These Are Not Your Parent's CFLs!

Do not be fooled by my camera's automatic settings. The CFL example only looks darker because it was too bright and my camera toned it down. Take a close look at the Watt readings in the pictures to compare the difference in electricity between the single incandescent and four compact fluorescents.







And these are not your first generation CFLs:
1. They are instant on. (No more waiting 0.5-2 seconds.)
2. They are available in various color temperatures. (Note the difference between the two spiral options in the second picture. The one of the left is very close to the color of an incansecent.)
3. They do not flicker (actually they flicker 12,000+ times per second which is way too fast to be seen by even a humming bird. Which means no more headaches).
4. They still use 75% less electricity.
5. They still last 10 times longer than an incandescent.
6. They have less than half the mercury of the first generation CFLs.


If you are looking for these options and more be sure to choose an Energy Star rated product. They require the bulbs to prove their lamp life and reduce the mercury content, among other things.


Also if you have not read an earlier post about the mercury content in CFLs the short message is: because these bulbs use significantly less power (nation wide a large portion of this power is coal fired plants) less mercury is released into the environment than if an incandescent bulb was used (even is the worst case senario when the bulb ends up in a landfill instead of recycled). So as the Department of Energy says "Change a light. Change the world."

Another Reason To Go Electric

NW Natural to request natural gas rate increase.

So They Printed My Letter-to-the-Editor . . .

This is how they printed my letter. While I did change the format of the letter from the one I posted here, it will be very clear that they did some work of their own. Just don't read it too carefully or some of the sentences will not make any sense:

CFLs a good investment
Here is a more accurate perspective on CFLs, energy use and environmental conservation:
Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requiring roughly 25 percent greater efficiency from light bulbs beginning in 2012. While some incandescent technology meets this standard, CFL lighting fits any standard light fixture and already exceeds the efficiency mark.
Unfortunately, misinformation about mercury content in CFLs has discouraged many people from using them. As conservation specialist for McMinnville Water & Light, I can tell you that using CFLs means less mercury released into the environment, not more.
A CFL bulb typically contains between 1.4 and 5 milligrams of mercury — not enough to cover the head of a pin. Said John Bachner, National Lighting Bureau, "Even in a small room, the impact on air quality (of a broken CFL) is well below danger levels established by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration."
Older thermometers typically contain 500 milligrams of mercury; mechanical thermostats typically contain 1,000 to 3,000 mg of mercury. The EPA estimates that Americans release 104 metric tons of mercury each year, mostly from coal-fired electrical power.
Since CFLs use 75 percent less electricity than an incandescent, replacing incandescents with CFLs means 75 percent less mercury released into the atmosphere. One CFL saves 4.5 mg of mercury from the atmosphere. The mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs binds to the inside of the bulb, leaving an average of 0.4 mg of mercury free in the bulb. So, even when it goes to a landfill, there is 4.1 mg of mercury saved from the environment.
If mercury from CFLs is a dripping faucet, coal-fired power plants are a wide-open fire hydrant of mercury. Using CFLs saves hydro power here, which can be sold to offset coal power elsewhere.
Long life and low energy use make CFLs a good investment. For cleanup suggestions when a CFL bulb breaks, visit www.epa.gov/mercury.
Matt DeppeMcMinnville

----------------------------------------------------------

I guess the main ideas are still comunicated, they just happen to have taken out any resemblence of art or form or fun. Oh well.

Oregon and Solar Electric

Great article in the Oregonian today regarding solar electricity and Oregonians. Check it out HERE.

Conservation 101:

As a utility in a growing and thriving town we are faced with an ever increasingly pressing question: Where are we going to get more power? Whether it is from new homes and businesses moving in, or just the newest electronic gizmo getting plugged in, our city electric load is growing.

To date we have purchased all our power from Bonneville Power Administration. A large percentage of that power (about 80%) comes from large hydro. The good thing about this type of power is that it is very cheap. It was invested in a long time ago and many of them are still running very smoothly (granted that they have severely effected fish populations in many areas). The down side is that hydro power is finite. There is only so much water behind the dam, and not a drop more. So as our city grows we are forced to look at other options.

In our region solar electricity is not a viable option. An average home (1000 square feet w/ heat pump) owner would need to invest $100k in solar panels to offset their yearly electrical consumption. This would save them $630 dollars a year in electricity; providing a simple payback of 159 years. Even with robust tax incentives and local utility rebates it does not take an accountant to see that it does not pencil out on the money side.

Some utilities started to wonder if they might be able to convince people to use a little less electricity as a way of dealing with load growth. One way to bring down electrical demand is to raise the price. This has limited success and tends to hurt those with fixed incomes. And as the Carter administration proved (think ‘warm sweater and less heat’), as well as recent buzz about gas prices, people do not like to change their habits. So, what if we could get people to use less electricity and save money without asking them to sacrifice their comfort?

For example: if I could get my neighbor to insulate his 1,800 square foot home he might save as much as 12,000 kilowatt hours over the next year (estimated project cost of $7,000). That is equivalent to $80k worth of solar electricity and he would also save as much as 50% on his winter heating bills. From his standpoint it is a win-win. His bills go down, and he is likely to see a simple-payback in less than 5 years after the tax rebates and utility incentives.

As it turns out buying conservation (incenting people to be more efficient) is the cheapest resource a utility can find, by a factor of at least 10. In 2007 the Northwest funded enough conservation to power 146,000 homes or, to look at it another way, enough power to offset 50% of the load growth of that same year. By this evidence every power planning committee in the nation would be wise to pursue conservation as a portion of their portfolio. Many utilities also use this funding to help field high bill complaints as they can be great leads to inefficient homes.

Next Issue: So you think you hate CFLs?

Just when you thought. . .

there were no breakthroughs in the portable toilet business (other than catchy names like "Honey Bucket" & "Paradise Lua") some genius comes up with this:




That's right folks. It is a double decker urinal trougher. Services 12 semi-modest men, or 16 true troopers at one time. Life just does not get any better than this.