, Environment

Buyer Beware – Using Power Factor Correction and Transient Voltage Surge Suppression to Reduce Energy Costs.

Solution for High Energy Costs

Today’s energy conscious climate has motivated many to do what they can to become more efficient and conserve energy and money. Unfortunately this same climate has prompted others to take advantage of unsuspecting consumers’ wishes to save energy and reduce expenses.

Companies that tout power factor improvement (kVAR correction) and transient voltage suppression are a good example of this bad trend. Lately we are seeing more and more of these companies cropping up and feel it is time to set the record straight.

First, transient voltage surge suppression (TVSS) plays a valuable role in improving power quality to protect sensitive equipment inside a facility. However, TVSS does not save energy. TVSS’s are only active a tiny fraction of a second to protect against voltage surges which only last for less than a millisecond. To actually reduce energy consumption the TVSS would need to actually cut power consumption for an extended period of time which is not what they are designed to do. Again, TVSS is important to protect sensitive electrical equipment but buyers should avoid vendors promising, or even guaranteeing, that they will reduce energy consumption.

Now what about vendors who claim that improving power factor will save 15% or 20% or 30% of energy consumption and corresponding cost? This one is a little trickier.

For residential applications, power factor does nothing to save energy because the typical home already has an average power factor of about 0.97 which is almost the perfect power factor of 1 or unity. In addition, the device (called a capacitor) is placed at the main circuit breaker. According to IEEE 5.5.3.3 capacitors must be situated at or near the respective inductive loads to reduce power system losses by reducing heat and distribution losses known as I2R losses.

So what about commercial and industrial facilities using power factor correction to reduce energy costs? It is perfectly appropriate for a company that is incurring penalties or a kVA billing structure from the utility company to improve the facility’s overall power factor by employing a capacitor bank at the main service entrance or individual capacitors at or near the respective motor loads. Doing so will eliminate the power factor penalties and/or reduce the kVA demand charges on the utility bill which can save significant money and provide a significant ROI on the investment.

But what about power factor correction reducing kWh consumption? IEEE also tells us that I2R losses only account for 2 to 5% of the total load in a facility. Simple math tells us that it would be against the laws of physics to get the 15% to 30% energy reduction claimed by some vendors. Think about it. Even if your facility had 5% distribution losses and you could correct 100% of the problem via power factor correction at every load (which can’t be done) you would still only save 5% at the most. No where near the claims of some capacitor vendors and manufacturers.

All that said, power factor correction when done properly will eliminate utility penalties and kVA demand charges, improve facility power quality, increase electrical system capacity, and save a little energy when applied to the appropriate motor loads.

So make an investment in transient voltage surge suppression and power factor correction when appropriate and necessary. But caveat emptor!

Cap and Trade – Carbon Offsets

Posted on 16. Sep, 2009 by M.L. Zupan in Energy, Feature, Hot Topics

Cap and Trade Carbon Trading - Is it Enough?

What is “Carbon Cap and Trade”?

Cap and trade is when regulations put a cap on the amount of carbon emissions (or other green house gas emissions – GHG) on a company or residence. If the company or residence produces more than the allotted CO2, then you pay a fine for the excess or trade it with another company or residence that doesn’t produce as much as their allowance.

Now we have a second power plant that is a 500 Mw power plant that has the capability of producing 3.75 million tons of CO2 emissions; however, that plant is a back up plant and only runs during peak energy hours of the day, thus it is only running at 50% capacity so it is actually only producing 1.875 million tons of CO2 per/year. The same regulatory commission gives them a cap allowance of the amount of CO2 that they could produce when running at full capacity less 5% for the first year equal to 3.56 million tons of CO2. This leaves an excess of 1,685,000 tons of CO2 per/year.

Carbon Credit Choices:

• When a company emits more carbon than it is allowed under the new cap regulation, then it will have to pay a fine for the excess carbon – perhaps $20.00 per/ton. That would mean that the first company would have to pay a total of:  $7,500,000.oo. During the second year the percentage of reduction will increase and so will the fine if nothing is done.
• Or, the second company can sell some of their excess carbon credits to the first company. Like stocks, they trade carbon credits. The first, reduces how much they would have to pay – and the second makes a tidy little profit on the side.
• The third choice would be for the first company to actually reduce their carbon output. Using todays technology, in order to reduce their output they would have to invest in expensive equipment and it would take time to set it up – and the end result, the cost comes out to approximately $150.oo per/metric ton.
• The fourth choice would be to reduce output of the amount of electricity they produce for at least the first year, thus reducing the CO2 output. However, that would also reduce the amount of money they take in as profit. In order to make up for the loss – you the consumer would probably be hit with high energy bills.

What is the problem with carbon trading?

The problem arises when company A trades off their excess with company B and in effect – NO CARBON DIOXIDE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN REDUCED!

What is going to be the incentive for the first company to reduce CO2 emissions? None!

Carbon credit trading is expected to become a $2 trillion market by 2012.

What needs to be done in order for this program to work?

If a cap and trade of carbon credits is going to work – and work well:

• A deeply funded, new, trillion dollar regulatory commission would have to be established to regulate, monitor and enforce the new laws and policies. This could create thousands of jobs.
• Companies that have too much carbon must buy their offsets from companies that are actually reducing CO2.
• The CO2 must be over-and-above what they are currently reducing. Perhaps the extra offsets help them increase their business – like producing a larger Algae Photo Bioreactor plant. Or traded with a farmer who has a field that he is not using so he would plant trees or change his crop to something like switchgrass. Or invest in a company that wants to newly develop solar roads or larger, affordable wind or solar farms. By increasing green energy alternatives, then not as much carbon based energy needs to be produced – and once again, you have CO2 reduction.
• CO2 that is being reduced must be measurable
• The fines for not meeting the caps  should be large enough that they make a dent in  the industry being capped! That way, the offset price of reducing the carbon is much more attractive.
• Companies that meet their caps should be able to register and become a certified company that can receive funding to sell offsets at that point. That means that company A (above), once they have either reduced their carbon output by 375 thousand metric ton, or invested in a carbon offset worth 375 thousand metric ton of actual carbon somewhere in the world (now remember it must be verifiable), then that company could become a registered company to receive money to offset more carbon from their factory. That money would have to be used to actually reduce the CO2 output.

Carbon Trading could be a viable solution to the GHG (green house gas emissions). However, it must not be the only option. In order for the reduction of CO2 in our environment to be achieve – everybody must take action.

Don’t miss an exciting article. Next, we will be discussing the possibility of a Carbon Tax on residential homes and carbon trading for the individual.

Wind Breaking News Brings Industry to Arkansas

Posted on 12. Sep, 2009 by Goode Fellow in Energy, Science

CHICAGO and JONESBORO, Ark., Sept. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nordex USA, Inc., a leading manufacturer of utility-scale wind turbines, today held a groundbreaking celebration at the construction site of its $100 million manufacturing facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas. At the event, management presented its vision for a renewable energy future, as well as details on plans to hire 700 people by 2014.

Nordex is a global wind energy company that has positioned itself for the U.S. market surge in wind and renewable energy. First phase construction began on the 187 acre site in late July in Craighead Technology Park and energy production is scheduled to begin mid 2010.

“I am pleased that Nordex has chosen Arkansas for its manufacturing center,” Governor Mike Beebe said. “Our success in the clean-energy economy is exciting, and having a global wind-energy company, like Nordex, in the Natural State helps to promote sustainability, alternative-energy development, and environmentally-friendly practices.”

Each wind turbine is expected to produce 2.5-MW of energy. That’s enough renewable energy to power 700 American homes. When the project is finished Nordex will install 300 -  N90 and N100 wind turbines, producing a combined energy of 750 MW (Megawatts).

Electric Car Homicide

Posted on 12. Sep, 2009 by Goode Fellow in Energy, Feature, Hot Topics

GM's EV1 - Sleek, Sporty, and Completly Electric - zero-to-sixty in 8.0 sec.

When CIDA News first did an article on the electric car; entitled: Energy Efficient “Luscious” – Going Electric on Who’s Dime? – we were interested in asking the question: “who was going to be paying for all this electricity that electric car owners will be using as they plugged in across the United States”?

Since that time, we have looked deeper into the electric car controversy and discovered some very interesting pieces of information.

In 1997, GM built a sporty, two-seater, electric car. Time Magazine said:

“The EV1 was a marvel of engineering, absolutely the best electric vehicle anyone had ever seen. Built by GM to comply with California’s zero-emissions-vehicle mandate, the EV1 was quick, fun, and reliable.”

It seemed that the electric car had finally come of age; but, what happened to that electric car and why has it virtually disappeared?

History of the Electric Car

GM 1990 Impact

In order to provide an answer to the above question, we must first travel a little further back in time to some earlier designs of electric automobiles. In 1990, GM actually produced their first production electric car capable of doing over 100 miles per charge and 0-60 in 8.0 seconds. It was called: The Impact!

The GM Impact was a technological breakthrough in style, design, and efficiency. Thousands of people wanted to test drive these vehicles – and those that did thought it was the greatest thing since cheddar cheese. In a marketing video produced by GM, it was toted as a revolution in automobile design and it showed how GM was once again on the cutting edge of the auto industry proving why they were the number one automobile manufacturer in the world.

Here is the video – 1974 Electric CitiCar, 1990 GM Impact

Later, the Impact’s that were produced, were ground up and turned to shreds. The name was changed and GM produced the new version between 1994 & 1999, calling it “EV1″. Between 1996 and 1999, GM made these cars available to the general public.

California Zero Emission Standard

In 1990, California regulators passed a new “Zero Emission Standard” (Z.E.V.) in order to help reduce carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide which are large contributors to smog, and particles, which lead to respiratory sicknesses. The mandate would require auto manufactures to “sell more than 100,000 electric cars and fuel-efficient vehicles in the state each year. The zero-emission standard was scheduled to take effect with the 2003 model. Specifically the mandate would require automobile manufacturer – the largest of which was GM – “to make 2% of its fleet emission-free by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003, in accordance with consumer demand, in order to continue to sell cars in California“. Read: General Motors EV1

Coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps not!

GM – in a show of good faith began testing and producing electric cars. In 1990 it was The Impact – and then the development of the EV1 in 1994 which was first made available to the public in 1996. However, from the very beginning GM, DaimlerChrysler and Chevron started a legal battle to fight and stop the mandatory Z.E.V program.

Read: In California, Clean Air Rules Force Changes in Autos – New York Times, July 22, 2002

GM., now the most outspoken opponent of the Z.E.V. mandate, was a pioneer in the electric vehicle development.

General Motors said it would never fly. They expected a fizzle and despite rave reviews and enthusiasm said that there wasn’t a market for the EV1.

Perhaps if they had actually produced more of them and sold them instead of leasing a limited number of them – they would have been able to turn a profit.So, to comply and yet not have to sell any vehicles, GM leased all of the EV1’s to the general public. In January of 1994, the New York Times wrote in an article entitled: Expecting a Fizzle, G.M. Puts Electric Car to the T est -

“…to the horror of regulators and other electric-car promoters, G.M. appears to be counting on the test to demonstrate that nobody really wants a car that will cost considerably more than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle and will go only about 100 miles before it needs to be plugged in for several hours.”

Death of the EV1

The lease program lasted only long enough for the Z.E.V. mandate to finally be overturned in 2003. At that time all EV1’s were recalled, crushed and shredded. Lessees were not given the option to purchase the cars from GM.

GM claimed they spent over $1 Billion dollars trying to develop an electric car, but how much of that was spent on legal fees trying to stop the mandatory sale of those same vehicles?

It is one thing to say people aren’t ready for the electric car, but it is quite another to spend more money trying to suppress the technology and keep it from the general public.

We would also like to hear from you! If you were one of the people who test drove one of these vehicles – let us know what you think.

T. Boone Pickens Fights for U.S. Energy Independence

Posted on 14. Mar, 2009 by Goode Fellow in Energy, Feature, Local

Americans are more conscious than ever about the energy crisis that is facing our nation. And T. Boone Pickens, Texas oilman and Oklahoma native, is charging full-speed ahead doing something about it.

The Pickens Plan

T. Boone Pickens speaks at a wind energy conference in Oklahoma City, Dec. 2, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has a plan to help America become energy independent and deliver us from foreign oil addiction. He has recently spent over $60 million dollars to educate the public on the need for alternative energy – mainly ‘wind’.

• Create millions of new jobs by building up the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind; add to that additional solar capacity;
• Building a 21st century back-bone electrical grid;
• Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
• Using America’s natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel.

It sounds like an ambitious plan and indeed it is; but, is it -

• the right plan?
• will it really deliver us from the clutches of foreign oil?

Between the years 2000 and 2007, the global wind industry grew 482%. Wind energy is expected to grow another 215% between now and 2012. Why is that? Because of the renewed push in global energy and conservation awareness.

Thanks to high energy cost and high fuel prices during 2008, people around the world are sitting up and taking notice. And with the rising awareness of GHG (green house gas) emissions destroying our atmosphere there is a general outcry calling out to governments globally to find a solution.

Wind Energy – it’s renewable & it’s free

Wind is free! Free in the sense that we don’t have to make it and it just continues to blow. However, wind turbines are not free, neither are the power plants that make that energy available to people across the U.S.

The wind that is freely available to make energy costs money to deliver.

According to the California Energy Commission:

“Large-scale wind farms can be installed for about $1,000/kW. The cost of electricity produced from wind farms depends on the annual capacity factor, location/wind quality, maintenance costs, and installation costs, but typically range from 3 to 6 cents/kWh. These costs include the wind production federal tax credits of 1.7 cents/kWh for the first ten years of operation. The cost for small-scale wind turbines is higher.”

What makes wind energy so difficult?

One of the biggest hurdles that needs to be overcome is the ability to get the energy created from the windy parts of the country to the energy grid. This is why Mr. Pickens has been fighting fervently in Congress for what he calls a ‘21st century backbone electrical grid‘.

In a report published March 9, 2009 by WindEnergyNews.com entitled: Senate Leader For Grid Overhaul; Senate majority leader Harry Reid is quoted as saying:

“Reforming our energy policies to build a cleaner, greener national transmission system — an electric superhighway — must be a top national priority,”

Another obstacle to wind energy is the fact that as more wind turbines are produced, the cost of those turbines goes up. When demand is high – manufactures charge ‘what the market will bear’ and as an end result – the cost of your in-expensive electricity goes up. According to Treehugger.com in an articled published as far back as May of 2008, Cost of Wind Power Turbines is Skyrocketing;

“Increase of 74% for Land-based, and 48% for Offshore Wind Turbines
For years we’ve heard about how a shortage of silicon kept solar panel prices higher than they would otherwise be. Just as we’re expecting supply to improve in that field, we learn that wind turbines are getting more expensive. Not just a little, but a lot.”

Is it possible that no matter what form of alternative energy is chosen, a conglomerate of industrialists will control prices so that the savings are virtually insignificant to the end user like OPEC in the oil industry?

Should big money politics be allowed to formulate and control the energy of our future?

T. Boone Pickens has a plan – but is it the right plan for the needs of our Nation or is it just another business scheme to line his pockets further?

As you look into our energy future and see the many things that are being done – you must decide, and you must get involved, because it YOUR future. As for T. Boone Pickens: Does it matter what his motives are? He has a plan, he is actively involved, and he has the means to make a difference – for that he should be commended.

Let us know what you think.

###