According to a new report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), “Nationwide the budgets for these programs reached $942 million in 2010, saving 529 million therms-enough natural gas to take care of the needs of 695,000 average American homes. These programs have experienced rapid growth. In 2005 total budgets were $125 million nationwide.”

The report is jam-packed with information. It examines the structure, origins, funding, and impacts of natural gas efficiency programs for the forty-one states where they are in place. For instance, if you live in California, it includes information on the programs offered by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE).

The entire report is downloadable for free on the ACEEE website.

If you decide to stop by the Natural Gas and Propane Industries booth, you may run into Carter Oosterhouse, host of HGTVs Carter Can, a regular contributor to the Rachael RayRay Show and the spokesperson for the Council for Responsible Energy. Carter’s a big fan of natural gas appliances. He was actually on Fox News today (see video below) talking about them and some other great energy saving tips. Here’s what he said about natural gas appliances:

Natural Gas Water Heating:

• Heats water up to twice as fast and ensures comfort even during a power outage.
• More than 50% reduction in carbon emissions.
• Among the many types of water heaters on the market, some models – such as highly efficient gas storage water heaters, heat pumps, solar water heaters and tankless water heaters – are up to 50 percent more efficient than traditional gas storage water heaters.
• Energy Star qualified tankless water heaters will save an average of more than $40 per year for each person in your household, compared to a conventional gas model.Fuel costs will continue to creep up, making it all the more practical to think about a long-term strategy for saving energy and money on your next water heater.
• Tankless water heaters have a 20 year shelf life.

Natural Gas Clothes Drying:

• More than 50% reduction in carbon emissions
• Clothes are dry in nearly half the time

Natural Gas Cooking:

• Style and performance upgrade for heart of your home.
• Precision control preferred by 96% of professional chefs.

Let us know if you’re at the IBS show in the comments.




Carter Oosterhouse talks responsible energy: MyFoxORLANDO.com

Water Powered Calculator

I was thinking about this while I was reading an article on Mashable profiling 5 Energy Efficient Office Gadgets. I’m actually thinking about buying the water powered calculator. The calculator uses water-activated batteries that produce about the same amount of energy as alkaline batteries. The real advantage though is those batteries aren’t toxic because they’re made of carbon. Just refill your battery tubes with tap water every two or three months and your calculator should be solving problems for a good long while.

If you really want to talk about energy efficiency though, you have to talk about natural gas. Since 1970, the number of natural gas homes has increased by more than 70 percent. At the same time, today’s homes use 40 percent less natural gas per household than 40 years ago. That’s a tremendous energy savings. A good deal of that savings is due tighter homes, more efficient appliances, and investment by natural gas utilities (our members) and their customers in energy efficiency programs. According to our energy efficiency fact sheet, Natural gas utilities invested nearly $565 million in natural gas efficiency programs in 2008 and budgeted about $927 million in 2009.

Here’s some data from the fact sheet on how the use of Natural Gas in home appliances saves energy:

• Gas efficiency has improved tremendously over the past three decades as evidenced in the declining consumption of natural gas per household during this time period, falling one percent annually from 1980 through 2000 and declining further to 2.2 percent annually from 2000 through 2006. As a result, the average American home uses 40 percent less natural gas now than in 1970.
• On a national average basis, natural gas is three times more efficient than fossil fuel generated electricity in providing energy for end-use applications. While 92 percent of the energy content of natural gas is delivered to customers as useful energy, less than a third of the energy used in the production of electricity reaches homes and businesses.
• Efforts to improve appliance technology have resulted in natural gas furnaces and boilers that are up to 96 percent efficient.

Be sure to take the time to read the entire fact sheet and let us know your thoughts on energy efficiency in the comments below. Anyone going to try the Solar Gadget Charger? I wonder if it will work with my iPod?

But what if you were driving or walking near electricity infrastructure and you noticed that $20 bills were oozing out of the wires and floating onto the road?  I imagine that you’d try to stop and pick those up too.

If site-based efficiency gains (caulking your home or installing higher efficiency appliances) are like collecting $20 bills for yourself, then source-based efficiency gains are like society finding $20 bills laying all over the place.

After accounting for extraction, generation, transmission, and distribution (or, after adopting a source-based efficiency measure), three times more energy reaches the customer with the direct use of natural gas as compared to electricity.  Put another way, if you start with 100 units of source energy, 32 of them will reach the customer if they are converted to electricity first, but 92 of them will reach the customer if they are used directly in natural gas furnaces, water heaters, etc. (for more information see AGA’s new direct-use slides here).   It is a story you have likely heard before, but it bears repeating.

This is not to say that people should allow $20 bills to float through their windows.  But we should all be thinking more about the $20 bills lying on the road.

Not a smart decision, but it illustrates a point with respect to energy use.   Using electric appliances in your home, be it an electric water heater, heat pump or stove, is a lot like that ice cream cone.  From the point of origin, whether it’s a coal mine or a natural gas well, to the place where either of them is generated into electricity — usually a central station power plant — to the electric outlet in your home, electricity loses about two-thirds of its useable energy.   Most of that energy loss occurs in the generation process.

By contrast, natural gas’ journey from the wellhead through transmission and distribution pipelines directly to the natural gas furnace, boiler, fireplace or stove in the home loses only about 10 percent of its usable energy.  Thus natural gas is far more efficient than electricity.

What is more, going back to that ice cream cone, what happened to the two-thirds of it that melted?  It melted into your backpack, or through your backpack down your pants leg or skirt, onto the ground, making a mess.   Similarly, during the electricity generation process, not only is a lot of energy lost, so is a lot of pollution released into the atmosphere — especially when coal is generated — making a mess of our air.  Very little pollution results when natural gas, by far the cleanest fossil fuel, is burned in those gas appliances in the home.

The point is that when energy is measured from the point of origin to the point of use — what we call the full-fuel-cycle measurement — it becomes obvious that natural gas used directly to power natural gas appliances in the home is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than using natural gas, or coal, to generate electricity to power electric appliances in the home.   Unfortunately, today when the Department of Energy (DOE) rates the energy efficiency of a natural gas or electric appliance, it bases that energy efficiency solely on a site measurement—that is, how energy efficient an appliance is “on site,” meaning in the home.  That ignores all of that energy lost, and the pollution created, from the point of origin to the end-use appliance.

Recently, the well respected National Academies issued a report to DOE titled “Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards.” The report recommends that DOE consider changing its measurement of appliance energy efficiency from site-based to one based on the full-fuel-cycle.  That would give consumers far more accurate information on the true efficiency and environmental impact of the energy appliances they buy.   The goal is to reduce energy use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers enough money to buy the whole family an ice cream cone — two scoops with sprinkles — anytime they want.

Well, I have a little more specific information now that I have seen the Japanese Gas Association (JPA) Newsletter for October.  JPA reports that their member gas utilities launched a residential fuel cell program in May 2009 under the brand name ENE-FARM.  Gas utilities and other companies are purchasing fuel cells from manufacturers, and then selling the units to residential customers with subsidies to make this energy efficiency upgrade affordable.

As of July 22, 2009, Tokyo Gas bought 200 fuel cells, Osaka Gas took 500, Nippon Oil Corporation (ENEOS) took 500, Toho Gas took 100, and Saibu Gas bought 26 fuel cells.  They each reported “good sales for the first year.”   Leading Japanese housing manufacturers consider fuel cells as strategic products that can help distinguish their homes as environmentally sound and sophisticated.

You are absolutely right in pointing out that electricity is a poor way to provide heat for our homes and buildings. Natural gas, though, is still a fossil fuel so the emphasis would be better placed on use of solar devices (maybe coupled with heat stores and/or heat pumps) to provide primary heat source with gas very much as a back up. As for electricity generation, users in the UK can source 100% renewable electricity from just one company: Good Energy (www.goodenergy.co.uk)

I also wanted to share my response.

I support renewables too. Unfortunately, the United States is not as far along as you are in the UK with renewables. Only 7% of our electric power comes from renewable energy. See U.S. Government web site for energy information.

Our recent economic stimulus legislation provided funding and incentives to expand wind and solar and to extend thousands of miles of electric transmission lines to connect the wind in the West to our urban areas on the coasts, but it will take some time before there is enough for a significant portion of our population to purchase 100% or anything near it in renewable-sourced electricity. In the meantime, there are some practical things we can do in the U.S. to make serious reductions in carbon emissions. We can install solar on our roofs, purchase renewable sourced electricity to the extent it is available, and install efficient natural gas water heaters (preferably tankless) and natural gas furnaces. Oh yes, and it would help if people lived close enough to their jobs to bike or walk to work, but that’s another topic…

Further carbon reductions can be achieved by installing the latest technology – natural gas heat pumps that provide hot water, heat and air conditioning.

And in a few years, it will be possible to use hydrogen in fuel cells, using the natural gas grid to deliver natural gas that can be reformulated into hydrogen, and capturing the carbon as a solid that can be “sequestered” in light weight carbon fiber bodies for cars and other products. They are already installing residential fuel cells in Japan, but they are still releasing the CO2 from the reformulators.

A recent break through could change that — A company called Atlantic Hydrogen has figured out how to capture the carbon from natural gas as solid carbon black.

In the early years of the plan, they got the carbon part right, which is fantastic. Federal agencies will set goals to reduce greenhouse gases emitted directly from federal buildings and activities PLUS emissions attributable to the electricity the government purchases from electric power plants.  That makes sense – if you want to reduce global warming, look at the big picture and figure out the real impact of your actions.

But in later years, they missed the boat entirely. After 2020, federal agencies will be required to design and operate “zero net energy buildings” – measuring energy efficiency only at the building site – using the same old “site energy” approach that has institutionalized energy inefficiency for decades.    It is time to look outside the box – literally!  The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and EPA Energy STAR have all rejected the old site energy approach and instead recommend using “source energy” to measure real energy efficiency and carbon output.

“Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery and production losses, thereby enabling a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building.”

The alternative method for evaluating building energy efficiency – known as “site energy” – looks only at the energy consumed on site, ignoring the energy wasted or lost in producing, generating and transporting that energy supply to the building. Based on a detailed analysis, EPA concludes that “source energy comparisons generally reflect energy costs and carbon emissions more accurately than site energy.”

President Obama has made it a priority to move our country toward a new green economy in which we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using cleaner energy more efficiently.   And we agree wholeheartedly.  We will not achieve that goal, however, if the government continues to measure “energy efficiency” within the four corners of a building or appliance – ignoring the energy lost when coal or natural gas is converted to electricity at a power plant.

Today, on a national average basis, up to 70 percent of the available energy is lost in electricity, and only 30 percent is delivered to the end user. In contrast, less than 10 percent of available energy is lost during natural gas transmission and distribution; 90 percent of the energy in natural gas is delivered to the customer. Now that’s real energy efficiency.

Ignoring the energy inefficiency of purchased electricity makes no sense – especially in the context of solving global climate change. It does not matter if you reduce carbon emissions at a building site if the net effect is to increase overall carbon emissions somewhere else!   It’s not too late for the White House to catch that boat, but they need to get moving.

Want to know more?  See my article in the upcoming Dec./Jan. issue of American Gas magazine – available in November.

In the meantime, feel free to leave a comment below.

You’ll enjoy reading the article’s analysis between the two (I won’t spoil the ending) but what struck me were some points that AGA tries to make on a daily basis were exhibited perfectly here.

Take a look at this passage where the author begins to talk about cooking the beans. “Cooking dried beans at a simmer on the stovetop—the most common method—can require anywhere from 30 minutes to three hours, even after a lengthy presoak. Based on some recorded energy figures provided by food researchers at the University of Bristol, cooking five ounces of beans for that long might require 1,400 to 5,600 BTUs on a gas stovetop or 4,100 to 16,500 BTUs on an electric stovetop.”

Read that again. “1,400 to 5,600 BTUs on a gas stovetop versus 4,100 to 16,500 BTUs on an electric stovetop.” That’s a big difference.

Have you heard about the concept of “direct use?” Natural gas loses about 10 percent of its useable energy in the journey from wellhead to burner tip, making natural gas 90 percent efficient when used in typical household appliances.  Compare that to electricity which loses almost 70 percent of its useable energy during delivery. And because natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, in addition to the efficiency gains, the direct use of natural gas would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking of efficiency. Did you know that since 1970 the number of residential customers has increased by 71 percent to 27 million but total residential natural gas use has not increased?  This means there has been a decrease in use per residential customer of about 1 percent per year for the last 38 years. In other words, the average natural gas residential customer today uses 39 percent less natural gas than they did 38 years ago.  This translates directly into greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the order of 38 percent per residential customers. Check out these slides available online.

So, if you really want to go “green,” you may want to consider using high-efficiency natural gas appliances in your home and swap out your electric appliances where you can.

What does that mean? What it means is the same thing AGA has been saying for years and reiterates in our press release today praising the National Academies.

Natural gas is highly efficient. To pull from the release, 70 percent of the total amount of fuels used in producing, generating and transmitting electricity is lost by the time that electricity reaches a customer. By contrast, producing and delivering natural gas directly loses only about 10 percent of its usable energy.

That’s obviously a big difference.

The release goes on to underscore how the study echoes the ‘carbon footprint labeling’ provisions that were recently included in the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, which would expand the existing Federal Trade Commission EnergyGuide labeling program for home appliances to include carbon footprint information.

The carbon label is a big deal and Dave sums it well when he says, “This study recommends a change in the way that we look at energy efficiency in our appliances and it should be expanded to include building codes that also measure energy efficiency.”

It’s great to hear other people get what AGA has been saying for years. I know we have a few DOE people that browse this blog. What do you guys think? Is the National Academies a reliable enough source to Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approach. Just asking.

If you’re interested, you can visit AGA’s energy efficiency page for more information on the benefits of natural gas.