The Price of Inaction

From www.terrapass.com

Pete Davies | October 13, 2009

Clearing up after a flood costs money, wastes energy and reduces productivity. Just like climate change.

We’re in the middle of the first storm of the season on the West Coast. As I write this I’m looking at a pile of industrial hairdryers that are going to be used to deal with our soggy office: a couple of blocked drains on a patio at the top of the building caused a pretty severe flood in the early hours of the morning.

I’m not qualified to suggest (and don’t intend to imply) that this particular storm is any worse than usual. The reality is that if we didn’t get flooded today, it would happen in a month or two when the winter storms blow through.

As the Water Remediation company (it’s what you look for in the Yellow Pages when your floor is too wet for a mop) plugs in the various dryers and dehumidifiers I’m seeing the miniature version of climate change disaster-response unfolding in front of my desk.

• There’s a lot of money being spent. Thankfully it’s our landlord’s insurance that pays for the cleanup and repairs. In the big world it is taxpayers and society that do it.

• We’re using a lot of energy. This kit is going to do bad things to our energy bill. It doesn’t matter how many CFLs we’ve installed and how conservative we were with the A/C this year, three days with the dryers and dehumidifiers running will dwarf those savings.

• There’s a tremendous loss of productivity around the office. As a company we’re well adapted to people working remotely, so I suppose it could be much worse. But bailing out patios with recycling bins isn’t going to get us funding a carbon reduction project at a dairy farm any quicker is it?

Simple and concise then: more expense, more energy and huge loss of productivity.

And all avoidable, if there was a little money spent earlier. Reminds me of something… I wonder what that could be…

Compact Flourescents: A Debacle?

Article taken from http://www.terrapass.com/

Adam Stein | October 5, 2009

L Prize competition tries to sidestep early mistakes in quest for better light

Philips may claim the “L Prize,” a $10 million award from the Department of Energy for any light that can reproduce the color and intensity of a 60-watt bulb using only 1/6 the power. Further, the winning entry must last at least 25 times as long as a standard incandescent.

The L Prize was established, in part, to prevent a recurrence of the problems with CFLs:

The department considers the introduction of compact fluorescents, today’s alternative to standard bulbs, to have been a debacle.

At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the market. Consumers rebelled against the bulbs’ shortcomings: the light output from compact fluorescent bulbs was cold and unpleasant, their life was much shorter than claimed, many were large and undimmable, they would not work in cold environments and they contained polluting mercury.

In another article, the Times notes that CFL sales are falling:

In a September 18 letter to C.F.L. industry stakeholders, Richard Karney, Energy Star products manager, said that national sales of the bulbs have declined 25 percent from their peak in 2007, with sales in some regions such as Vermont and parts of Massachusetts declining 35 to 50 percent…

Despite more than a decade of costly C.F.L. promotions — including giveaways, discounted prices and rebates — the bulbs have failed to capture the hearts (and sockets) of American consumers. Mr. Karney said that in regions where C.F.L. campaigns have been heaviest, 75 percent of screw-based sockets still contain incandescents. Nationally, about 90 percent of residential sockets are still occupied by incandescents, D.O.E. has reported.

I’m not sure the situation with CFLs is as bad as all that. 25% market share strikes me as pretty decent for a new product from a young industry still working out cost and quality issues. Consumers tend to be pretty conservative, particularly if they lack a strong motivation to switch. I wonder to what extent the slowdown in sales reflects the fact that a) CFLs don’t need to be replaced very often, and b) most early adopters have already switched over.

Nonetheless, it’s clear that much could have gone better with the introduction of the CFLs, and perhaps the L Prize will smooth the transition to the next phase of lighting technology. Philips is the first company to submit a contest entry, which now must undergo a year of testing to determine if it claims the prize.

Philip’s entry is a bulb-shaped LED, and the rub, as always, is cost. The company claims that in the long-term, they can get the cost down to $20 - $25 per bulb. This may not seem like much of a bargain, although the decreased power consumption and long lifetime of the bulbs should more than make up the difference.