The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Posted by Leanan on December 20, 2007 - 8:15pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
One element that's kind of flown under the radar: the US is joining the growing ranks of countries that are banning incandescent bulbs.
It's lights out for traditional light bulbs
A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months.The new devices include current products such as compact fluorescents and halogens, as well as emerging products such as light-emitting diodes and energy-saving incandescent bulbs.
There have been a lot of requests for a dedicated thread to talk about this new legislation. Have at it!
Here are excerpts from a Bloomberg article today:
AP has a similar article:
And Technology Review has a lengthy series this week called The Price of Biofuels:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
It's pretty grim, for them. (They're usually techno-copians.)
I think that it is impossible to replace sunlight stored for 100 to 500 million years ( oil ) with sunlight stored during the course of one year. Powering down seems to be vital. However, we are going to need other forms of energy. I think ethanol should be one of them. It´s a good fuel ( about 125 octane )is reasonably carbon neutral, and it is possible to grow it sustainably. Farmers years ago produced ethanol from spoiled or unmarketable crops. Food vs fuel is a bogus argument when you consider how many could starve if there are no replacements for petroleum. We have to stop looking for the one energy product that is going to get us out of this mess and realize that we are going to need many diffuse ones.
" it is possible to grow it sustainably"
How ?
Where did this come from ? A link please
You might want to start by googling organic agriculture. From there a good site to start from might be journeytoforever.org/biofuels
Evidence that organic agriculture can sustainably produce significant amounts of biofuels is lacking and far from conclusive. (This excepts areas that can grow sugar-cane.) As someone who has spend the last few years studying and practicing organic agriculture, I strongly suspect that it can't be done.
For food crops, where complicated crop rotations can be used, organic agriculture can produce on levels comparable to conventional agriculture, but bio-fuels are a completely different beast. Bio-fuels can be produced sustainably or in significant quantities, but not both.
I've argued for some time now that it is quite feasible for farmers to grow a small amount of oilseed (maybe 5% of total cultivated acreage), and press it themselves to provide them with something to fuel their diesel equipment. This is no silver bullet, but it can work as an alternative technology approach to enable some agricultural mechanization to carry on.
I think an organic farmer can sustainably grow his own fuel. Perhaps a bit more can be produced for sale or barter locally. The thing plants do best is make sugars and starches. These are the base ingredients for ethanol. Bushes like jatropha can be planted as living fences and provide oilseeds for biodiesel. There are some size limits based on amount of labor and its cost. That seems to be the tradeoff. An individual can only farm so much land sustainably. It takes considerable knowledge and skill. Its being done already. We need more organic farmers.
"I think that it is impossible to replace sunlight stored for 100 to 500 million years ( oil ) with sunlight stored during the course of one year. Powering down seems to be vital. "
It's important to realize that the process by which oil was created and stored for our eventual consumption was incredibly inefficient, perhaps .000000000001% efficient.
The world is bathed in 100,000TW of sunshine every second, and we only use the equivalent about 4TW.
¨It's important to realize that the process by which oil was created and stored for our eventual consumption was incredibly inefficient, perhaps .000000000001% efficient.¨
Interesting number. Since no one was around back when oil formed speculating on efficiency is kind of risky.
We might get 100,000 TW of sunshine every second but until someone can figure out how to harness and store it better than plants with less embedded energy than solar panels we still have a problem.
" Since no one was around back when oil formed speculating on efficiency is kind of risky."
Well, it's pretty straightforward. If all of our analysis on TOD is to trusted, we have a pretty good idea how much reoverable oil is in the ground. Just divide the energy in the sunshine that fell over millions of years into the energy in the oil, and you have your number. And, it's a pretty low number.
" until someone can figure out how to harness and store it better than plants with less embedded energy than solar panels we still have a problem."
Not really. Even the most energy-intensive silicon panels pay back their embedded energy in a year or two, and the CIGS panels like Nanosolar's pay back in a few months.
So it is now possible to make silicon panels with energy not derived from fossil fuel. That is something I was not aware of.
Man is it ever tiresome to continually have to refute this argument.
How do you make solar panels (or any other kind of equipment) without energy derived from fossil fuels?
Do it in Quebec or Iceland or Brasil or any of the other places that get a significant chunk of their electric power from renewable non-fossil sources.
This won't just STOP even if we run out of fossil fuel tomorrow.
Jay Hansen is WRONG.
They could simply legislate the end of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and be done with that...
The 21 billion gallons from cellulosic ethanol will never happen for several reasons. As pointed out the first is that the technology to commercially manufacture it does not exist. When farmers started making ethanol big time from corn in the 1980's, the technology was centuries old. Secondly the market for the raw cellulose in what ever form contemplated does not exist. The market for corn did exist with all the benefits of hedging and usefulness in financial planning. Thirdly cellulosic raw material are very bulky by nature, making storage problematic. Corn is stored in bins that have been constructed over the last 50 or more years. There are still problems at harvest in finding storage now. Raw materials for ethanol plants can not simply be left outside because bacteria start to decay the product. This interferes with the bacteria used to make the ethanol causing major problems in the plant. Even in Brazil, if I'm not mistaken, the sugar used for ethanol is stored indoors after being extracted from the cane. Fourthly cellulosic raw materials will be highly labor and energy intensive due to undeveloped infrastructure. The infrastructure (equipment, storage and workers etc.) will not be developed without a market. So the first ethanol plants will have to not only create a new technology but also a new market for the raw material used. All this has to be done while facing stiff, well established market competition from corn ethanol and of course the anti ethanol big oil lobby. As I see it, corn ethanol producers and big oil know this stuff. The 21 billion cellulosic ethanol mandate is a sop thrown to the anti corn crowd to placate them and distract their attention from what is really going on. The corn ethanol lobby won big time with a doubling of the mandate for corn ethanol which will bring corn ethanol's production up to near the maximum possible. Beyond that point mitigation of peak oil has to come from a slowing economy, conservation due to higher prices, and unconventional oil and such.
practical - these are excellent insights - I think you're spot on (with exception of big oil being anti corn-ethanol - they probably love it as it increases demand for diesel and natural gas and continues with the liquid fuels infrastructure. In fact, if corn ethanol persists, and cellulosic never lives up to promise, then oil prices will be dramatically higher due to this bill)
What I have been seeing from the one contact I know who is in cellulosic ethanol is that the version that is being persued right now is that from wood, rather than from corn stover or switchgrass or the like, because of the problems you mention. Wood is much easier to transport and store, and there is an established way of marketing it. It seems doubtful to me that there is enough land area to grow all the wood needed - even if marginal land is pushed into service - and wood is harvested after only a few years of growth. The droughts in the Southeast and Southwest will not help the situation.
I agree regarding big oil being anti-ethanol. The largest problem I am aware of is the huge amount of infrastructure that needs to be put in place in advance in order to incorporate more ethanol, whether or not the ethanol really goes on line. This is a big expense that will be wasted (and could have been put to better purposes) if it turns out that the ethanol cannot actually be produced.
"This construction would need to take place ``after this technology is proven to be economically feasible, which it hasn't been.''
if the techonology did prove feasible, there would be a boom in construction because the profits would be enormous.
Cheers Nate!
I agree -- it does seem pretty risky to be putting all the energy eggs into the ethanol basket. Right now, we can produce ethanol from corn, soy beans, and sugar. Corn is the primary feedstock and we won't get anywhere near 36 billion gallons with those three.
So it's a bet on cellulosic -- another unproven technology with long development and phase in times.
In my opinion, this is an energy bill that supports scarcity in the short and long terms. We have some pushes toward efficiency, which is certainly needed and will buy us time. But if we are on the peak/plateau, we'll need a hell of a lot more than just efficiency to get us through. In short, 35 mpg standards for automobiles is a start; phasing out incandescent light bulbs is a start; and incentivizing ethanol without equally incentivizing other options is a risky venture that could become a boondoggle.
Furthermore, in my opinion, continuing subsidies/tax breaks for oil industries is a recipe for disaster. We need to incentivize AWAY from all fossil fuels starting yesterday.
The HUGE loss was the loss of tax breaks for renewables (primarily, solar, wind, water/wave/hydro). Renewables are, in my opinion, a large part of the solution to this problem so long as a smooth and rapid transition to an electric/grid based transportation infrastructure is put in place (electric light rail, plug in electric hybrids, electric cars etc). The removal of tax breaks for renewables at the federal level constitutes a great leap backward from the policy perspective.
In all, the Congress produced a compromise when we needed a revolution. We have marginal gains in the form of efficiency mandates, a HUGE loss in the form of tax breaks for renewables, and the status quo of transferring wealth and power to the major oil companies.
Given the current state of the nation's politics, such a compromise was bound to happen. So right now, as voting citizens, the ball is in our court to continue the power change in this country. We need a leadership structure that will rapidly move us away from our current dependence on fossil fuels through ALL AVAILABLE MEANS with a focus on renewables as the solution -- not as some marginal technology that should forever remain high priced and inaccessible to consumers.
Put a strong magnet next to one of those curly lights, while it's on, dare ya.
Really? What happens? How strong does the magnet have to be?
From the Bill (pg 798)
Other than requiring Federal buildings to use more renewable energy where available, and putting some money towards R&D for solar and geothermal, there is nothing for renewables. No 15%RPS. No tax credits. No-thing.
That will have to wait for another bill, and another Congress. Certainly another President.
So as of 2 weeks ago 300 GW of power from renewable sources (half from wind) was slated to be built in the US. We'll see in a few weeks to months what the number becomes, now that the tax provisions are gone.
Oh, and the tax provisions provided under Bush for the oil/gas industries, they're still there, rest well.
I thought halogens were as energy hungry as tungsten. Am I missing something?! Frankly, I am concerned about the heavy metals and the greenhouse gas fluorides being used within fluorescent light bulbs (and lead I believe) when used on a massive scale. LED's seem the most sustainable option, but even these have nasty chemicals within.
Whilst I reckon its great to ban the old type of bulbs (use them myself) and reckon delay would be daft, has there been a systematic analysis of the environmental impact of this policy? Implications for recycling/disposal, changes needed to avoid pollution at end of use (possibly in terms of product standards) and the seepage of fluorides into the atmosphere over their lifetime, how to ensure that manufacturers don't build in obsolescence as they do with so many products, the issue of poor quality bulbs imported from places like China, issues of manufacture and raw material extraction on the environment and in mining countries.
I remember mercury being the problem with CFs. They are too easy for people just to throw them away, I wonder if a deposit system would work?
Are there any recycling programs for them?
They are trying to get people to be more aware that you need to recylce these bulbs. I think I saw someone from the NRDC saying that these bubles with mercury in them save energy so more mercury is saved from not using as much power(less power plant emissions) than is used in the bulbs themselves.
That's only an issue with coal. I know that mercury is present in coal but I have never heard an analysis of how much mercury is emitted from a coal plant compared to what would enter the atmosphere from however many of these bulbs. I converted a number of incandescent bulbs to fluorescent a few years ago. None of them lasted a whole year. Between that, the cost and the mercury I decided to wait for the next technology. Here it is: a government mandate.
Madness prevails.
I believe coal on average has about 0.5 ppm mercury. The doesn´t sound like much but we and the Chinese burn a great deal of coal so the multipler is very high. If I recall correctly, the U.S. puts about 1 to 2 million tons of mercury vapor into the atmosphere each year from coal burning. We have been doing so for at least the past 20 years.
except that it is dispersed, whereas the landfill pollution from bulbs is concentrated
Landfills are somewhat contained. Dispersal by air allows access to lungs and the food chain. I´d rather have the 2 million tons in a landfill. It had a smaller impact footprint.
Newer, cheaper, CFLs made by slave labour have reliability issues. The ones I bought >6 years ago when I was paying $20 each (and they were worth it then) are still going. But newer ones at 1/10 the price are much less reliable (rated at 6,000 hours and not 10,000 hours - I've seen issues with them running hot and turning the plastic hot).
I also upgraded my T12 fluorescent to T8 and that's a no-brainer fluorescent upgrade. Note that T8's were replaced by T5's quite a while ago but I'm not sure why - I've not seen evidence of signif. energy savings (CFL's are actually T5 technology).
All fluorescent technology does best if it's not cycled on and off - put it in the areas where your lights get turned on and left on for hours.
In the end I think that CFL's will be a transient technology as LEDs and OLEDs will likely take over when they become more efficient and enter mass production - perhaps in a few years (unless you're one of those people stuck with a home littered with recessed halagon bulbs)
I've already got a box going to accumulate my burnt out CFLs, assuming that a safe recycling collection program will be set up soon. Everyone should do the same.
(And yes, they DO burn out. Since I've converted almost everything in my house to CFLs about 18 months ago, I've had to replace several already. While they do last longer than incandescents, take that "lasts ten times longer" with a big grain of salt.)
For any electronic tinkerers out there, I would remind you that there is often a mini "gold mine" of electronic parts in the plastic base of those screw-in CFL's.
You will find an assortment of diodes, including a trigger diode, two hefty high voltage switching transistors ( or if you are lucky - MOSFETS ), a little ferrite core wound as a regenerative oscillator base driver for the transistors, an inductor for the lamp drive, and a motley assortment of resistors and capacitors. I have built many "toys" from the innards of these as well as junked computer power supplies.
These parts would have cost me a handful of moola if I had ordered them from the parts catalog. Although many of the parts are not marked with industry standard numbers, its pretty obvious by how they were used as to what part they are equivalent to.
Our county, and I expect many others, has a program to collect household hazardous waste. Things like oil based paint, bug spray, used motor oil, that sort of stuff. I have taken burned out CF bulbs in at the same time I bring in other stuff, and they are more than happy to take them.
Some counties have collection sites set up once or twice a year, but ours also has a place where you can drop things off twice a week.
Poor quality bulbs (CFLs) are already in place. I have yet to have one last 2-3 years let alone the 7-8 that is touted on the boxes that line the shelves at Wal-Mart. I am all for new technology, but there needs to be better quality in the CFLs before I am really sold on them as the "lifesaver" they are suppose to be. LEDs? Now, that may be a better story. I certainly hope so. John
Ditto
That has been my experience, too. I have CFLs in every fixture that will take them, as well as over two heavily-planted fishtanks. They don't last nearly as long as claimed. Perhaps because I live in an old building, which shakes when someone slams the door, and doesn't have the best electrical wiring.
I have an older style lamp, It's been my front porch light for over 7 years now.
I have one older one I bought in 1992 that was made in Japan.
I turn it one when the clocks change in the fall, and turn it off when the clocks change in the spring.
Still works.
I've had a few burning (flourescing?) for over 2 years without issues. Most of mine run 4h/day. Keep in mind, they don't like being turned on/off, and they need ventilation. Most state that they can't be used in recessed lighting.
So, if I want my bulbs to last longer, I should not turn them off? o_O
That's exactly the experience I had. The CFLs that are left on tend last the longest. The ones I have to replace are the ones I keep turning off.
I have one in a porch light that I think has been on continuously for two years. I have short tube fluorescents in a bathroom mirror that have been on most of the time for the last seven years, and the bulbs themselves are at least 15 years old. The desk lamps and room lights with CFLs that get switched on and off have to be replaced every 6 to 12 mos.
Holy Jevon's Paradox. That doesn't bode well for conservation.