The Oil Drum | St Louis Renewable Energy Conference

113 comments on St Louis Renewable Energy Conference - Day 2

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Glenn on October 13, 2006 - 5:29pm

Can we just do the light bulb thing already? Just tax the sh*t out of the old incandescent ones or provide incentives for Compact fluorescents... It's such a no-brainer...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mjacobspaj on October 13, 2006 - 5:36pm

This seems like a pretty downbeat outlook. Even if all goes well it look like we'll be pretty short of fuel if 5 years (probably on the order of 15% at a guess). The possibility of shocks to the system still hangs over the US economy like a sword of damocles. It seems that leadership is lacking. Where are the programs forcing the automakers to improve fuel efficiency by a commensurate 15% over the next 5 years?

All we seem to be getting from the political leadership is more drilling in the deep offshore Gulf of Mexico. Wouldn't these facilities be more susceptible than the current shallow Gulf production facilities?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on October 14, 2006 - 11:16am

IMHO the light bulb thing is not that clear cut. Easy savings for places that do not require heat. In places where heating is required most of the year then the heat that the compacts don't produce might be replaced by something else. If you are running air conditioning then I agree 100%. Arguements can be made on the effeciency factors of conversion of fuel to electricity. My point being it is not crystal clear - the savings at the bulb.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Valuethinker on October 14, 2006 - 3:51pm

Very good point and one often missed.

Thinking of my parents, with electric heat, in Ontario, an incandescent bulb actually helps heat their house, 7 months a year. This would be even more true in the UK where air conditioning is rare.

The tradeoff in my parents case would be different, if they were using gas heat.

Then the tradeoff would be energy produced at a CCGT (55% thermal efficiency) and then transferred to the house (10% transmission loss, say). (if the calculation is coal, it is completely different again. Ontario happens to be 60% nuclear or hydro electric in its electricity supply, so a more efficient lightbulb could be a net loss from a global greenhouse gas point of view).

vs.

the efficiency of a gas boiler. Now a modern 'combi' condensing boiler (no hotwater tank) has a 85-90% rated thermal efficiency

however I'm not sure that is effiency taken on the same basis, and there is (some) transmission loss in gettting the gas to the house

and combi boilers don't work for big houses.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

veganmaster on October 14, 2006 - 5:44pm

No, light bulbs are inefficient for heating:

CFL's have another advantage: they run cooler. Regular light bulbs generate a lot of heat, making you spend more on air conditioning in the summer. CF's not only use less electricity to provide light, but they don't dump extra heat into your home. (But don't think that this means you should use regular lights in winter; sure they create heat, but they do so inefficiently. When you need to add heat to your home, light bulbs are the most wasteful way to do it. Short answer, CF's are best no matter what the season.)

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/lighting.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Starship Trooper on October 14, 2006 - 5:57pm

I noticed an immediate and dramatic drop in my electrical usage by changing to CFLs. I've been using them since the mid 90's when they first became available.

Note, they don't work well outside when it's cold. It takes a long time for them to come to full brightness from a "cold" start.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davidsmi on October 14, 2006 - 8:47pm

Hello, um, excuse me for interrupting, but I just wanted to see if I understood this.

Is this really a discussion about how using different light bulbs will help us deal with peak oil?

Because if it is....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on October 14, 2006 - 9:07pm

Silver BB's are the hope...I think thats the idea

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on October 14, 2006 - 9:42pm

In an energy constrained future electricity might be needed for rail or ?. Alot of it is produced using nat gas and coal both carbon fuels. Will it directly help with a lack of oil <no> but conserving it will be important no matter what. I think we need to be careful about what we embrace - not all things will work in all locations - it isn't that easy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Valuethinker on October 15, 2006 - 5:17am

And Global Warming.

There really are no magic bullets in energy, because it represents the embedded capital of the whole economy (from aluminium smelters through cars through HVAC systems through lightbulbs).

But when one reads that power supplies (as in the 'instant on' feature on appliances, mobile phone chargers etc.) could be as much as 10% of California power demand then one realises that there is much that can be done.

CFLs certainly fit into that rubric. See the Fast Company article last month on Walmart and CFLs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Starship Trooper on October 15, 2006 - 7:04am

As we say here in NC, let me "splain it" to you.

In a world where the trucking industry believes that homeowners that use oil to heat their homes should be thrown into jail (peak oil threatens the trucking industry's 5% annual growth as they continue to truck the 3,000 mile salad) and that even natural gas heating of homes as well as all gasoline powered cars should be converted to electricity so that more oil is available for transporting "stuff," a (brief) discussion of CFLs is appropriate. This was the stated position at the NC CAPAG meeting No. 3 on July 25th, 2006.

As an aside, nearly 10% of all "on-road" diesel fuel is burned by trucks sitting and idling in truckstops and other rest areas to meet the driving time requirements of the federal law.

With the electricity demand growth at something over 2% and with this push, I don't think we have anywhere near the generating load that could support even a fraction of this.

Besides, 3% of our electrical load is generated using oil. It's small compared to other fuels but oil is oiland peak oil will affect the generating capacity.

Does that connect the missing dots for you?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davidsmi on October 15, 2006 - 8:56am

how about I "splain" something to you. I was not missing anything. I was incredulous at inanity of the discussion.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on October 15, 2006 - 4:37pm

it's called treating the symptom not the cause because if they would too treat the cause it would end what they don't want to give up witch is how we live today.
in the end it just shuffles around everything but doesn't really remove a thing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

solar1 on October 21, 2006 - 2:53pm

I don't agree with you. We have to start somewhere. Changing to CFLs make people feel empowered and they actually work. It can be done by anyone. We will never change Congress so this is the next best thing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on October 16, 2006 - 5:04pm

Most of that 3% of oil used for generating electricity is for islands. Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska villages, Northeast islands that don't want wind turbines within sight, etc. Add some emergency generation.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on October 14, 2006 - 9:36pm

I'm not a lighting engineer however my understanding is that they create both heat and light and this = 100% of the energy they use. Unless they produce something I'm not aware of like radio waves, I'm missing the point of the rebuttal.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on October 15, 2006 - 3:56pm

The CFL is the most efficient bulb. If you want to heat with electricity more BTU's are pumped in the house via groundsource heatpump.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

DelusionaL on October 15, 2006 - 7:24pm

This I can understand - thank you!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

solar1 on October 21, 2006 - 2:22pm

Down here in Tampa, Florida, we air condition year-round. Changing all my lightbulbs to CFLs was a no-brainer. Left the incandescents in the bath and powder rooms as they are on very little and the wife wanted the 'natural' light. I date them with a felt marker when I install them so I get some idea of how long they last. They never seem to last as long as they are advertised to (but they do last a long time). Another point is the generation and transmission losses to the point of use in the house. These can be up to 200% of the actual amount of electric used in the bulb, so a CFL really saves quite a bit. The savings are: 1. They use 1/4 the electric of incandescent 2. They don't heat up the house and cause the AC to use more electric to cool the house down 3. They only incurr 1/4 the generation/transmission losses of incandescent 4. For businesses, they have less labor costs for bulb replacement. These are really good synergistic effects for a simple product.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.