07.19.08
Posted in Electric Vehicle EV, Uncategorized at 11:09 am by Michael Glover
COMMENTARY
Grove: When it comes to our energy future,
we’re chasing the wrong goal
Andrew Grove, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON POST
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Energy independence is the wrong goal.
Oil, like all other goods, flows toward the highest bidder. Consequently, talking about “independence” in
a global economy ruled by market forces is a contradiction.
As national policy, we must protect the U.S. economy from interruptions in the supply of such a critical
commodity — whether those interruptions stem from natural or political causes. The appropriate aim is
to strengthen our energy resilience to adjust to such changes.We can do this by increasing our reliance
on electricity.
Electricity can be transported only over land. Consequently, it will stay in (or stick to) the continent
where it is produced. Equally important is that electricity can be produced using multiple sources of
energy. Petroleum, yes — but also coal, which is abundant in the United States; wind; hydroelectric;
nuclear; and solar energy. If one source suffers a shortage, we can produce electricity from another.
Electricity will give us the greatest degree of energy resilience.
Most everything today runs on electricity. A big exception is the transportation sector. Transportation
uses more than half of the petroleum consumed in this country. If we don’t convert a large portion of the
transportation sector to electricity, we cannot make real progress toward energy resilience.
This conversion will not be easy. It requires growth in generation capacity as well as in the capacity and
reach of the transmission infrastructure. Most important, it requires vehicles to run on electric power.
Given the size and weight of ordinary automobiles, current technology allows electric cars to run only
100 miles or so before their batteries need to be recharged — the way we recharge our cellphones, by
plugging them into the national electric grid. Few drivers can live with this limitation all the time; still,
today’s capabilities can get us off to a good start.
The automobile industry has been waiting for batteries to improve until they can allow electric cars to
enter the marketplace with the same driving range as gas-fueled cars. Battery developers have been
waiting for demand from the automobile industry to develop before committing the resources required to
Grove: When it comes to our energy future, we’re chasing the wrong goal Page 1 of 3
http://statesman.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Grove%3A+When+it+c… 7/18/2008
do the job. The generation and transmission infrastructures have not been built up to service the
potentially explosive demand from transportation.
To be sure, this situation is changing. Start-ups such as Tesla Motors and Project Better Place have
begun to experiment with all-electric cars, and important developments are underway at Nissan and
General Motors. But our exposure to the vagaries of oil supply is growing by the month.
We must sharply accelerate the conversion to electricity. The U.S. government should lead the way by
requiring that a growing percentage of cars be built with dual-fuel capability. These cars would have an
electric engine and an auxiliary gasoline engine. The car would run on electricity and switch to the
gasoline engine after the batteries were depleted.
The forces of disruptive technology would eventually bring improvements in battery technology,
allowing the production of an all-electric car with satisfactory driving range.
Our biggest problem, however, is how long all this takes. No matter how fast the production of dual-fuel
cars is ramped up, replacing the bulk of the approximately 250 million cars on America’s roads will take
a decade.
We must mobilize all segments of our economy to accelerate the process. Enterprising folks are working
to devise ways in which existing gasoline cars could be converted to dual-fuel. Pickups and SUVs
represent about 80 million vehicles, with mileage of perhaps 13 to 16 mpg. Converting these should be a
priority.
Estimates show that converting vehicles to dual-fuel operation, even with electricity providing no more
than 50 miles of driving range between daily rechargings, could cut petroleum imports 50 to 60 percent
— a stunning opportunity.
A task of this magnitude requires changes in the behavior of millions of consumers. We may need to
apply tax incentives to offset the cost of the retrofit and couple them with discounts on the cost of
electricity used by the vehicle.
The move to electric miles also has the added advantage of helping to mitigate a major environmental
threat. A shift from petroleum-based vehicles to electricity-based ones would move the locus for
addressing carbon emissions from millions of individual vehicles to far fewer centralized electricitygenerating
plants. Controlling emissions thus becomes an industrial task, easier technologically.
Estimates indicate a potential reduction of carbon emissions of around 50 percent.
There is no issue more urgent. History shows a pattern of using access to energy to influence diplomatic
outcomes, with events often escalating into violence. We must prevent this from happening to our
country.
National security as well as economic needs require that we urgently adopt a strategy to strengthen our
energy resilience. The most practical and immediate way is to encourage the mass manufacture of
vehicles, as well as the retrofitting of existing ones, so that they first run on electricity.
Grove was chairman and chief executive of Intel Corp. from 1987 to 1998 and now serves as senior
adviser.
Permalink
02.18.07
Posted in Thermal Storage at 8:00 pm by Michael Glover
As an energy industry professional I am becoming alarmed at the increasing cost of energy. I look at my electric bill and think this is really convenient and reasonably priced energy, but I know if we don’t get proactive, the price is going to change significantly.
I’m going to ask you to join me and get proactive and solve this problem. If you don’t provide leadership, we will all suffer.
The biggest bottleneck to maintaining low cost global electric prices is ENERGY STORAGE. Unless we solve the storage problem, peak demand will continue to drive prices higher. The mood of the country and the world has reached the tipping point. Even if the environmental concerns with global warming are not manmade, the economic effects of supply and demand will continue to drive prices higher. I think the majority of informed world residents feel it’s not worth the risks to continue down our current path.
The are several technologies on the horizon that have the potential to solve the energy storage problem, but only one of them is proven, cost effective technology. I had to ask myself why this technology has not been deployed on a massive scale. The answer to that question follows:
Electric energy prices have historically been averaged. The low cost, low demand energy is averaged with the high cost high demand energy. Because of this the end user does not benefit from buying low demand energy because it costs as much as high demand energy.
Some electric utilities have offered token incentives to use low demand (off-peak) electric energy, but those programs have been few and far between. The investor owned utilities owe it to their stockholders to keep the lion’s share of the profits and not pass them on to the consumer.
I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure out how to get the lion’s share of the low cost, low demand energy to the end user so they would purchase and deploy demand limiting technology.
My first thought was that government would have to force the investor owned utilities to offer ten times their current token rebates to put the lion’s share of the savings in the consumer’s hand. My conclusion was that the utility lobby would never let this happen.
The answer was to own the electric generating and distribution assets. My initial thoughts were to buy or partner with renewable or carbon neutral energy generators such as wind turbines and bio wood fired power turbines. It finally dawned on me that I am already a part owner of an electric company; I’m a member of a rural electric coop.
Environmental issues aside, economics prohibits building new power plants.
Demand and supply are the major components of the cost of electricity. If we lower peak demand, supply will increase and the cost of power will fall significantly.
The primary method available to reduce demand is to make ice when electricity is cheap. Melt the ice for air conditioning when electricity is expensive or in high demand. This is a simple alternative to spending billions building new coal fired electric power plants.
Thermal Energy Storage, TES systems have been in use since the early 1920’s when three Dallas area churches put in systems. One of the original applications was to use a small inexpensive compressor to make ice all week long and then melt all that ice to cool the sanctuary for two hours on Sunday. The church my parents were married in (Lovers Lane United Methodist) had a system installed prior to WWII. I consulted with them to rebuild or replace the system in the early 1980’s. A common TES system is using tank type water heaters (hot thermal storage) to avoid large instantaneous gas or electric water heaters.
So why don’t we find a TES air conditioner in every house and small business? The answer is also simple:
- Most electric rates are averaged so it is not less expensive to buy electricity when it should be cheap and it is not more expensive to buy electricity in high demand periods when the price should be exponentially higher.
- In very round numbers it costs thousands of dollars per kW (or ton of A/C) to fund the construction of electric generation plants, transmission and distribution (TD) infrastructure. There are no mechanisms to divert funds from coal fired generators to funding TES systems in your home or business. The current conservative estimate of avoided costs to build generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure is $1000. Per kW per year. This adds up to more than $45,000. Over the 15 year life of a 3 ton TES system. You can buy a 3 ton TES system for about $15,000.
Should we invest $45,000 in new coal generating plants or invest $15,000 in your home TES system?
If the above economic rationalization isn’t enough to convince you, consider the following additional benefits on TES.
- Running your air conditioner at night to make ice for daytime use is much more efficient because the ambient outside temperature is much lower and you’re a/c unit operates more efficiently.
- Running the generating turbine at night is much more efficient for the same reason, lower nighttime temperatures.
- All power plants run more efficiently when they are fully loaded and demand is predictable.
- Transmission and distribution is more efficient at night.
- Wind energy is 95% off peak and must have energy storage in the future to grow.
A massive deployment of TES will postpone the need to build additional power plants for many years and lower the cost of power for consumers. We can land on the moon. Why can’t we make ice to stay cool?
I’m asking all co-ops to fund TES demonstration projects for the 2007 season and provide ttheir members with incentives they can’t turn down.
Permalink
02.02.07
Posted in Thermal Storage at 9:06 am by Michael Glover
The North American Electric Reliability Council reports that the demand for electricity is expected to rise 19 percent by 2015, or 141,000 megawatts. The problem is that generation capacity is only anticipated to grow by 6 percent.
People don’t realize how dangerously close we’re moving to not having enough capacity. Needless-to-say, the market will provide some solutions. That is, if supply and demand remain out-of-whack and natural gas prices stay high then other alternative sources of energy will emerge. That gives green energy forms such as wind and solar a leg up.
The logical alternative to this shortage is massive deployment of Thermal Energy Storage (TES) that would act as a shock absorber. The peak demand could be leveled, freeing enough generation for growth without building new plants. With this shock absorber the current built-in safety factor could also be reduced to supply future demand.
It’s time to make a decision. Are we going to keep building generating plants that run at 50% capacity much of the time or are we going to invest in TES to level supply and demand?
Permalink
01.25.07
Posted in Thermal Storage at 10:35 am by Michael Glover
Make ice when electricity is cheap. Melt the ice for air conditioning when electricity is expensive or in high demand. Pretty simple alternative to spending billions building new coal fired electric power plants.
Thermal Energy Storage, TES systems have been in use for almost a hundred years. One of the original applications was to use a small inexpensive compressor to make ice all week long and then melt all that ice to cool the sanctuary for two hours on Sunday. We have been using tank type water heaters (hot thermal storage) for years to avoid having large instantaneous gas or electric water heaters.
So why don’t we find a TES air conditioner in every house and small business? The answer is also pretty simple:
- Most electric rates are averaged so it is not less expensive to buy electricity when it should be cheap and it is not more expensive to buy electricity in high demand periods when the price should be exponentially higher.
- In very round numbers it costs thousands of dollars per kW (or ton of A/C) to fund the construction of electric generation plants, transmission and distribution (TD) infrastructure. There is no mechanism to divert funds from building these coal fired construction projects to fund installing a TES system in your home or business. The current conservative estimate of avoided costs to build generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure to serve a three ton air conditioner is $45,000. over the 15 year life of the TES system.
Should we invest $45,000 in new coal generating plants or invest a fraction of that in your home?
If the above economic rationalization isn’t enough to convince you consider the following.
- Running your air conditioner at night is much more efficient because the ambient outside temperature is much lower and you’re a/c unit operates more efficiently.
- Running the generating turbine at night is much more efficient for the same reason, lower night temperatures.
- All power plants run more efficiently when they are fully loaded and demand is predictable.
- Transmission and distribution is more efficient at night.
A massive deployment of TES will postpone the need to build additional power plants for many years. We can land on the moon. Why can’t we make ice?
Permalink
01.23.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:21 am by Michael Glover
The first step in wide scale deployment of Thermal Energy Storage TES and other demand side management tools is wide spread deployment of smart electric meters. Smart meters allow customers to buy power at lower cost when demand is low. There are a few people that will simply turn their A/C off when prices get high on a summer afternoon, but I think most people are like me and want to crank the A/C down and enjoy the cool during the hottest parts of the day. I will be one of the TES air conditioning system owners.
Many utilities are currently deploying smart meters. See the following article.
BGE sets rewards to limit home use: Incentives aim to reduce electricity demand at peak times, persuade customers to conserve
Jan. 23, 2007 (McClatchy-Tribune Business News delivered by Newstex) –
By Paul Adams
Baltimore Gas and Electric will announce today a plan intended to reduce power demand at peak times and give customers more control over soaring energy bills by installing “smart” meters at every home and boosting incentives for conservation.
BGE will offer new financial rewards for customers to shift their power use to off-peak hours and will expand existing programs that pay customers to let BGE remotely control use of air conditioners and water heaters on days when energy demand is high.
The plans will be filed with the state Public Service Commission today. They will be paired with stepped-up conservation programs that pay customers rebates for replacing older appliances with high-efficiency models. The programs will be voluntary and will work only if enough people participate to make a measurable difference in demand on the power grid.
The initiative comes as BGE is phasing in a sharp rate increase that sparked a consumer and political backlash against electricity deregulation last year. It puts the company in step with a growing number of utilities worldwide that are turning to smart meters and other so-called “demand-response” technology to cut costs and trim peak demand for power, which reached a record in BGE territory during last summer’s heat wave.
“At the end of the day, you’ll pay less than you would have paid had we not done this,” said Kenneth W. DeFontes Jr., president of BGE.
The technology works in part by allowing utilities to remotely measure a customer’s power use hourly, eliminating the need for meter readers. That makes it easier for utilities to offer a variety of time-of-use pricing schemes that reward customers for, say, not running the dishwasher until evening.
Some critics say utilities might be better off spending their money solely to reduce power consumption rather than on shifting it to different times of day. And there is skepticism that utility customers will want to sort through myriad pricing schemes and take greater control of their energy use, which is a key component of the plan. Phone companies have discovered that many customers prefer the simplicity of a flat rate for local and long-distance calling even though some pay more in the long run.
“Some customers — especially the residential class — I don’t think will be interested in it at all and are probably willing to pay just a bit more to keep it simple,” said Ken Rose, an independent utility consultant in Columbus, Ohio.
But utility officials and state regulators see the technology as a critical step in managing Maryland’s growing energy demand at a time when no new power plants are being constructed.
Maryland imports nearly 30 percent of its power from neighboring states and is especially vulnerable to the volatility of the wholesale energy market.
The market price of electricity can soar from $80 or less per megawatt hour to more than $1,000 during the peak afternoon hours of a heat wave. That’s because energy producers must turn on expensive natural gas and oil-powered generators to meet demand at critical times. Those plants might operate less than 100 hours annually but have a disproportionate impact on rates in the deregulated wholesale market, where prices are linked to the most expensive power in use.
Shaving peak demand by just a few percent on a regular basis can reduce the need to build more power plants and lower rates significantly, energy experts and consumer advocates say.
“Those peak times really drive up the price to everyone,” said Theresa Czarski of the Maryland Office of the People’s Counsel, which represents consumers.
Czarski said the People’s Counsel will study BGE’s plans to ensure that the potential benefits aren’t outweighed by the substantial capital investment required.
BGE will start later this year with a roughly $10 million pilot program to outfit about 5,000 homes with smart-meter technology. A smaller number also will get new programmable thermostats and remote-control switches for appliances. If the program is ultimately rolled out across its service territory, BGE’s customers could be asked to pay up to $350 million to $450 million for new equipment, with the expectation of getting a much larger return over time. The program’s cost would be factored into the utility’s electricity delivery charge.
Cost estimates are difficult because the company has not selected vendors for some aspects of the program. A similar program by Pacific Gas & Electric in California resulted in a temporary 1 percent rate increase, though proponents say the program will pay for itself several times over.
“We wouldn’t do any of these programs if we didn’t think they were going to save money,” DeFontes said.
Industry analysts say success depends on whether the financial incentives are large enough to get people to participate.
BGE might offer customers lower rates for agreeing to reduce usage during peak hours on the hottest days every summer. Customers will be notified which days to reduce power, by either e-mail or a signal sent through a smart thermostat, which will have a display screen and be controlled remotely by BGE.
BGE has about 100,000 customers on a less sophisticated time-of-use pricing program, which offers a small reward to those who shift power use to off-peak hours. The new program will offer more options and greater financial incentives, DeFontes said.
The company also hopes to boost the rewards for customers who allow it to cycle air conditioners and water heaters on and off during hot days, from $10 a month in the summer to at least $12.50 per month. About 200,000 — roughly 20 percent of BGE’s 1.1 million residential customers-participate now, but the utility hopes to convince more than a third of its customers to sign up over the next three to four years.
With smart thermostats, the utility could also pay customers for permission to remotely raise their room-temperature settings on very hot days.
The company expects to get regulatory approval for the pilot program within a few months. It will take several years to install an estimated 1.8 million electric and gas meters in every BGE home.
“I think our predictions are that if we do these programs, we’re hoping to achieve 10 percent energy savings over 10 years,” DeFontes said.
paul.adams@baltsun.com
Newstex ID: KRTB-0034-13791417
Permalink
01.17.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 7:12 pm by Michael Glover
EEStor announces accomplishing two major milestones to produce a battery that recharges in minutes.
CEDAR PARK, TEXAS –
Richard Weir, CEO and President of EEStor, Inc. : “We are very proud of the key advancements we have made over the past year. In addition to the milestones identified, the Company has also been awarded a critical patent related to our technology and has 12 additional patents pending. We have built a state-of-the-art facility and have exceptional personnel onboard.”
The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15 kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles. The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company will function to specification in operating environments as sever as negative 20 to plus 65 degrees Celsius, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes.
ABOUT EEStor, Inc.
Headquartered in Cedar Park, Texas, EEStor, Inc. is dedicated to the design, development, and manufacturing of high-density energy storage devices. Utilizing revolutionary ultra capacitor architecture and environmentally friendly materials the EEStor, Inc. EESU will compete against all existing battery technologies. The EEStor, Inc. EESU IS capable of microsecond recharging and millions of 100% charge/discharge cycles. The technology is affordable and designed for versatile “racked and stacked” configurations.
Contacts:
EEStor, Inc.
Richard Weir
President and Chief Executive Officer
(512) 259-5144
Email: dick_weir@eestor.us
Permalink
Posted in ECM Energy Conservation Measures, Uncategorized at 12:35 pm by Michael Glover
Windows:
Design and place windows based on internal wall characteristics.
The type of internal walls used in your facilities should influence the design and placement of windows. Highly reflective–but not glossy–light-colored walls spread daylight back from the sidewalls. Jewel-toned walls absorb more light and may require more supplemental lighting sources.
Use insulation in aluminum frame windows.
Properly insulating your aluminum frame windows makes them almost as energy-efficient as wooden ones. Include an insulating section (thermal break) between the inner and outer aluminum sections of the frames.
Use interior window treatments.
In addition to being attractive, interior window treatments reduce energy consumption. Use insulating vertical or horizontal blinds and/or draperies to reduce heat loss and solar gain through window openings.
Use proper U-value in replacement windows.
When replacing windows, use windows with a 0.46 U-value or better that has optical properties appropriate for building use. (U-0.46 is a Low-E window in an improved metal frame.)
Use solar control glass.
In all but the most northern climates, the use of solar control glass provides significant energy savings. Solar heat gain is a serious problem particularly in buildings with large areas of south-facing glass. In warmer climates in buildings with more than 25 percent glass, consider using window tints or reflective coatings to reflect up to 90 percent of the solar heat striking windows.
Use window films.
Window films help reduce air conditioning and heating energy use while allowing occupants to enjoy the view. In optimum situations, energy savings frequently pay back the cost of film installation in a year or less.
Permalink
01.16.07
Posted in ECM Energy Conservation Measures at 12:09 pm by Michael Glover
Replace incandescent lamps with compact fluorescents.
It’s a good idea to replace incandescent lamps with compact fluorescents (CFLs). When doing so, the proper ratio is about 3 1/2% incandescent watts to 1 compact fluorescent watt. There may be an aesthetic problem with replacing incandescent lamps with CFLs in “can” fixtures because these fixtures are not designed for CFLs. The lamps often protrude from the bottom of the fixture and the light distribution from the fixture is poor because its optical characteristics suit an incandescent lamp. Another approach: retrofit with a specially designed reflector and lamp holder that maximizes the optics of the CFL and has a more pleasing appearance.
Balance ballast costs with bulb life cost savings.
Fixtures that have state-of-the-art lamps or ballasts (T8 lamps, electronic ballasts, etc.) may save plenty of energy but may also require a higher premium at relamping or reballasting time. Much of this cost is offset because of the longer life. This longer life not only cuts down on replacement component costs but also reduces the associated labor expense to replace them.
Consider a T8 system retrofit
Even if you have already retrofitted a lighting system with energy-efficient core-coil ballasts and “watt miser” lamps, you can get further savings with a T8 conversion. The T8 system is, in most cases, the best retrofit method for existing fluorescent lamps. T8 lamps and ballasts are much more efficient than standard lamps and ballasts and their use creates an opportunity for delamping by astute use of reflectors, new lenses and “overdriven” ballasts. Often, existing four-lamp fixtures can be retrofitted with three or even two T8 lamps and ballasts and still maintain the same light output. Fixtures that have state-of-the-art lamps or ballasts (T8 lamps, electronic ballasts, etc.) may save plenty of energy but may also require a higher premium at relamping or reballasting time. Much of this cost is offset because of the longer life. This longer life not only cuts down on replacement component costs but also reduces the associated labor expense to replace them.
Consider dimming systems
Full-range and “step” fluorescent dimming systems can significantly reduce the power delivered to fluorescent lights and can even be activated in response to available daylight for perimeter areas. While fluorescent control systems can be costly, the potential savings are great. A simple wallbox-mounted occupancy sensor (infrared or motion detector) can save a significant amount of money.
Consider motion detectors
Incorporate motion detectors where they make sense. Suppose that you have fixtures with U-shaped fluorescent lamps normally rated at 18,000 hours of life (at 12 hours per start). If you use the fixtures every day of the week for 12 hours each day, the lamps should last approximately four years before they burn out. Let’s say you determine that the offices are only used for two three-hour periods each day. You decide to install motion detectors in these spaces. Now, at three hours per start, the life of these lamps is reduced to 12,000 hours. Even so, because of the reduced usage, they will last about 5 1/2 years before they burn out. You have extended the time between relamping by 1 1/2 years (37.5 percent) and consequently lowered your maintenance costs. You have cut down your energy bill by 50 percent at the same time.
Distribute daylight evenly.
Employ special strategies to help distribute daylight evenly in multiple-story buildings. Simply enlarging window openings in such structures does not solve the problem. This is because near the ground level, some daylight bounces off the landscaping and streetscaping to balance the light from the sky. In high-rise buildings, you can achieve balance artificially by using reflectors and diffusers built into the glass.
Exit signs can be a fast way to cut costs.
Replace your 10, or 20 watt incandescent lamps in exit signs with 5 watt compact fluorescents (CFLs). While the incremental energy savings may seem small, the continual operation of exit signs makes the retrofit very cost effective. Retrofitting a two lamp 15 watt incandescent sign with two, 5 watt CFLs will save approximately 175 watts, or about $15 per year. The cost of retrofit kits may be covered by utility rebates, resulting in a very quick payback. These savings are dwarfed in comparison to the maintenance savings from fewer lamp changes. A typical incandescent exit sign lamp needs to be changed every two months; a CFL needs to be replaced less than once a year. (And some fluorescent retrofit kits have two lamps which operate in tandem thereby reducing by half the number of trips up the ladder to change a lamp.) Assuming 20 minutes per lamp change, you can save about two hours of labor per year per exit sign by converting to fluorescent. In a building with 100 exit signs, this results in a maintenance savings of five weeks labor time per year. LFD and electroluminescent exit light fixtures can be an effective alternative to CFLs.
Improve your lighting control
Lighting control is perhaps the most important element of any lighting energy conservation program. Its benefits are concrete, measurable and, in most cases, quickly realized. Many lighting control projects have payback periods of less than one year. On/off controls are most suitable for applications where lighting is not needed for extended periods of time, but where manual switches might be left on. The choice between occupancy sensors and time-based controls should be based on the nature of the operation being performed in the affected space. For example, hallway lighting in office buildings is generally needed only during scheduled hours and therefore well-suited for time-based controls. If lighting is needed on a more random basis, such as private offices, occupancy sensors provide a better level of control and greater energy savings. Daylighting control systems examine the total amount of light available in a given space and switch off one or more banks of lights whenever enough sunlight is available. Daylighting control systems are particularly well suited for use in facilities with large areas of exterior glass.
Permalink
01.15.07
Posted in ECM Energy Conservation Measures at 12:55 pm by Michael Glover
We get questions and will be happy to answer with our best shot. E-mail questions to: pundit@texas-best.com
Question
For phantom load, it would be good to have a surge protector with a remote, or programmed to your TV remote, where you shut off the cable box, TV, DVD, stereo and everything else without having to climb behind the TV. In a new home, it could be hard wired like a light switch – a switch next to the light switch shuts off every plug. Have you seen any way to control phantom load? We have five TV’s & I bet a lot of people do.
Answer
· Wattstopper
Saves energy by controlling desktop equipment .
· Consists of an eight outlet power strip with surge suppression and a personal occupancy sensor .
· 6 outlets on the power strip are controlled by occupancy; 2 outlets uncontrolled .
· Power strip has lifetime product warranty and a $25,000 connected equipment warranty .
· About $90.
· Smart Strip
· The Smart Strip Power Strip features advanced circuitry that not only offers excellent power surge protection and line noise filtering, but is actually able to ’sense’ the flow of electrical current through the strip’s control outlet. Because of this unique ability, the Smart Strip can turn off selected equipment when it’s not in use — creating benefit that no other power strip on the market today can offer.
· About $35.
You could plug your power strip into an x-10 module and control it with an occupancy sensor, timer or your home computer energy management software. You can purchase a remote control for your x-10
Hope this helps.
Permalink
01.11.07
Posted in Thermal Storage at 1:39 pm by Michael Glover
Most AC system and equipment selections are made using full load efficiencies.
ARI has found that typical commercial buildings in the United States operate 1 percent or less of the time at full-load tonnage. The rest of the time is spent at 25- to 75-percent full load. “You have a lot more operating values at part load than full load,” notes Daryl Showalter, director of chiller marketing for McQuay Intl., Staunton, VA. “The chance of running at your full-load tonnage is rare.”
Load requirements, as affected by the building envelope, the equipment, and even the building itself, can be tracked. The availability of more sophisticated building analysis software allows design firms to look at all the options available and to better understand the long-term implications for system sustainability, Menzer says.
“It has been a long process to get building owners and architects to recognize the long-term operating costs and not just the first cost of equipment,” he points out. Menzer adds that ARI standards for larger air-conditioning equipment do have part-load considerations covered under a term known as integrated part load value (IPLV). The IPLV measures the efficiency of air-conditioners when the unit is operating at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of capacity and at different temperatures. IPLV is calculated only for commercial cooling systems.
“Chiller manufacturers would like to see ASHRAE 90.1 give more attention to part-load efficiencies,” Menzer says. “The question is how much weight will these standards give them? [Full- and part-load efficiencies] should both be considered.”
A soulution to part loading is to always run the equipment at full load, store the cooling for use in a TES system (Thermal Energy Storage) and use the stored cooling as needed. Properly designed TES systems have almost no storage efficiency losses and operate 15% to 25% more efficient at full load during lower temperature off peak hours.
TES systems are now available for systems 3 tons and up.
Permalink
« Previous entries