Peak power units, or generators that can be quickly dispatched on the hottest and coldest days of the year are the most expensive to operate and typically require dedicated peaker units that inefficiently burn natural gas or diesel fuel.

 Energy produced from solar and wind is becoming increasingly more competitive with traditional baseload generation, but these resources only generate electricity when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing.

 This compounds the grid stability problem as underproduction from renewables increases our reliance on the faster responding polluting peaker units and overproduction can force fossil units to curtail production resulting in increased emissions. Additionally, power delivery networks suffer during times of peak demand or excess renewable production causing congestion within the transmission system and resulting in the inability to deliver a sufficient amount of power to end users.

 As a result of this inflexibility that exists in the system, consumers are often forced to pay a costly premium for energy consumed during peak times. The end result is less obvious to the majority of residential customers, but can have an impact on the bottom line for large commercial and industrial customers. This is a global problem and the solution lies in a smarter grid technology and the key is energy storage.

 Enter energy storage. Energy storage will enable a smarter grid and transform the way electricity is generated, transmitted and consumed. It will be used to supplement baseload generation by allowing these facilities to operate continuously at peak efficiency by charging a storage asset during times of low demand.

 When demand increases the storage assets can be dispatched to increase the capacity of the baseload facility transforming it into a virtual peaking plant. The inherent ability for storage to provide emissions-free capacity will allow these assets to be sited more quickly than peakers and the distributed nature will allow them to be strategically located at any scale next to load centers or points of congestion. When paired with renewables, energy storage will transform intermittent solar and wind into reliable and predictable mainstream generation sources.

 Storing energy will allow wind systems to minimize the curtailment that currently occurs during periods of over generation or congestion within the transmission system and will allow renewable energy to be transported from the rural generation sites and strategically stored next to load zones where it is most valuable.

 With greater grid stability, electric power quality will improve reducing severity of under-voltages, over-voltages (surges) and transients, meaning that increased power quality will have less adverse effects on digital equipment.

 Users will also benefit from storage by installing it on their side of the meter and allowing inexpensive off-peak electricity to be purchased and then later reused during periods of peak demand to reduce peak demand and time of use energy charges. The end result of a smarter storage-enhanced utility infrastructure is increased grid stability and flexibility ultimately resulting in fewer outages and lower rates to customers.

By Dax Kepshire

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released two nationwide resource assessments showing that waves and tidal currents off the nation’s coasts could contribute significantly to the United States’ total annual electricity production, further diversify the nation’s energy portfolio, and provide clean, renewable energy to coastal cities and communities. These new wave and tidal resource assessments, combined with ongoing analyses of the technologies and other resource assessments, show that water power, including conventional hydropower and wave, tidal, and other water power resources, can potentially provide 15% of our nation’s electricity by 2030. Today’s reports represent the most rigorous analysis undertaken to date to accurately define the magnitude and location of America’s ocean energy resources. The information in these resource assessments can help to further develop the country’s significant ocean energy resources, create new industries and new jobs in America, and secure U.S. leadership in an emerging global market.

The United States uses about 4,000 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity per year. DOE estimates that the maximum theoretical electric generation that could be produced from waves and tidal currents is approximately 1,420 TWh per year, approximately one-third of the nation’s total annual electricity usage. Although not all of the resource potential identified in these assessments can realistically be developed, the results still represent major opportunities for new water power development in the United States, highlighting specific opportunities to expand on the 6% of the nation’s electricity already generated from renewable hydropower resources.

The two reports—”Mapping and Assessment of the United States Ocean Wave Energy Resource” and “Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States“—calculate the maximum kinetic energy available from waves and tides off U.S. coasts that could be used for future energy production, and which represent largely untapped opportunities for renewable energy development in the United States.

The West Coast, including Alaska and Hawaii, has especially high potential for wave energy development, while significant opportunities for wave energy also exist along the East Coast. Additionally, parts of both the West and East Coasts have strong tides that could be tapped to produce energy.

Earlier this year, DOE announced the availability of its national tidal resource database, which maps the maximum theoretically available energy in the nation’s tidal streams. This database contributed to the “Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the United States” report, prepared by Georgia Tech.

The wave energy assessment report, titled “Mapping and Assessment of the United States Ocean Wave Energy Resource,” was prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with support and data validation from researchers at Virginia Tech and DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The report describes the methods used to produce geospatial data and to map the average annual and monthly significant wave height, wave energy period, mean direction, and wave power density in the coastal United States. NREL incorporated the data into a new marine and hydrokinetic energy section in their U.S. Renewable Resource atlas.

In addition to the wave and tidal resource assessments released today, DOE plans to release additional resource assessments for ocean current, ocean thermal gradients, and new hydropower resources in 2012. To support the development of technologies that can tap into these vast water power resources, DOE’s Water Power Program is undertaking a detailed technical and economic assessment of a wide range of water power technologies in order to more accurately predict the opportunities and costs of developing and deploying these innovative technologies. The Program is currently sponsoring over 40 demonstration projects that will advance the commercial readiness of these systems, provide first-of-a-kind, in-water performance data that will validate cost-of-energy predictions, and identify pathways for large cost reductions.

These resource assessments, techno-economic assessments, and technology demonstration projects are critical elements of DOE’s strategy to capture the very real opportunities associated with water power development, and to further define the path to supplying 15% of the nation’s electricity through water power technologies.

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy invests in clean energy technologies that strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. DOE’s Water Power Program is paving the way for industry and government to make sound investment and policy decisions about the deployment of renewable water power technologies by quantifying the nation’s theoretically available water power resources.

A paper describing the findings—the results of field tests conducted by John Dabiri, Caltech professor of aeronautics and bioengineering, and colleagues during the summer of 2010—appears in the July issue of the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy.

Dabiri’s experimental farm, known as the Field Laboratory for Optimized Wind Energy (FLOWE), houses 24 10-meter-tall, 1.2-meter-wide vertical-axis wind turbines (VAWTs)—turbines that have vertical rotors and look like eggbeaters sticking out of the ground. Half a dozen turbines were used in the 2010 field tests.

Despite improvements in the design of wind turbines that have increased their efficiency, wind farms are rather inefficient, Dabiri notes. Modern farms generally employ horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs)—the standard propeller-like monoliths that you might see slowly turning, all in the same direction, in the hills of Tehachapi Pass, north of Los Angeles.

In such farms, the individual turbines have to be spaced far apart—not just far enough that their giant blades don’t touch. With this type of design, the wake generated by one turbine can interfere aerodynamically with neighboring turbines, with the result that “much of the wind energy that enters a wind farm is never tapped,” says Dabiri. He compares modern farms to “sloppy eaters,” wasting not just real estate (and thus lowering the power output of a given plot of land) but much of the energy resources they have available to them.

		IMAGE: These are vertical-axis wind turbines at the Field Laboratory for Optimized Wind Energy (FLOWE) facility in northern Los Angeles County.

Designers compensate for the energy loss by making bigger blades and taller towers, to suck up more of the available wind and at heights where gusts are more powerful. “But this brings other challenges,” Dabiri says, such as higher costs, more complex engineering problems, a larger environmental impact. Bigger, taller turbines, after all, mean more noise, more danger to birds and bats, and—for those who don’t find the spinning spires visually appealing—an even larger eyesore.

The solution, says Dabiri, is to focus instead on the design of the wind farm itself, to maximize its energy-collecting efficiency at heights closer to the ground. While winds blow far less energetically at, say, 30 feet off the ground than at 100 feet, “the global wind power available 30 feet off the ground is greater than the world’s electricity usage, several times over,” he says. That means that enough energy can be obtained with smaller, cheaper, less environmentally intrusive turbines—as long as they’re the right turbines, arranged in the right way.

VAWTs are ideal, Dabiri says, because they can be positioned very close to one another. This lets them capture nearly all of the energy of the blowing wind and even wind energy above the farm. Having every turbine turn in the opposite direction of its neighbors, the researchers found, also increases their efficiency, perhaps because the opposing spins decrease the drag on each turbine, allowing it to spin faster (Dabiri got the idea for using this type of constructive interference from his studies of schooling fish).

In the summer 2010 field tests, Dabiri and his colleagues measured the rotational speed and power generated by each of the six turbines when placed in a number of different configurations. One turbine was kept in a fixed position for every configuration; the others were on portable footings that allowed them to be shifted around.

The tests showed that an arrangement in which all of the turbines in an array were spaced four turbine diameters apart (roughly 5 meters, or approximately 16 feet) completely eliminated the aerodynamic interference between neighboring turbines. By comparison, removing the aerodynamic interference between propeller-style wind turbines would require spacing them about 20 diameters apart, which means a distance of more than one mile between the largest wind turbines now in use.

The six VAWTs generated from 21 to 47 watts of power per square meter of land area; a comparably sized HAWT farm generates just 2 to 3 watts per square meter.

“Dabiri’s bioinspired engineering research is challenging the status quo in wind-energy technology,” says Ares Rosakis, chair of Caltech’s Division of Engineering and Applied Science and the Theodore von Kármán Professor of Aeronautics and professor of mechanical engineering. “This exemplifies how Caltech engineers’ innovative approaches are tackling our society’s greatest problems.”

“We’re on the right track, but this is by no means ‘mission accomplished,’” Dabiri says. “The next steps are to scale up the field demonstration and to improve upon the off-the-shelf wind-turbine designs used for the pilot study.” Still, he says, “I think these results are a compelling call for further research on alternatives to the wind-energy status quo.”

by Kathy Svitil

Public Release 13 July 2011

“This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we’ve ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” said President Obama. “Most of the companies here today were part of an agreement we reached two years ago to raise the fuel efficiency of their cars over the next five years. We’ve set an aggressive target and the companies are stepping up to the plate.  By 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles will nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon.”

Building on the Obama administration’s agreement for Model Years 2012-2016 vehicles, which will raise fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg and begin saving families money at the pump this year, the next round of standards will require performance equivalent to 54.5 mpg or 163 grams/ mile of CO2 for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. Achieving the goals of this historic agreement will rely on innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs in cutting edge industries across America.

These programs, combined with the model year 2011 light truck standard, represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in three decades and span Model Years 2011 to 2025.  Together, they will save American families $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, and by 2025 result in an average fuel savings of over $8,000 per vehicle. Additionally, these programs will dramatically cut the oil we consume, saving a total of 12 billion barrels of oil, and by 2025 reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day – as much as half of the oil we import from OPEC every day.

The standards also curb carbon pollution, cutting more than 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas over the life of the program – more than the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States last year. The oil savings, consumer, and environmental benefits of this comprehensive program are detailed in a new report entitled Driving Efficiency:  Cutting Costs for Families at the Pump and Slashing Dependence on Oil, which the Administration released today. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have worked closely with auto manufacturers, the state of California, environmental groups, and other stakeholders for several months to ensure these standards are achievable, cost-effective and preserve consumer choice.   The program would increase the stringency of standards for passenger cars by an average of five percent each year. The stringency of standards for pick-ups and other light-duty trucks would increase an average of 3.5 percent annually for the first five model years and an average of five percent annually for the last four model years of the program, to account for the unique challenges associated with this class of vehicles.

“These standards will help spur economic growth, protect the environment, and strengthen our national security by reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Working together, we are setting the stage for a new generation of clean vehicles.”

“This is another important step toward saving money for drivers, breaking our dependence on imported oil and cleaning up the air we breathe,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “American consumers are calling for cleaner cars that won’t pollute their air or break their budgets at the gas pump, and our innovative American automakers are responding with plans for some of the most fuel efficient vehicles in our history.”

A national policy on fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions provides regulatory certainty and flexibility that reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers while addressing oil consumption and harmful air pollution. Consumers will continue to have access to a diverse fleet and can purchase the vehicle that best suits their needs.

EPA and NHTSA are developing a joint proposed rulemaking, which will include full details on the proposed program and supporting analyses, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and its effects on the economy, auto manufacturers, and consumers.  After the proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, there will be an opportunity for public comment and public hearings.  The agencies plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the end of September 2011. California plans on adopting its proposed rule in the same time frame as the federal proposal.
Given the long time frame at issue in setting standards for MY2022-2025 light-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA intend to propose a comprehensive mid-term evaluation.  Consistent with the agencies’ commitment to maintaining a single national framework for vehicle GHG and fuel economy regulation, the agencies will conduct the mid-term evaluation in close coordination with California.

In achieving the level of standards described above for the 2017-2025 program, the agencies expect automakers’ use of advanced technologies to be an important element of transforming the vehicle fleet.  The agencies are considering a number of incentive programs to encourage early adoption and introduction into the marketplace of advanced technologies that represent “game changing” performance improvements, including:

• Incentives for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cells vehicles;
• Incentives for advanced technology packages for large pickups, such as hybridization and other performance-based strategies;
• Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world CO2 reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures. 

In addition, EPA plans to propose provisions for:

• Credits for improvements in air conditioning (A/C) systems, both for efficiency improvements and for use of alternative, lower global warming potential refrigerant;
• Treatment of compressed natural gas (CNG);
• Continued credit banking and trading, including a one-time carry-forward of unused MY 2010-2016 credits through MY 2021

 The need for load response – the curtailing of electricity consumption based on the electric grid’s changing stress levels – will only increase over time, especially as energy prices continue to reflect the growing demand for power.

 According to Greentech Media, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimated that load response caused a reduction of 37 gigawatts in peak demand in 2009, and FERC projects this figure could rise to 188 gigawatts in 2019. At the same time, load response will play an increasing role as a backup for renewable energy generation, which is intermittent and cannot be stored.

 For busy facility managers balancing power demand and operations at one or more locations, initiating load response as part of an overall cost-effective energy management strategy is becoming easier – and even more necessary. Below are six developments driving adoption of load response, and how they are enabling increased energy efficiency and overall sustainability efforts:

 Real-time data – The energy consumption guessing game (in which a power bill arrives weeks after the energy is actually used) is no longer necessary. Real-time access to kW load data allows facility managers to leverage spot market pricing opportunities as well as monitor and react via automation technology. Imagine having an instant view of the correlation between outside temperature and energy consumption – new dashboard functionalities provide this monitoring capability. 

 Dynamic solutions from providers allow facility managers to see real-time prices and current power usage across multiple zones or facilities, serving to increase transparency and control. In some areas where prices are available, a “dashboard” can display the day-ahead price, thereby allowing managers to map the next day’s strategy (for example, pre-cooling) ahead of time.

 Load Response Incentives – Peak load management is critical for the stability of the energy grid and use of automation increases reliability and provides better risk mitigation with these responsive energy solutions.

 Utilities in New York and California offer incentives to participants to develop load curtailment strategies as well as installation of enabling automation and controls subject to their participation in load response programs. Attractive financial incentives from $200 to $300/kW of curtailed kW can be available to eligible participants.

 Automation – The ability to remotely and automatically control a single (or multiple) facility’s power use has completely changed the load response playing field. The addition of this element means that instant, real-time actions can be made for (both anticipated or unexpected) load response events while continuous monitoring during all other times provides a critical tool in the energy management arsenal for today’s facility managers.

 This advancement has changed power usage strategies in a range of industries, now having the flexibility to automate and then select from various pre-engineered strategies.

 For example, hotel ballrooms would be potential zones for load curtailment, unless a facility is hosting a wedding in a particular ballroom, during which time that specific zone would be off-limits for adjustments.

 This type of setting can be automated as facility managers are able to choose which assets to deploy or avoid, ultimately enabling the facilities manager to reduce energy costs without compromising the critical mission of providing a safe, comfortable, and secure environment to the tenant or its guests. Beyond helping to avoid a potential grid emergency, automated capabilities help to promote sustainability efforts and foster overall energy efficiency and awareness.

 Apps – Combining real-time data and load response automation with mobile computing applications gives operations departments more control than ever. Facility managers are often juggling multiple locations that can be tens or even hundreds of miles apart. 

 This can present difficulties in addressing immediate on-site power issues. Now, mobile applications (commonly referred to as “apps”) are available to bring dynamic energy management directly into the hands of busy, traveling facility managers.  For example, Constellation Energy’s VirtuWatt is accompanied by an iPhone app that serves as an ideal mobile energy budget protection system, enabling instant control in response to various grid conditions or market signals.   

 Alliances – Some load response providers have created unique alliances with generation and transmission entities to provide a consortium of electric distribution cooperatives with direct, custom benefits of load response. Such alliances enable access to all of the benefits of demand response, including the real-time data, automation, and apps, directly through utility providers, giving businesses another route to energy efficiency management.

 These alliances will help provide cost-effective load response solutions which are integrated with channel partners’ energy optimization solutions, and further minimize the incremental investments for adoption or adaptation of these solutions.

 Savings – The bottom line is that most load response participants choose to participate because of the savings. And in fact, the economic benefits for participating in load response programs are generally increasing as energy becomes more valuable and market volatility increases.

 For facilities with the ability to curtail load, this is an opportunity to take a closer look at how the primary driver can serve as a launch pad for greater control in the form of real-time monitoring, automation and mobile access to energy use.

 When combined, the factors above create a powerful – and easily implemented – strategy for engaging in load response. The load response landscape is rapidly evolving into “dynamic energy management” through the combination of technology, automated monitoring and control, mobile access and innovative ways for participation. For the cost-conscious energy manager, it is fast becoming a necessity to develop a comprehensive energy management strategy in order to effectively manage overall energy costs.

 Energy markets have become more volatile and more complex, and there is no sign that this dynamic will change anytime soon. Fortunately, there are tools to help. Strategic load curtailment is fast becoming a next-generation strategy for facility managers as they look to navigate our uncertain energy future.

The Act was written to protect U.S. shipping jobs against those rascally foreigners, before trucking was seen as reliable or trustworthy. If a European shipper were to cruise into a U.S. harbor and offer to carry U.S. freight at, say, a 10% discount to standard rates, the company would have a distinct competitive edge. To a U.S. shipping company, the foreign firm would appear to be “stealing” jobs (though they would see it as earning new business.) But what if you are a company that needs shipping? Then the low-cost shipping company is good news. Without the Jones Act, high-cost shippers would have to lower their rates to compete. So those that buy shipping services are penalized.

The law of unintended consequences arose in Summer 2010 when oil from a broken well head gushed into the fishing and recreation waters of the Gulf of Mexico. A modest and ill equipped armada of U.S. ships attempted to skim oil from the water’s surface but was overwhelmed by the task. At least one huge Taiwanese vessel, A Whale, designed just for such work and capable of filtering enormous volumes of oily water, was ready and waiting nearby to assist. Many other foreign vessels docked in North Sea ports had offered assistance but were rebuffed for reasons unclear although The Jones Act is often cited. President Obama eventually waived the act but only after precious days were lost.

Now we are presented with a great opportunity of building the first offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic Coast. One project scheduled for the waters near Cleveland will be a modest start of five turbines, 20 MW. But before construction begins, enormous investments are needed for support equipment, docks, barges, cranes, and special vessels that the Jones Act says must be owned and crewed by U.S. companies – all for five turbines now and the possibility of more later. Canadian companies might like to share the costs and crews for their offshore work, but the Act forbids common-sense cooperation.

Investments for the offshore work on the Atlantic Coast will be much greater, possibly reaching billions, in jack-up barges and cable-laying vessels that already exist in Europe. It would make better sense to hold costs down by leasing that equipment and experienced crews from the UK, while green U.S. crews get their sea legs. But again, the Jones Act mines that harbor.

Some lawmakers cannot acknowledge that we live in a world economy. If the Act is not modified, or better yet scrapped, the U.S. offshore wind industry may never get off the water. Competition is always healthy and that law, a tax in another form, stifles it. It is time to deep-six the Jones Act.

The high pressure sodium (HPS) lighting system you currently use has been, and continues to be, the street lamp of choice in many communities because of their efficacy and life span. The yellowish-pinkish light they cast is adequate for general lighting and security. For a variety of reasons many cities are opting to retrofit their street lighting with white light. In addition to the LEDs and induction lamps you are considering, metal halide and fluorescent lamps also provide white light.

One of your first decisions concerning new lighting systems will be whether you need the new products to utilize the existing pole infrastructure. That will determine fixture type and mounting height to control the light distribution, and you need to know if the new source will be capable of providing the desired light level. Both induction and LED products should be seen as luminaire packages (lamp, driver/ballast/starter, fixture), not retrofit components to place into existing fixtures. For this reason the efficacy of the fixture, not just lumens per watt of the light source, is what is important to proper light distribution. Also consider whether the new technology is compatible with your current or planned control system.

Because of the difficulties in comparing two very different light sources with standard measurements, test installations are strongly recommended so color and intensity can be viewed in the real world where they will matter. White light, as you know, can have many shades, from yellow to blue.

Information on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solid State Lighting (SSL) website offers good information about measuring and describing the light performance of LEDs and some comparative information as well. Look at the information in the “Using LEDs” section.

The induction lamp comes in several color temperatures, from almost warm to cool, with a CRI of 80. For a better understanding of LED color and measurements, see the publication Color Rendering Index and LEDs.

With a high first cost but an actual useful life of approximately 70,000 hours, induction lamps are more of a solution to a maintenance problem than an improvement in efficiency (at 50-60 lumens per watt). They are especially good in tunnels, on bridges, and other places where the long life reduces the risks and costs involved with changing out spent lamps. Induction lamps do very well in cold weather, and so do LEDs. Be sure with either technology that your operating conditions fall within their tolerances.

White LEDs are starting to be used in low-level street lighting. LED lights do not currently have the power to act as high-mast general lighting, but are being installed as high as 35 feet high in some GATEWAY demonstration projects, which you can read about at the “Solid-State Lighting GATEWAY Demonstration Results” website. LEDs do carry a high first cost, but promise an extended lamp life and around 40% energy savings over existing technology. Current efficacy is about the same as fluorescent lamps with the very cool, bluish colors having the best performance, but these numbers change rapidly as the technology develops.

The useful life of LED systems is still a matter of much debate, as they do suffer from lamp depreciation, fading away rather than abruptly failing. Lamp life in the range of 35,000 to 50,000 hours of useful life is being suggested rather than the 100,000 or 200,000 hours that some manufacturers initially claimed. Standards have been and continue to be developed for LEDs and you can keep up with them at the “Standards Development for Solid-State Lighting” website. Read more about lamp life and see comparisons to other common sources in the publication Lifetime of White LEDs (PDF file). Note that linear fluorescent lamp life is coming very close to projections for LEDs, and induction lamps (though not listed) at 60,000 hours or more may be longer lasting.

Plenty of bright white light is not the only factor involved with street lighting. A growing number of cities are responding to the request of the International Dark Sky Association to preserve our view of the stars in the night sky. Besides the light source, the Dark Sky group seeks to reduce light trespass and light pollution, or sky glow. Light trespass is the light that falls onto another’s property, or shines through their windows, and can be addressed by fixture placement and design, or additional shielding. Light pollution can be partially addressed by fixtures that do not allow light above a particular angle. Both full- and semi-cutoff fixtures reduce how much light is directed upwards, but a percentage of light will be reflected off the ground surface and contribute to sky glow, often visible for miles away above a city. LEDs have the advantage of being highly directional so good design can aim light only in the areas it is desired. Other light sources often produce light that is bounced off the back of a fixture before exiting it, while some light never escapes the fixture.

When looking at the cost of a lighting system, the first costs of both purchase and installation must be considered, as well as its care and maintenance (the costs of which, over time, tend to be much higher). Don’t forget to include disposal costs of spent lamps. Also be aware that the presence of mercury in a lamp may be affected by state laws. LEDs do not contain mercury.

As you know, there is more to a cost-effective street lighting system than just energy-efficient lamps—labor for maintenance, the ability to retrofit existing infrastructure versus a new design to accommodate different technology and usage needs, controls, complying with recommended lighting levels, and applicable codes all must be considered. Below are some additional resources on this topic I hope will be interesting to you.

The Lighting Research Center has two older (2003) publications that provide excellent information about the issues encompassed in street lighting systems, although they are not up-to-date with the induction or LED/SSL technology, and mercury vapor lamps are considered obsolete. Access them through the Lighting Research Center website.

• NYSERDA How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials – 32 page booklet
• NYSERDA How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for Planners and Engineers

You can watch for details about the soon-to-be-activated U.S. Department of Energy Municipal Solid-State Street Lighting Consortium. The consortium is being set up specifically to help the many municipalities hoping to upgrade their street lighting to LEDs as a result of stimulus funding.

The lab home is part of an ongoing effort by IBACOS and its Alliance to test methods and materials that will make net-zero-energy homes affordable for production home builders to build and the average home buyer to purchase.

The 2,700-square-foot lab home, which will stay unoccupied for three years while testing continues, features a super-insulated enclosure, a ground-source heat pump system, three different HVAC distribution systems, a high-efficiency lighting system, and solar panels. The lab home project team, which was headed by me and central Pennsylvania home builder S&A Homes, found out first-hand about the obstacles likely to crop up during the construction of a zero-energy home like the lab home.

What follows are 10 lessons learned from the project. For more on the lab home, visit: www.theresearchalliance.org/lab-home.aspx.

1. Design with production in mind
For high-performance homes to be widely available, production builders have to be able to build them at a reasonable price. “Our goal as a builder is to maximize energy efficiency without creating price barriers for future homeowners,” says Chris Schoonmaker, VP of S&A Homes. That’s why the lab home was designed with off-the-shelf products and processes that production builders either already know of and use or could adopt and modify to fit within their existing infrastructure.

Reed Kneale, VP of operations with O.C. Cluss Lumber and Building Supplies, which produced and assembled the lab home framing, says one key to gaining his employees’ acceptance for some of the new methods and materials used was sticking to production-minded processes. “I can attest it was real-world  techniques, on steroids,” he said.

2. Think outside the box when it comes to materials
In order to achieve high-performance homes, designers and builders may find themselves using commercially available materials in new ways. For instance, rather than relying solely on interior air sealing or the use of spray foam insulation to provide the air-tightness strategy, the lab home uses well-detailed and integrated housewrap on the exterior to reach the extreme air-tightness targets of the project. In addition, the home features 2 inches of foam sheathing on the exterior that would normally be used for interior basement walls.

The sheathing’s pre-rabbetted channels along the vertical edges, which incorporate the use of furring strips for fastening, allowed the team to use common framing nails to attach the foam to the wall, rather than expensive long screws. The furring strips also provided a nail base for vinyl siding, saving money while netting the aesthetic requirements and thermal performance desired.

3. Staggered stud design pays off
Even though many standard-panel design software products don’t accommodate staggered-stud layouts, the team decided it was the best approach for the project. Designing the lab home’s above-grade wall system using 2×4-inch, staggered framing resulted in several clear advantages. Staggering the studs means fewer direct pathways for energy loss through the wall, and the smaller dimensional lumber is less expensive than larger dimensional studs, meaning lower costs for the builder and potentially the homebuyer.

The wall panelization and onsite framing contractors also found that the framing strategy was an easy alternative, requiring minimal training and few changes to their standard methods. As an added bonus, running electric services through the walls was easier and more efficient for the installer than their typical method of drilling through studs and top plates, since wiring could be woven through the stud bays.

4. Make sure your materials are readily available
Even with commercially available materials, sourcing for a high-performance home can be difficult, since those materials may not be lying around a local supply yard. It was determined that a 3-inch-thick polyiso board would work best for inside the formwork of the foundation walls, and the supplier confirmed it was available. However, when it came time for the foundation walls, the supplier said the board would first have to be manufactured, potentially resulting in a month’s delay.

After waiting two weeks, the project team opted for an alternate solution — using readily available 2-inch-think polyiso board and applying a separate layer of polyiso to the inside of the foundation wall after the forms were stripped. The change in thickness of foam inside the formwork (from 3 to 2 inches) meant ordering new break-back form ties, delaying the project by an additional week. All told, the material availability and sourcing issues, coupled with weather delays, increased the cycle time for the foundation by about one month.

5. Little improvements add up
The lab home aimed to evaluate how effective the use of a well-sealed and integrated exterior housewrap would be toward reaching an aggressive building-envelope leakage rate of 0.60 ACH50. IBACOS tested the house when the housewrap was sealed on the exterior and integrated with the foundation and attic air barriers before any other interior air sealing or insulation measures were initiated. To our surprise, the leakage rate was only 3.0 ACH50. Each additional air-sealing measure offered incremental improvements that made a significant difference.

With the application of spray foam to strategic areas in the attic (e.g., over top plates of interior-partition walls, wiring and plumbing penetrations, and recessed light fixtures), the leakage rate was 0.88 ACH50. With spray foam in the band joists, it was 0.77 ACH50, and when the wall cavity insulation and drywall were installed, it dropped to 0.65 ACH50. After all the trim, caulking, and painting were completed, the lab home scored 0.54 ACH50, surpassing our target.

There are different approaches that can be used in different combinations, for varying degrees of cost and effort, to achieve aggressive levels of building air-tightness — and little details can have a big impact.

6. Constant communication and collaboration are required
Because the methods and materials used in building high-performance homes are sometimes unfamiliar to trade partners, strong communication and collaboration practices are crucial to success. Everyone agreed that insufficient communication, both between the builder and trade partners, and within the trade partners’ organizations, was one of the biggest barriers to overcome when constructing the lab home. This was addressed, in part, by including the trade contractors upfront in the planning and design process, which was a major focus of the project.

Trade partners that were expected to overlap and interact during construction were brought in to the IBACOS headquarters to participate in training and the development of mock-up assemblies. For example, not only was the HVAC contractor part of the HVAC system planning process, but so were the plumbing, electrical, and ground-source heat pump ground-loop contractors. Engaging with the trades made them feel like part of the process, and we learned as much from them as they did from us.

7. Evaluate partners before you begin
Subcontractors don’t always need to know a specific skill going into the construction process, but they must be willing to learn. The lab home’s first siding contractor was skeptical of installing siding over the foam sheathing on the exterior of the wall, partly because the manufacturer wouldn’t warranty the job — manufacturer standards required fastening 16 inches on center, rather than the 24 inches on center that was necessary because of the furring strips. Despite agreeing on how to execute the installation, the installers reverted back to their standard practices, placing some nails through the foam. After repeated attempts to explain the importance of the specified details, the decision was made to have another installation company complete the job.

8. Management buy-in is crucial
Communication will help, but if the resistance to change and collaboration is coming from upper levels of management, it may not be enough. If a contractor’s management team is not committed to improving the performance of the homes they build, then the field crews are less likely to engage in or learn from the experience. In contrast, the managers from both the geothermal ground-looping and plumbing trade contractors understood the educational and marketing benefits of being involved with a project like the lab home, which resulted in a high level of cooperation and field crews viewing the project as an opportunity to learn.

9. Don’t beat up your trade partners
It’s important to remember that with the downturn in the housing market, many trades are suffering. When you ask them to change a building process, you need to remember that they are sometimes doing so with a significantly reduced staff, reduced capacity, and often at no additional cost. You can improve the chances of buy-in by showing a little love — perhaps even compensating them for the additional time required for the learning curve with the first few high-performance projects, while being clear with your intent for standard pricing moving forward. Always trying to get more for less may succeed in the short-term, but can backfire in the long-term.

10. In-field supervision is critical, especially with first-timers
Even after the upfront planning and scopes of work have been agreed upon, some trade partners may still cut corners and make field adjustments without securing approval, impacting the quality and performance of the home. Having a presence on the job site and coaching the trades will help, especially early on in the learning process, but vigilance is key.

Discussion of national energy policy—to the extent it occurs at all in today’s political climate—focuses on spurring power generation from sources that pollute less and building transmission capacity to interconnect that generation with often distant load within the macrogrid.

The importance of that discussion is obvious, particularly as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The need to interconnect low-emission generation, however, should not divert the attention of energy policymakers from the equally compelling need to move the country toward a power delivery system anchored in microgrids that co-locate generation, load and storage while minimizing energy sprawl and transmission losses. This different paradigm distributes generation close to load—distributed generation—and enables investment in microgrids that reliably can deliver generation free of traditional but often unnecessary regulatory overhang. Incentives for microgrids should be priority energy policy at federal and state levels.

Explaining how an Arizona Public Service Co. line worker who was switching out a capacitor could have caused a power outage for millions of households and businesses in the Southwest and Mexico, Rich Sedano of the Regulatory Assistance Project said, “There are a lot of critical pieces of equipment on the system and we have less defense than we think.”

Sedano’s summation could apply to power failures that seem to occur with increasing frequency in recent years, including the colossal 2003 outage that cast into darkness 50 million people in the Midwest and Northeast and the 2005 outage that sapped energy out of Los Angeles. The cost of these outages runs into the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars.

The underdefended system to which Sedano referred are North America’s three high-voltage macrogrids. Those grids comprise interdependent tradeoffs between high- and low-voltage transmission lines, large and small generating stations proximate to or remote from load and storage or the absence of storage.

Brittleness is a characteristic of how the grid has evolved. In general, the more a grid’s ability to deliver energy reliably depends on the uninterrupted and interdependent operation of large, centralized power stations and long-distance transmission lines, then the more brittle and vulnerable the system is to disruption from causes both natural—storms and earthquakes—and human—errors or intentional acts of sabotage or terrorism. Today we depend predominantly for our power on a brittle, outdated, centralized system that wastes power and frequently experiences cascading failures producing brownouts or blackouts.

In contrast, a microgrid is a localized grouping of electricity generation, energy storage and loads that operate synchronously connected to but sometimes independent of a traditional macrogrid. A distinguishing feature of a microgrid is its ability during a grid disturbance to separate and isolate itself from the macrogrid seamlessly with little or no disruption to the quality of power service to loads within the microgrid and without exacerbating disruptions in neighboring systems. To operators of the surrounding macrogrid and neighboring microgrids, the microgrid presents itself as a single, self-controlled entity. These characteristics produce many desirable attributes. The microgrid can seal itself off from and open its circuits to other failing elements of the macrogrid and stop cascading outages. It also can accommodate interconnection with many small-scale distributed energy resources, including storage in the form of electric vehicles and other innovative applications, without the same concerns for excessive current flows into faults and voltage fluctuations. Taking these attributes as a whole, the microgrid has been characterized as power industry democracy in which local landowners, generators and resource managers can become largely self-sufficient.

Although it’s not a near-term substitute for the macrogrid in many applications, the microgrid can become a valuable complement to it. But for microgrids to achieve their potential, incentives to invest in microgrids must be extended and expanded, and regulatory barriers to the proliferation of microgrids must be ended.

Distributed forms of generation, such as building-appurtenant solar generation, and remote metering capability are core infrastructure for a functioning microgrid. To put these investments on a level playing field with utility investments in central-station generation and metering requires grants and special tax incentives such as credits and accelerated depreciation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided tens of millions in seed money for many projects, including an 8.28-kW bank of solar collectors on my roof. Those incentives must be made permanent in recognition of the cost-saving and reliability benefits microgrids provide.

Reforms to utility regulatory regimes, primarily at the state level, also will be required for microgrids to mature. Particularly helpful would be model legislation from think tanks such as the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI). NRRI would be particularly well-suited to the task because democratizing knowledge needed to regulate the power industry is embedded in its mission statement. This legislation could reform how small-scale public utilities are defined so that distributed generation within a microgrid could reliably provide localized service beyond net metering for its own usage, without becoming subject to the regulatory overhang of traditional utility accounting and ratemaking.

by: Dan Watkiss

Additionally, if there is a large temperature spread between summer and winter, a roof system that will expand and contract with thermal movement is a good choice. Climate will affect the amount of insulation needed in the roof. Predominantly hot areas should consider a reflective roof system to save on cooling bills. In predominantly cold climates, whether savings are possible or not depends on a number of factors, including cost of heating energy compared with cooling, slope of roof, insulation, and building dimensions. One resource for facility managers to determine whether a roof will have energy benefits is the Department of Energy’s Roof Savings Calculator.

Heat sinks may also be considered for hot climates to lessen the amount of thermal shock that can occur when a roof is suddenly cooled during a rainstorm.

Identifying the wind uplift requirements is especially important in areas prone to hurricanes or other high wind events. Anywhere the wind gusts more than gale force should take wind into consideration. Even a 40-mile-per-hour wind can cause a poorly attached roof to peel like a banana.

Owner Considerations

The owner’s intentions for the building are among the prime consideration in roof selection. If the owner intends to flip the building as soon as possible, first cost becomes the primary driver. However, long-term holders and owner-occupied buildings are best served with a roof designed with long-term use in mind.

Insurance is another item that affects the roof choice. If the building is insured by a Factory Mutual (FM) company, the FM design and installation requirements must be followed to the letter. Other insurers may have their own standards to follow, so the prudent course is to check with the insurance company during the design phase to be sure.

Finally, there is the budget. Long before the roof is to be installed, you should have a roof inspection performed by a competent roof consulting architect or engineer who will give you an unbiased opinion of when the roof will need to be replaced and the probable construction costs for the replacement. A consultant can tell you whether you can re-cover or if a tear-off is needed. She or he can also prepare construction documents that anticipate all of these considerations prior to bidding the work. Having an adequate budget for the roof can do much to assure that the building needs are met.

And of course, all if this if for naught if there are no contractors available who know how to properly install the desired roof. When selecting a roof, you should identify contractors available to install it. Using local roofers is a good idea as they can respond more quickly to problems than if they are located far from the job site.

Knowing what you need before you go out to bid and being sure you communicate these needs to the contractor, can help you receive a roof that will perform well and have a nice, long life.

-Building Operation Managment Post