Friday lite: Tinkerbell saves energy… (? ? ?)
September 19, 2008
This video is not on YouTube (and you search for “tinkerbell” and “energy” on YouTube at your own peril, there’s evidently quite an interesting subculture out there that I wish I still knew nothing about) so if you want to see Tinkerbell saving energy, you will have to click directly on the DOE website to do so.
Yep. That’s right. You just read “Tinkerbell” and “DOE” in the same sentence.
Energystar.gov is trying to get kids to save energy. They have started a new ad campaign along these lines. For the 8-9 year old demographic, they chose Tinkerbell as their mascot.
Apparently this age group in the U.S. is made up entirely of females, which I wouldn’t have guessed. Either that, or I am seriously underestimating the appeal of voiceless giggling fairies with short skirts for that age group of boys. I thought they didn’t even LIKE girls yet.
The video theme is - everyone can save energy!
The implication seems to be - even giddy girls!
(wheeee!)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Energy issues in Kansas are actually much broader than the narrowly focused debate over Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal plants in Holcomb. One example is the largely untold - and more positive - story of the KCPL energy efficiency bill (as it seems to be known around the Capitol). Basically, the bill is about about using energy more wisely, instead of building additional new generation facilities.
This legislation stands a good chance of making it into law this session. However, it’s been a long strange trip - and it ain’t over yet. The bill started out as HB 2632, but at last tally, some version of its language appeared in at least four other different bills (or “vehicles”):
SB 586 - HB 2632 language was added to nuclear power bill allowing utilities to recover “prudent costs” of developing nuclear power. (See bill, supplemental note, and fiscal note). Passed by House and Senate and will go to conference committee. After committee, returns to House and Senate floors for votes to concur or non-concur - no amendments can be added at that time.
SB 580 - Language was added to weatherization bill. Passed by House and Senate and will go to conference committee. After committee, returns to House and Senate floors for votes to concur or non-concur - no amendments can be added at that time.
HB 2632 - Original bill, now has an air permit amendment (see below). (See amended bill, plus supplemental note and fiscal note.) At this moment, doubtful this version will go any further.
SB 327 - Was added to the first Holcomb bill in conference committee, as attempt to green the initiative. Vetoed by the Governor, now awaiting override vote to start in Senate and move to House.
SB 148 - Was included in the second Holcomb bill as part of the original SB 327 (new provisions were added to second Holcomb bill, nothing was taken out). Was sent to blessed committee on Thursday to avoid dropping dead in face of procedural deadlines. Will probably be back in General Orders for the House to consider on Monday.
Pretty wild list - but hey, that’s democracy. More of the twists and turns will emerge as the story unfolds below, but generally:
Why does energy efficiency matter? What’s in the KCPL language - how does it help achieve these goals, and what are some other suggested options? How did one bill get so complicated (although that’s actually not so unusual), and how did it get tangled up in the Holcomb issue along the way?
To find out the answers, read on.
Surprise bonus! MH decided to attend the hearing on the KCPL bill (HB 2362) before the Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities, which begins at 9:30 a.m. Add this to the House Select Committee hearing at 1:30, and we are going to have a day full of fun.
We await the committee. Actually, every time I say that - imagine the scene. The conference room is slowly filling full of lobbyists, reporters, etc. People either laugh loudly or talk quietly. We wait… we wait… groups change and merge, like little social amoebas who feed off information… there is always the interesting exchange and retreat of impression, domination, submission, a constantly shifting hierarchy that’s always reinforced yet undermined, at the same time - I remain amazed at how political folks have an uncanny sense for reading reactions (and adjusting) on the turn of a dime. You kind of have to be born like that. It’s a fairly impossible skill to learn - at least on that high a level.
That’s just the audience. Somewhere, where I can’t see them, are the players upon the stage. The members of the committee itself are frantically talking among themselves - either in person, or on their phones - to members of their party, to members of the other party that they either consider (a) somewhat friendly, and/or (b) easy to squeeze for info. These hearings/ meetings are all scripted, to the extent possible - well, they are both scripted and haywire. I’m sure some folks think they have it down, and then someone they thought they had figured comes in and throws them for a loop.
Anyway! Just a bit of the atmosphere. We await the committee. Hit your refresh button around 9:30 to catch up on yet another episode of energy and climate drama, I mean policy! Kansas-legislature-style.
From two copies of written testimony that I have - KCPL is testifying pro. To summarize: they are raring to go on energy efficiency, so they need rate recovery. Like, yesterday. KCC is testifying con. To summarize - yes they love energy efficiency and they are working on it themselves quite hard, thanks, so, um, don’t rush them by doing this legislatively.
Hey. Just a summary. Homebuilders Assoc of KC is testifying pro. Westar is - testifying. Generally, yay energy efficiency, but I don’t see a statement of whether they are pro or con. AARP is pro. Sierra Club is pro. KC Chamber is pro. Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is pro. Olathe School District is pro. CEP is pro.
CEP Climate and Energy Star: Michelle Chappell, DVM
February 28, 2008
By Eileen Horn
Who are Climate and Energy Stars? They are everyday Kansans working to address climate change in small but important ways.
Climate and Energy Star Dr. Michelle Chappell DVM is a veterinarian and small business owner in Lenexa, KS. Dr. Chappell took CEP’s Eileen Horn on a tour of her new clinic, Mariposa Veterinary Center, and shared many of the energy efficiency features of the building- all part of Chappell’s vision to “care for pets, people, and the planet.”
My conversation with Dr. Chappell began with an invitation to peek into the “truth window.” This wooden door measures about one square foot, and is built at eye level into the building’s Spanish-style stucco wall. As I opened the “truth window,” I was immediately greeted by an earthy smell emanating from a bale of straw wrapped in metal mesh.
Hmmm. With a name like “truth window,” I must admit I had higher hopes than a wooden door that opened into a pile of dried grass.
However, this is truly how straw bale construction works. In this green construction technique, the bales (in this case local ones from Belton, MO) are sandwiched between thick stucco walls. The straw bales serve to insulate the building, and do so more effectively than conventional insulation materials often made of foam or fiberglass.
An insulating material’s “R” value is a measure of resistance to heat flow. The higher the “R” value is, the lower are your heating and cooling costs. The 21” thick straw-bale and stucco walls of Mariposa Veterinary Center provide an “R” value of 50. By comparison, conventional high density fiberglass insulation “R” values range from 15-38.
In addition to the straw-bale construction, architects and builders from Rothers Design-Build and HarenLaughlin Construction integrated multiple energy-saving features in the 4,000 square foot clinic space. For example, Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), made of compressed wood and styrofoam, were used to construct the roof. SIPs provide superior and uniform insulation compared to traditional stud or “stick frame” construction. They also offer energy savings of 12%-14%.
Other energy efficient features include double-paned windows which minimize air leaks. Full spectrum compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use 75% less electricity than traditional bulbs. The building itself was also carefully oriented on the site to take advantage of passive solar heating in the winter and natural day-lighting throughout the year.
In the future, Chappell hopes to place solar panels on the roof to generate their own electricity for the clinic, but that is a retrofit that will happen later. For Chappell, it was important to “do the structural elements like the walls first- the stuff we couldn’t go back and change later.”
These energy efficiency measures and other “green” features of the clinic (including non-toxic paints, stormwater control using native plants, and chemical-free digital X-ray technologies) were inspired by Dr. Chappell’s desire to care for her staff and animal patients.
According to Chappell, “I didn’t want to create an environment that would be unhealthy for people or animals, especially since this is supposed to be a healing environment. “ As a savvy small business owner, Chappell also realized that healthy people are more productive, and a non-toxic work environment would create a happier and more productive staff.
Energy savings were another powerful motivator. For a typical 4,000 sq. foot office space with traditional lighting and HVAC systems, a monthly energy bill would be approximately $550/mo. Last month, Mariposa Veterinary Clinic’s energy bill was $300, for an annual savings of $3,000.
“The way energy costs are going, I really suspect that this building will be even more valuable as time goes by,” Chappell said. “To some people, it may look kinda silly not to have gas, to be fully electric, but I think in the future we’ll be sitting in a better situation than most folks.”
Chappell had predicted the energy savings, the productivity, and the happier staff, but she also discovered an added bonus: the marketing potential of the green building.
“Everyone on our staff came on as a result of reading about the building construction. Several clients have come in out of curiosity. It’s been an amazing marketing tool - lots of people just wanting to see what a straw bale building looks like.”
Often, these curious visitors become clients, as they learn about the integrated services this veterinary clinic offers pets: acupuncture, allergy treatments, surgery, dentistry, and chiropractic care.
Yes, it’s just one building. But it’s one building that saves energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, realizes multiple economic savings and benefits for a small business owner, and contributes to the healing of pets and the humans that work there.
On second thought, maybe “truth window” was the right term after all.
(Text by Eileen Horn. Photos by Monica Terry.)
For more information about energy efficiency in your home, business, or office space, visit:
- Department of Energy Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/
- KSU Engineering Extension, http://www.engext.ksu.edu/home.asp
- CEP’s Take Steps section - http://www.climateandenergy.org/TakeStep/EnergyTips/Index.htm
For more information on straw bale construction, see Mother Earth News: Expert Advice on Straw Bale Building.
Also, both KCP&L and Westar offer home energy analyzers at:
Dirk Greenhouse to the rescue! use energy wisely - or else
February 22, 2008
Because it’s Friday…. for your viewing pleasure.
Happy weekend, all.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
All New Energy Costs More, Except…
February 22, 2008
by Nancy Jackson
On Valentine’s Day, in a distinctly unromantic move, IHS Inc. (NYSE: HIS), announced their new Power Capital Costs Index (PCCI). The index – announced among presentations from Exxon, Peabody, Duke, FERC, and the fabulous Alan Greenspan – is a “proprietary measure of project cost inflation similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index.”
It shows that the cost of new power plant construction in North America increased 27 percent in 12 months and 19 percent on the most recent six months, reaching a level 130 percent higher than in 2000. Ouch.
My first thought on reading this news was that I really wish my dwindling retirement portfolio were heavily invested in copper, nickel, and steel futures five years ago.
The real takeaway, of course, is that new power simply costs more: all of it. The Index includes data on building coal, gas, wind, and nuclear plants.
We need to be clear about this. Coal is not cheap. Massive cost overruns plague plants near and far and carbon prices will make that resource more expensive still. But new wind plants are not cheap either, nor are nuclear or natural gas. Given global demand for resources, all new energy costs more than we are used to paying, period.
What we decide today (and tomorrow, and for decades to come) is which expensive new generation we prefer, and why.
Among our considerations, surely: air pollution profiles, both particulate and greenhouse gas emissions. But also: water concerns (both above and below ground), viewshed issues, wildlife impacts, subsidy requirements, national security risks, and our strong desire for energy security and independence.
In a changing world, there is much to be considered. CEP is confident that Kansas will rise to the challenge, and do so in a careful, methodical manner that engages many stakeholders and perspectives.
Meanwhile, there exists one bright and shining exception to the rule. There is one way to meet load growth that creates no new pollution and costs dramatically less than new generation: energy efficiency, which we need to learn to view as the resource that it is.
What’s that you say? Energy efficiency can’t do much and is also really expensive? Au contraire, my good friends!
A remarkable study conducted for the state of Maryland by ACEEE (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy), confirms that the Maryland Governor’s goal to achieve a 15 percent reduction in per capita energy use by 2015 “is attainable cost-effectively with the energy efficiency and demand response resources we have in Maryland today.”
In fact, it turned out that energy efficiency could:
- Energy efficiency and demand response are the only resources that can be mobilized immediately, forestalling the prospect of power curtailments in the next few years and keeping the lights on for consumers in the state.
- Every dollar invested in efficiency yields an impressive return of $4 in reduced consumer electricity bills. Energy efficiency policies and programs recommended by ACEEE will cut consumer electricity bills by a net $860 million in 2015 and $2.6 billion in 2025.
- By 2015, residential efficiency programs will reduce an average household’s monthly electricity bill by a net $8. Including the benefits of lower wholesale prices, an average household will save a net $10 on monthly bills in 2015, or a 7% savings compared to forecasted bills. These savings grow substantially by 2025.
- All consumers benefit from energy efficiency. By reducing electricity demand, energy efficiency creates a downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. By 2015, a typical residential consumer can save about $24 a year on monthly electricity bills from lower wholesale prices.
- Investments in energy efficiency create new, high-quality “green-collar” jobs for the state. These investments will create more than 8,000 net new jobs by 2015 and 12,000 by 2025. “That’s about the same level of employment we would see if Maryland were able to attract 100 small-sized manufacturing plants,” observed Prindle. This would yield more than $450 million in new wages, he said, growing to almost $800 million by 2025.
We have before us, available as soon as we decide to use it, this fantastic resource. Energy efficiency provides economic development, “new” energy at least cost, and no new pollution of any kind. Shouldn’t we maximize this resource while we consider new generation?
— Nancy Jackson, www.climateandenergy.org
