DrumBeat: March 24, 2008
Posted by threadbot on March 24, 2008 - 9:28am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
Posted by threadbot on March 24, 2008 - 9:28am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
Good article on the front page of today's WSJ:
New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears
It must be snowing in hell today....
The WSJ is rapidly becoming my favorite doomer newspaper. Last week they ran an article about impending financial market meltdown and a situation potentially rivaling the Great Depression.
Well, actually it's snowing here and there's hailstones here. My life is hell....is that close enough?
it's snowing here and there's hailstones here. My life is hell
Most of the readers of this site should be thankful they are not in an active zone of conflict like Iraq. You might actually be in heck - ruled by the bringer of insufficenct light.
"There are two states of human existence. Misery and Horror. Therefore I'm grateful that I'm only miserable."
Woody Allen
Good article on the front page of today's WSJ:
Actually there's a sh@tload of good (i.e. interesting) articles in the WSJ today. Most days I skim thru it in 5 minutes. Today, I spent well over 1/2 hour and am still not done. Biofuels, Cuba, bamboo, idiotic lead editorial, plus much else.
MSNBC has a news story about rising food prices:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23781864/
It's gettin' scary!
The Malthusian component of our economy is our banking system, more specifically 'debt based leveraged banking' misnamed by the Banks as 'fractional reserve banking'.
Without geometric expansion of debt the whole system crashes as new money must be forever increased to pay the interest on the ever larger existing debt. It is leveraged debt on the way up and leveraged money destruction on the way down. A debt spiral up and down.
To monetize this ever increasing debt economies must forever expand using more and more natural resources. This is why growth is considered imperative, because our financial system collapses without ever more growth.
Is there a way out? Yes ... Public Central Banks that create their own money and act as a lender at interest to banks whose loans must be made on a one to one basis with private deposits and borrowed deposits from the Public Bank.This takes the leverage out of the system and empowers private deposits to capture a real rate of return. Frugality is rewarded instead of taxed by inflation. The Public Central Bank garners income from its lendings to Private Banks while shedding interest paid to the Federal Reserve. And really, why shouldn't the public garner income from its money, and indeed, Why the Hell should it pay interest on its' own money?
This simply isn't true. Our financial system undergoes recession without more growth.
Then resumes the debt accumulation through more growth consuming ever more resourses.
Sure, but the financial system doesn't 'collapse' without more growth. We've had years of no or negative growth without collapse.
Think Great Depression ... the most recent deflationary episode in history ...
Recessions are just mild stagnations, not deflations. Government now accounts for over 25 % of economic activity and this will go on. The markets that are now in trouble however are many multiples of the US GDP, even the world GDP ...
The derivatives market is now 500 trillion dollars and is essentially freezing up. The entire world GDP is around 50 trillion. The destruction of this amount of debt will overwhelm the entire world.
Then you will have a crash due to debt destruction.
All because of "debt based leverage banking' misnamed by the banks as 'fractional reserve banking'. Levarage up, leverage down ... Some of these banks used derivatives to leverage out 30 times or more, Citi for example. Now the underlying assets (loans) are bad the destruction of money is at 30 times.
There hasn't been a 'panic' or 'depression' in most Americans lifetimes so you don't have a frame of reference.
The WSJ has an article on Limits to Growth that is available through Google News. It talks about many types of resources, including fresh water and land, but doesn't say a whole lot about world oil specifically.
I find it interesting that they started off stating:
Why would they so talk about the fears, and even validate them throughout the story, but still deny the general idea flat out at the beginning? Thats the WSJ for you.
I read the article and it basically said nothing new. It looks like the writers read the Drum, but went out to get naysayers to give equal weight (Lomborg). In simple terms they talk about Energy Developments that occurred in the mid 1800s as an example of man's technology in reducing the price of whale oil. I will admit there are advances everyday in biological technology, but the WSJ seems to equate the development of Kerosene in the same reference point as today's technological advances. It does not compute, but maybe I am missing something.
The big LTG punchline did belong to Mr. Stiglitz who said that "people will have to change their behavior more than they did after the 1970's oil shock".
I am not seeing that level of anxiety in the public discourse.
The disconnect between man and the size of his aquarium is complete.
I read the article and it basically said nothing new.
It's not what they are saying is new -- it's that they are dealing with it that is new.
It is either ostensibly deal with it or look eminently stupid hiding what has become terribly and hideously obvious.
They have their crotch stuck in a cleft stick and it is publish or be pranged.
As shocking as the WSJ giving any credence to oil limits is what John Hofmeister, President of Shell, U.S. said last week on CNBC (video here at TOD). He said that Simmons was right on peaking oil given his narrow set of hypotheses i.e. conventional oil from traditional producers. So he indirectly admitted imminent conventional peak!
But then he said that Simmons and peak oil theorists don't take into account the vast new world of new liquids being added to the mix. Well excuse me, but we do consider them. We consider them a lot. He apparently doesn't read much at TOD.
There is indeed a vast new world of liquids being stacked upon the conventional oil curve, and they pretty much all have the same problem - EROI. As global peak is approached, you naturally have a declining EROI of conventional oil where you have an ever-increasing portion of oil being used to retrieve more oil. That process is being augmented by diversion of conventional oil to the manufacture of substitute liquids of dangerously low EROI.
Dangerous? How can EROI be dangerous? If you look at how EROI proceeds through the peaking process as shown by a chart Nate Hagens has shown here and compare that to what's going on with the new liquids, you see this:
The unconventional add-ons aren't exactly the "Y" in the first chart being that it isn't all EROI=1 where equal amounts of energy are used and created. But there is enough EROI drop across the divide between the crude of the past and that of the new liquids to create a similar effect.
Does dropping the EROI really warp the curves that much? Well, as Robert Rapier showed in his EROI Review of 3/18, when you go from an EROI of 20 (old fashion crude) to an EROI of 1.3 (corn ethanol) you wind up having to make over 60 times the volume of the lower EROI source to net the same energy as the higher source. That means that less than 1/60th of all that added production is actually contributing to the net energy curve! But not to worry; all of the ethanol contributes to food inflation.
The danger part about EROI is the cliff that is camouflaged and seemingly set as a snare for our time:
You get a similar warp, though not nearly as severe, going from say a 30 average EROI to the left of the peak to say a 5 average EROI for the composite of ethanol, NGL, deepwater, oil sands, and shale to the right of the peak. It makes a vast difference whether you go to an EROI of 5 or to an EROI of 2 or 1.3 from the traditional high net oil of the past as can be clearly seen on the cliff chart above. Since so much of the new alternative liquids being stuffed into that critical add-on region are thought to have EROI right around the super-critical 5 area, perched right on the edge of the cliff, it is imperative that we know accurately what the EROI is for our various options. Things like the deepwater oil, which has EROI by some estimates less than 5, could easily be nudged over the cliff to join corn ethanol as yet another costly boondoggle. EROI should be the number one subject of research and legislation in Congress instead of nonexistent in their discussion or understanding.
Wow, that's fascinating ( in the same way watching a car wreck is fascinating : (
Errol in Miami
Thank you for posting these. As I said on RR's post, and have tried to hammer home elsewhere, the EROEI cliff, well illustrated by these two graphs, should be as much front and center as the Hubbert curve itself. Taken together with a growing population, the bumping up against other limits (water, soil, NPK etc...), globalization increasing the efficiency with which Empire can turn everything into a consumer product, and the expectation that growth will always provide more of everything for all of us, declining EROEI is why I see a global trainwreck coming. Catton, Tainter, Albert Bartlett, each elucidate a key piece, as in another realm do Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, Chellis Glendinning, Daniel Quinn, Richard Manning and others. Perhaps Kunstler says it best, "We'll keep on doing what we're doing until we can't, and then we won't." Not long to wait, now.
Netfind
Standing, Clapping. That's one of the most impressive posts for the number of words and graph that I have seen on TOD.
Conclusion:
We've been had
Carter and his sweater speech will, I believe, mark the point of when things needed to be started in earnest.
Instead it was "Morning In America" and everything seemed seemed to go to warp speed as if the world was on acid.
Raygunomics was the worst thing to happen to this country.
Your EROI presentation is meaningless in the context of liquid fuels production, which are an energy source by accident; their value is in being an energy carrier. If coal, wind, or nuclear power are utilized in hydrogen production, the EROI is below one but civilization doesn't grind to a halt. Likewise if some lower value energy source is turned into higher value oil, it simply doesn't matter as long as there are lower cost energy sources for doing the oil production; There are and will be for as long as we care to plot into the future.
You're better off charting oil returned on oil invested than spending so much time in the academic rathole of weather liquid fuels are falling off the over unity energy production cliff. They will, and civilization will continue on simply because the alternatives are demonstrably productive for what may as well be forever.
Hello Dezakin,
I respectfully submit that I believe you are confused on this subject. I will give two energy sources, both with an ERoEI < 1.
1. A gallon of water with a hole in the bottom.
2. A bag of flour with a hole in the bottom.
Upon your request, I will gladly drive you far into our blazing summer desert so you can confidently demonstrate the flawless logic of your above posting. How about this July when it will be 115+ degrees Farenheit in the shade, and of course, much, much hotter in the full sunlight?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You're neither being respectful, nor are you submitting anything, nor are these even what would be classified as energy sources. You're just being an ass. How about actually adressing the argument.
Hello Dezakin,
Thxs for responding. Water & food are vital energy sources to me and all life, but please feel free to dispute this.
Oxygen, fuel, and a spark are vital to all ICE engines, but you may disagree. If you can't get fuel to the engine because the gas can has a whole in the bottom [again ERoEI <1]--the car is dead.
Electricity is a vital energy source for an electric-motor or to charge a battery. If the electric cord cannot reach far enough into the desert [again ERoEI <1] to recharge the PHEV-- the car is dead.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Water and food are products, not energy sources. Stop playing the game of metaphors.
If an energy source runs out, it runs out and your energy return is below 1. I'm not sure if thats what you're trying to get at with you're rather insulting attempt at wit, but the whole point is we aren't running out of energy.
You say I'm confused. Your meandering nonsense isn't exactly illumination, and it looks like you don't actually have any point. Stop being such a twit and adress my arguments if you have anything to say.
"Water and food are products, not energy sources."
try this experiment:
stop eating food and see how much energy you have.
The argument with EROEI for FFs is that you basically burn more gas in the engine of the bulldozer to dig it out of the ground than you actually get back for you efforts.
eg. You have to burn through a 20 gallon tank of deisel to run a drilling rig. Then you burn 1000 gallons to run the pump for a total of 1020 gallons spent. The oil you get out of the ground only gets you the equivalent of 1019 gallons of deisel. You've wasted your time, and a gallon of deisel. Of course the process is more complex than that.
However, if you built a windmill powered pump or some sort of solar powered rig, then maybe that would be competetive with energy carriers like hydrogen.
If you read what I wrote originally, thats my point. Liquid fuel is our product, and its value far exceeds the energy value alone.
You wrote:
Wow, where did you get those idiotic ideas? Sure, the Earth is about 72% covered with oceans full of water. Now, try drinking it. The clean water that land plants and animals (and people) require comes from solar energy, which causes the water to evaporate from the oceans and move over the land, falling as rain or snow. All of the "food" people consume is derived from plants, which are solar collectors, though inefficient ones. Thus, all civilization is solar powered.
I'm afraid you have gained a seriously flawed understanding of reality. One wonders where you found such a poor education.
E. Swanson
In discussing powering industrial civilization, we don't treat food as an energy source and often regard it as an energy sink, especially when delving into discussions over energy costs of fertilizer production, irrigation, and other mechanized farming methods. In our accounting we rarely use beasts of burden or slaves for direct energy inputs either. Water itself isn't an energy source at all, its simply a solvent.
We don't regard food as an energy source for the same reason we don't regard hydrogen as an energy source. Its at best a carrier, and its component as an energy carrier is a tiny percentage.
One wonders how so many can be so flippantly insulting and ironicly ignorant at the same time.
Gasoline and electricity are not energy sources either. But, food is stored solar energy, a fact that is not usually included in energy computations. Much of the discussion about energy only includes industrial scale concentrated energy, while ignoring the diffuse solar energy that is the foundation of everything which civilization does. People are solar powered. Don't you agree?
As for water, aren't you forgetting the fact that the water in a river which turns a turbine is there because of the solar energy which powers the hydrological cycle? And, the solvent properties of water depend on it's purity, also a function of the source of the water taken from the hydrological cycle.
E. Swanson
If you stopped playing semanting games you might realize you're arguments are orthoganal to the point I originally made.
But instead you can discuss the energy density of water when tumbled down an accresion disk of a black hole. Have fun with that.
I love it when a troll throws out a red herring, mentioning big words like "orthogonal".
The issue is not cost, it's energy. EROEI is not the same as ROI and using lower dollar cost energy to provide energy forms with higher value does not change the fact that once EROEI approaches 1.0, there is going to be some big changes. For one thing, the present dollar prices for the lower cost energy input is not fixed, but the result or previous market conditions. Those market conditions will change and the prices of all energy sources will rise, reflecting the overall shortage. Using relatively cheap natural gas to extract oil from Canadian tar sands is a prime example, as the price of natural gas climbs, so will the cost of the oil produced by that method.
But, the fact remains that solar energy is the ultimate primary energy source for life on earth and if we transform the limited land area available for food production into providing liquid fuels, we will all suffer.
E. Swanson
You're arguing past me.
We value oil products as an energy carrier first and as an energy source second. If it takes more energy to mine these oil products than is released in their combustion, that doesn't necissarily mean that the well is shut down as long as there is an external energy source (the sun, nuclear, coal, natural gas) to drive the mine.
As a note, I'd like to point out that Gasoline (and all petroleum fuels) are actually carriers for solar energy as well. They are Fossil Fuels, meaning they are made out of plants and animals who were solar powered, and all that solar energy got concentrated and stored in the ground over millions of years.
Wind is solar power, since the sun causes pressure gradients and thus air flows (wind). Hydro-electric is solar power because, as you point out, the sun powers the hydrologic cycle. The fact is, >99% of the energy that runs our society in some shape or form comes from the sun. The only exceptions are (that I can think of) are tidal (powered by the rotational energy of the Earth/Moon system), nuclear, and geothermal (which, according to some theories, may also be nuclear).
If you take those three sources out of the equation, and assume fossil fuels have run out, the maximum available energy on the surface of Earth is equal to the irradiance of the sun times half the surface area of the Earth (since the world is always about 50% day 50% night, it comes out to about 1.74x10^17 Watts). So food, wood for burning, falling water, electricity from PV cells, and wind are all just carriers for that solar energy.
Water and food are products, not energy sources.
Errr no.
Food (or ex food) has ALWAYS had the option of being an energy source. Grains that have been overridden with bugs that man is no longer willing to sort out the infected from the non infected has been subject to burning for heat or conversion into alcohol.
Water is a 'product'? Only in the sense the man is now used to buying water. Even buying water wrapped in oil - be the water flavored with sugar or the waste product of yeasts.
Now, if Man makes a Mr. Fusion (as per the movie back to the future) then, like the accreaction disk - water would be a power source.
Stop being such a twit and adress my arguments if you have anything to say.
I'll be sure to remember your post next time I respond to one of your pro-fission posts and you opt to not address the issue of the day. Or perhaps you normally respond like this an Leahan deletes them (per the comment about the civility level dropping).
Bob,
As becomes clear every time EROEI is discussed here (too infrequently, IMO) there are tremendous psychological barriers that prevent many folks from grokking this very simple concept, and its huge implications. Your valiant efforts are probably better spent elsewhere than trying to convince those who simply refuse to see, though I applaud your ability to approach the debate with humor, grace and civility. And thanks for keeping NPK issues on our collective radar as well.
Clifman
How is it possible that you don't understand the domain of importance of energy return? Its important in primary energy production. Centralized power plants can't compete with low energy returns because they're primary energy producers, but fuels can because they're energy carriers. What do you disagree with here?
Centralized power plants can't compete with low energy returns because they're primary energy producers, but fuels can because they're energy carriers.
So liquid fuels (which came into existance because of photons interacting with plants) is a 'energy carrier'.
So why then is a coal fired plant an 'energy producer' - as the main product used to create heat in the process of energy production is from photons interacting with plants?
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1447/66/
Green Buildings Could Save More Energy than is Consumed by ALL Cars
Several years ago, I totally retrofitted a 1960s building in New Orleans and cut utilities by about 78%.
Revised lighting, some reflective film, fixed overlooked air gaps, and complete HVAC redesign.
Less than 3 year payback.
Alan
Just to clarify, this is a 5 story building, about 120' x 70' from memory. 100% occupied.
Alan
complete HVAC redesign
Did you do manual J/D calculations ?
Reason I ask is this is an area of future employment possibilities I am currently evaluating - I have a Wrighsoft product CD with demos I will be looking at this week.
You can email me if you like - (bio page).
I had a computer model do Manual J runs, but I also did them by hand/spreadsheet (I wanted to understand the assumptions, etc.)
Old HVAC - 2x 60 ton a/c and 100 ton gas boiler on the roof with two 40 hp electric motors for air circulation. Fixed make-up air added.
New HVAC - 15 residential a/c or heat pumps zoning building with some over lap, 22.5 tons on roof for hottest days, 10 ton condensing gas furnace on ground floor for bulk heat, another 10 tons on roof for coldest mornings. Make-up air triggered by CO2 sensor, run through dehumidifier, Two dehumidifiers in building.
Also used Metal Optics formed 96% reflectors to put light where needed. One low ballast factor T8 bulb with reflector in hallways vs. 4x T12 for example. Used high CRI bulbs for better light and more lumens (4% or so more).
Best Hopes,
Alan
"Less than 3 year payback."
try getting that in today's stock market and you are partially hedged against rising prices.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/merchandise-mart-goes-green.php
Hi john,
There are tremendous opportunities to reduce energy demand in existing buildings and innovative financing can help us tap into it. I'm working with an electrical utility that will pay, provided the programme is approved by the PUC, 75 per cent of the cost of various lighting upgrades and allow customers to repay the balance on their power bill over a five year period, interest free. State of the art products -- professionally installed at no risk and no out-of-pocket expense -- generating positive cash flows from day one. These individual customers get a very sweet deal and the utility and its ratepayers benefit as well because it's cheaper for the utility to invest in DSM than new plant additions [a small surcharge will help the utility recover a portion of its lost revenues].
Replace an old T12 fluorescent lighting system with advanced T8s, combined with daylight harvesting and/or occupancy sensors, and you can easily cut your lighting costs by more than half. Ditto swapping out a standard, probe-start HID fixture with a T5 or T8 high bay equivalent. Replace conventional halogen track lighting with the latest generation of halogen-IR or MR16 IRCs and you can trim demand by 35 to 40 per cent; better yet, replace these halogens with Philip MasterColour Elite CDM lamps that produce up to 100 lumens per Watt and you can slash demand by 80 to 90 per cent. Note too that for every kW of lighting savings you typically save another 0.30 to 0.35 kW in related air conditioning demand and that many commercial and retail spaces are air conditioned year-round. Basic thermal envelope upgrades; high efficiency boilers and chillers; ECM motors; heat and coolth recovery from exhaust ventilation; proper energy management practices... it's like owning a gold mine, except that you don't need a pick-axe or shovel to harvest the rewards, just the right economic incentives.
Cheers,
Paul
Two suggestions.
Use high reflective (96% ?) formed reflectors to put light where needed. I put a low ballast factor single T8 bulb with reflector in hallways to replace four T12s in a white pan. Meet Illuminating Engineers standards for hallways with "light to spare".
Use high CRI T8 bulbs. Better quality light and more of it (about 4% more from memory and old specs).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks, Alan, for the tips. We have avoided the use of aluminized reflectors due to concerns related to their long-term performance. Where possible, we opt for a master-slave arrangement where two or more fixtures share the same ballast. We also specify high efficiency instant start or, where occupancy sensors will be used, program start ballasts, typically from Osram Sylvania.
Depending upon the required light levels, we use 25, 28 or 32 watt T8s from either Osram Sylvania or Philips with a CRI of 85 or better; generally speaking, we stick with a BF of 0.88 but will go up or down as may be required. A 32-watt FO32/841/XPS pumps out 3,100 lumens (our general preference is for 5,000K and in this case a FO32/850/XPS is rated at 3,000 lumens and 81 CRI). Personally, I like Philip's new Alto II lamps a lot: just 1.7 mg of Hg (the lowest in the industry), 3,100 initial lumens, 97% lumen maintenance, 85 CRI (82 @ 5,000K) and up to 36,000 hours service life. If you opt for their XLL version, initial lumens come in a little lower -- 2,950 -- but rated life can be as high as 46,000 hours and CRI is a flat 85 across all colour temperatures.
The problem you face is that when it comes time for replacement some dork in accounting will always specify the lowest-cost product that will ultimately compromise performance. Or the maintenance guys will slap in any old tube regardless of its colour temperature or CRI -- even T12s if they're still lying around. For this reason, we try to standardize on one ballast and one T8 for all fixtures and drill home the importance of sticking to this standard.
Cheers,
Paul
BTW, what happened to the old Motorola ballasts (my favorite) after Osram bought them ?
5000K is too white/blue/cold for most, IMVHO. No more than 4100K in my experience.
I may have a deal locally soon. I will ley you know.
Best Hopes for Efficient LIghting,
Alan
Dust can attach to reflectors, but no corrosion issues AFAIK (building got 5 feet of salt water in Katrina).
Alan
Hi Alan,
I don't know how much Motorola DNA can still be found in the Quicktronic product line; Motorola was a true pioneer and their quality was always top drawer and we've also had excellent results with its successor.
I use to think that until we did a side-by-side comparison in a large office space and asked staff what they thought. Everyone perceived the 5,000K area to be notably brighter and "cleaner"; by comparison, the 4,100K area looked a little dull and dingy even though the only difference was the colour temperatures of the lamp. We repeated this test a few more times and, again, 5,000K was the preferred choice. At some point I'd like to run this same test with 6,500K lamps or perhaps the new 8,000Ks and see the reaction.
In any event, due to their greater scotopic performance, we found we could often go with a 25 or 28-watt T8 instead of a 32-watt, and reduce lighting loads by another 5 to 10 per cent without any perceived drop in light levels.
Good to know. We found dust and grease to be an issue and weren't altogether happy with the change in fixture optics and room appearance.
I hope it comes through for you, and by all means please share the good news.
Cheers,
Paul
I do not like master-slave, exposed higher voltage bundle of thin wire seems asking for problems.
We retrofitted existing fixtures with a kit, only about 4% new fixtures.
We used 2 foot single tube outdoor fixture with low ballast factor ballast for stairwell lighting. Worked well.
Alan
Hi Alan,
Sorry, I should have made clear that these are tandem fixtures, so no exposed wiring.
We do the same unless there's a compelling reason to replace it. That said, some of the newer products offer much higher fixture efficiency (more than what can be achieved through a retrofit kit); better glare control and/or light distribution; or just a fresher, cleaner, more pleasant overall look.
E.g.: http://www.lithonia.com/Products/groups/Fluorescent/RT5/default.asp
For maximum energy savings in stairwells applications and still meet code, bi-level fixtures are another good choice -- full brightness when motion is detected and dimmed to 5 to 10 per cent when the space is unoccupied. Considering these spaces are illuminated 24x7, the savings quickly add up.
See: http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/deliverable_6.2.5_CaseS...
Cheers,
Paul
You have more tools in your kit today than I had a decade ago. All self taught at that time, which was an interesting life experience.
What would you recommend for a neighborhood grocery store with narrow aisles ? Double T12s exposed today.
Thanks,
Alan
Hi Alan,
For a general primer, see: http://www.designlights.org/downloads/retail_guide.pdf
This guide is a bit dated, but it might still be of some help: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/DELTA/pdf/Vol-1-1-A&P.pdf
I might also recommend: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=grocery.sb_grocery
A couple questions if I may... Is this an upscale or discount retailer? Are the current fixtures F96T12 or F40T12? What is the ceiling height and is this a drywall surface or 2x2 or 2x4 acoustic tile? Is the primary motivator energy savings or does the retailer want to address certain deficiencies and/or change the overall look of the store?
Assuming energy savings are the primary/sole driver and your budget is tight, the simple, least-costly solution is to swap out the tubes and ballast and clean and reuse the existing hardware. A 59-watt Philips F96T8/TL841PLUS is rated at 5,900 lumens @ 0.88 BF, 30,000 hours service life @ 12hrs per start, 85 CRI and 95 per cent EOL lumen maintenance.
A two-tube F96T12 with a magnetic ballast might consume upwards of 181-watts; its replacement would come in at 110-watts, for a net savings of up to 71-watts per fixture -- a 40 per cent reduction. More light (107 lumens per watt), better light quality (85 versus 62 CRI), longer lamp life (30,000 versus 15,000 or 18,000 hours), modest lamp replacement costs, lower a/c loads, no flicker and no annoying ballast hum.
If this store has an an open truss steel canopy, depending upon the ceiling height, a 250, 320 or 400-watt HID fixture with an electronic ballast is another option. A good quality ceramic metal halide lamp can offer an eye-popping CRI of 92 and being a point source, it can add considerable punch and sparkle. Sobeys is a local based grocery chain and like many big box retailers, they've gone this route.
See: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/liter...
and
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/liter...
For end of isle displays or adjoining open spaces, I really like 100-watt PAR38 ceramic metal spots tucked up at the truss level (e.g., Halo L5038 or L5138 fixtures). Nice clean ceiling and dramatic punches of light for added visual interest. The trade-off is higher initial and ongoing operating costs.
With a better understanding of your client's needs, I'd be happy to delve into this in greater detail.
Regards,
Paul
It is my neighborhood grocery store, late 1800s with 1950 add-on, friendly 2nd generation. Cost savings are important.
I have seen aluminum reflectors in Austin grocery stores.
I shop there 3 to 5 days/week, but let me "double check" :-)
"Cozy" atmosphere with all classes buying there (beat-up bicycles to new Jaguars can be parked in front, many walk ups).
I would finance changeover myself to help.
Alan
Hi Alan,
It sounds like cost is going to be an important factor and maybe you'll need to roll this out in phases. Target the least efficient stuff first or what will generate the greatest ROI -- e.g., halogen or incandescent track lighting -- and use these savings to help finance the next series of upgrades. And don't overlook the used marketplace when sourcing parts and fixtures; store closing and renovations can be an excellent source of commercial grade lighting products. I've also picked up some terrific bargains on ebay, sometimes paying less than 1/10th of what I'd normally pay for the same product new. For example, I was paying a local distributor $300.00 for a 70-watt Halo L5300 CDM track head only to discover the same product selling on ebay for as little as $25.00. Likewise, a Philips 45-watt MR16 IRC that normally goes for $8.00 or $9.00 a pop can be bought on ebay for $1.65 ea.
See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&i...
I suspect you know just as much about lighting as I do if not more, but if there's anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask.
Regards,
Paul
I know in Finland we already put a lot of effort to making houses energy efficient, but the cost is still way too high for retrofitting old buildings. The improvement in efficiency isn't good enough and payback times go beyond 10 or 15 years. And I mean cost of labour, resulting from heavy taxation and costs of employing people. Electricity bills here are growing fast despite of record breaking warm winters.
I wonder how expensive it is to keep pumping hot air in whatever form of energy into these swiss-cheese buildings, especially considering our winter temperatures, and the continuing increase in energy price. It might come to a situation where its cheaper to knock them down and build modern ones, than keep heating magpies all through the winter for another 10 years.
PS: also from Finland
It makes sense if it anyway needs major renovation like a new roof, facade, windows or pipes.
The crazy thing is the values built into our system that will prevent us from doing the rational thing.
That sounds believable. In 1974 California adopted Title 24 which sets standards for insulation, roofing, windows, lighting, HVAC systems and so on that are vary depending on the climate of the house. Since the adoption of title 24, California's electricity use per capita stopped growing while the U.S. as a whole increased its per capita energy use by 50%. If the U.S. as a whole had adopted similar standards then our electricity use would be about 1/3 less than it is today, which corresponds to a total energy use of around 13% less than today which is equal to about half of what is used in transportation. Requiring retrofits to the latest energy efficiency standards could probably get you as big of a reduction as you suggest. One good time to require such retrofits would be whenever a house is sold. That way you avoid affecting current homeowners too much but get the retrofits done fairly quickly.
oops, the year title 24 went into effect was 1978, not 1974
WPI (the college I'm currently attending) is in the late stages of building a new dorm with a fairly "green," profile, including a green roof.
http://www.wpi.edu/About/NewResHall/facts.html
It's nice to see some of this stuff being done, but it still seems like a painfully gradual crossover.
Interesting.
Right in the middle of this picture:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=30.421565,...
, there is a new office building going up. They have this thing that looks like an irregular-shaped swimming pool on the site, and now they've covered the top of it with a concrete lid. My guess is this cistern is there for heat-sink purposes. Average cave temp. around Austin is 70°F. I drive the length of that road every day going to work (~5.5 Mi).
But, will it be "greener" than the post oaks they bulldozed to build it?
When they finally tear down that dump Stoddard then I'll be impressed.
I think the word you're looking for is "explode."
Of course, most buildings don't use propane or fuel oil, so green buildings don't really affect that pesky oil peaking problem.
And since Dr. Hansen now points out that we need zero CO2 emissions, it looks like green buildings would be a good start, but not nearly enough.
Oh yeah, and now we have a credit crunch that's making it harder for everyone to pay for green buildings.
Green buildings is certainly another silver BB, but until we have all-electric cars and a solar PV grid, the "ALL Cars" bit is just annoying hype. The problems are much bigger than that.
"Of course, most buildings don't use propane or fuel oil, so green buildings don't really affect that pesky oil peaking problem."
A good portion of non base-load electrical generation comes from gas powered power plants, so decreasing utilities decreases gas/liquid fossil fuel usage, although admitidly it doesn't save much *oil*. Depending on building design heating could also be done by direct burning of FF also.
Whatta ya mean "solar PV grid" Its gotta be solar thermal. Much cheaper. I have also been playing around with a solar thermal flat panel that flops on your roof, boils a fluid and drives a little turbine- mini solar thermal. I think I can beat PV in $/watt with this primitive thing. Would be a laugh!
BTW, would somebody please tell ol' Al Gore to quit forcing his windmills to turn in the wrong direction up there to the left? Wastes huge amounts of energy right before our eyes- painful.
I went and signed onto his petition and also left a lengthy note about PO, with a paragraph specifically adressing his painfully backwards wind turbines. That was less than a week ago though.
Lets check out how the rest of the world beats on that drum...
China
Xinhua - China's largest oilfield gears up output target amid rising oil price
India
Mittal eyes Coal India's old mines
Russia
Mitvol's Agency to Probe TNK-BP
If you read the China story you find that 40 million tonnes is actually a decrease on current production. The "good news" is that they hope to slow the decline rate with enhanced techniques. Let's hope it doesn't fall off a cliff a couple of years later.
Right, but its a big increase on what they previously expect to get out of it. I think that does increase the danger of falling off a "production cliff" later on.
Here's a little American insight on the Chinese situation:
MSNBC China facing renewed fuel shortages
I believe that the Daqing Field has about a 90% water cut--As Matt Simmons put it, a lot of the world's oil fields are producing oil stained brine.
While China's oil production has been falling their consumption has continued to increase. How much will prices have to rise before many Chinese can no longer afford to drive or use oil for other reasons? How much higher must prices rise before their imports start to decline rather than rise month after month?
China Feb crude imports at peak, diesel imports surge
Ron Patterson
The question is, when do they stop bailing out the United States of America by purchasing tens of billions of dollars of our government debt every week?
Let's roughly say China's daily imported oil bill is about $300 million. China seems to be buying a couple of hundred billion in t-bills a year lately, or $600 million a day. Sounds like they could cut out one bad habit to keep financing another bad habit.
They can't STOP taking (buying) US Treasuries, the trade imbalance between the two nations is made up in US dollars.
What they can do is use those US dollars to buy tangible things eg. oil, copper, wheat Vs just holding on to those dollars.
If I run a trade surplus with you, then whatever my imbalance is I have to take in IOU's from you. When your IOU's become worthless it's game over, re-set the board and start again.
China may well be in a better position to import oil than the US in a few years, especially considering our lack of manufacturing exports and current costly engagement in Iraq. If we don't give something real (not just money, since that isn't a real commodity) to the oil producing nations, than they have no reason to give us oil.
China would become the leading consumer of oil. Now that is a dangerous situation.
China has it's own problems aplenty. Its export position weakens as the economy tanks here, just for starters. We're going down, but so are they. I don't think we are seeing a shifting balance of power between empires (as, I admit, has always happened before in history) -- rather I think we will see something new: a collapse of all the big empires.
That doesn't mean there won't be fireworks on the way down. It would be nice if the Soviet collapse were the model for the coming collapses. But I fear that's not a realistic hope.
Last I read China exports 15% of it's finished goods to US. A 50% reduction in salad shooters to US would hardly cripple China's economy.
'We're going down, but so are they.'
I'm afraid it is little consolation to me that China might join us in the bottom of the barrel.
'I think we might see something new: a collapse of all the big empires.'
How did you come to this conclusion?
World Sneezes, China's Just Fine
Economists say a global slowdown will largely spare a mainland economy still based on domestic consumption and cushioned by vast cash reserves http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080318_747713....
So, maybe over the long run, a no-growth world will mean smaller effective political units, but we will probably suffer more in the short-term than China as they outbid us for oil and prices continue to rise.
Economists say a global ... The same economists who said things would never get to this point? It is not just the US economy that will contract. All of China's customers will eventually be affected. The Chinese stock market is (was?) down 40 pct. China has capitalism, just like we do. There is no automatic way of their domestic consumption taking up the slack. If there were, there would be no such thing as a recession or depression and capitalism wouldn't be capitalism.
I certainly share your disdain for economists, Dave. But China's people and government have built up tons of savings, unlike our people and government, who have built up tons of debt. That's why their domestic consumption can take up the slack. They have the bucks to buy energy, and they have the bucks to invest in energy efficient infrastructure to use that energy ever more productively to improve the lives of their people. They are in relatively great shape for what's coming, compared to other oil importers.
And you can't really use their stock market as a barometer of their economy. Their stock market is pretty much a casino, and not a modern corporate Vegas casino, but the old mob-run type of Vegas casino--a real bust-out joint.
Please, It will take one serious uprising for China too have a serious setback. For christ sake they can barely handle a a uprising from a bunch of monks! what happens when the real deal comes to town?
Please, It will take one serious uprising for China too have a serious setback.
And the US of A is somehow different?
For christ sake they can barely handle a a uprising from a bunch of monks!
How long did LA burn?
I think that's true, if and only if their government is willing to level with their population about the nature of the Peak Oil crisis. Even dictatorships have to manage expectations, but the leaders of China have let expectations run wild. Those leaders will not easily admit that they made a mistake betting on the US to properly use the lifeline of Chinese t-bill purchases to mend its ways.
For some time I've sensed that the peoples of the successful states in East Asia are becoming arrogant and overconfident like the Europeans of 1914. The upside of this is that those Europeans were surprisingly ready to make insane sacrifices for an absurd war, so getting Chinese to accept that they are in an economic struggle that requires sacrifices in comforts, not blood, should be feasible. The downsides are too many to mention.
We should recall that the Chinese government has been trying to engineer a stock market crash for several years now, for the spectre of inflation casts a long shadow there. That government, alone among the great powers of mankind (excepting perhaps Germany) recalled the old lesson that the sooner the crash came, the less bad it would be. The question is, was this one too late? Do the citizens have the toughness to rebuild their economy around conservation and, at least, less coal after their fantasies have been intentionally derailed?
How can the government level with their population about crude oil when the government is clueless about peak oil? The people keep electing politicians who promise them that they will "fix" the problem of high oil prices. They elect people who give rosy and optimistic outlooks. And the problem is, the politicians actually believe that, that is why they are so convincing.
The general public will likely be aware of peak oil long before their government officials are.
Ron Patterson
I disagree that the public will be aware of peak oil before the government.
At least so far, most people seem to assume GWB and/or the oil barons are conspiring the prices up as a rip off. That's part of what makes a change of political party so tempting nowadays... If all the problems are because of George and his oil buddies, things will definitly get better once the other party gets the White House
It's in the interest of the oil companies to keep this illusion going (bear with me here) because then it makes it seem as if they are still in control of the situation. It's more comfortable to think you're jsut being ripped off by Exxon than to think that Exxon really can't supply you with enough gas any more.
And people eat it up.
But that being said the internet and TOD is doing a good job. The real question is how to reach the masses with a message they don't want to hear (my bet is some type of movie, that seems to be a big thing lately).
There are a number out there, the two "Crudes", the two "Suburbias", and others. I'll put my two cents in for the broader scoped What A Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire. A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Species Extinction and Population Overshoot.
As Reagan said about the growing trade deficit,"We have the goods (real wealth) and they have dollars (artificial wealth)".