Association of Energy Engineers s1

Association of Energy Engineers

New York Chapter www.aeeny.org

November 2009 Newsletter Part 2

Editor’s Note: Do these issues of the newsletter add anything useful to your professional life? I would really appreciate notes from readers: Good, bad or indifferent!

Dick Koral

AEE-NEW YORK 2006-07 PROGRAMS FOR ‘THIRD TUESDAY’

(subject to change)

DATE TITLE AND NOTES

Jan. (1/16/07 New Government’s energy initiatives/policy

NYSERDA- RPS and on-site

Feb’y (2/20) Large Chilled Water System Optimization.

Mar (3/20) Residential Demand & Engineers of the Future

Demand response technical (student presents)

April (4/17) Con Ed Steam Systems/District Current & future

May (5/15) ‘Grid of the Future’ (ConEd)

Gas Technol Inst (Detroit, SoCal)

June Gala China on Global Warming

More Record Highs and Far Fewer Lows

By Andrew C. Revkin, NYTimes, Nov 12 09

SCIENTISTS SIFTING FOR TRENDS in record high and low temperatures across the United States have found more evidence of long-term warming of the climate, with the biggest shift coming through a reduction in record low nighttime temperatures. That is a pattern long predicted by climate scientists using computer simulations. The researchers said they sifted data carefully to avoid possible distortion of trends related to changes in instruments or conditions at and around weather stations. The changing ratio of cold and hot records is shown below (copyright U.C.A.R., graphic by Mike Shibao):

The findings are being reported in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters (the paper is available by subscription only) and were produced by a novel partnership including researchers at two federal laboratories, the Weather Channel and Climate Central, a nonprofit group focused on communicating climate science. Here is a description of the work by Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

The research team, using computer simulations, projects that warm records will increasingly dominate should emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated. According to a news release from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

If nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a “business-as-usual” scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20 to 1 by midcentury and 50 to 1 by 2100. The midcentury ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8 to 1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.

I’m canvassing other scientists for the implications of such trends.

[UPDATE, Noon:] Pat Michaels at the Cato Institute noted in an e-mail message that the new work largely replicated and built on 2001 findings that he, Chip Knappenberger and others reported in the journal Climate Research. (If scientists with such a range of views agree that this work is valid, that seems to cut against arguments over the reliability and utility of temperature records gathered by weather stations — or am I missing something?) Here is a link to a PDF of the paper and the abstract:

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/17/c017p045.pdf

The annual temperature history of the United States during the 20th century shows three distinct periods of change: warming from 1900 until about 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1969, and warming from 1970 to the present. The characteristics of daily temperature change during these three periods are very different. The first two periods are marked by a tendency toward more temperature extremes — higher extreme maxima during the first period, and lower extreme minima during the second. In contrast, the warming during the most recent period, often used as evidence of human induced climate change, is characterized by temperature moderation — the pattern of temperature rise exhibits a strong, preferential warming of the coldest days of the year.

New California Rules to Make TVs Greener

By Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, Nov 20 09

Getty Images

A Costco customer looks at a display of LCD HDTV televisions in San Francisco.

CALIFORNIA CREATED the nation's first energy-efficiency standard for television sets, arguing that it needed to act because federal energy officials have been slow to confront the issue.

Under the standard adopted Wednesday by the California Energy Commission, no TV with a screen size less than 58 inches may be sold in the state after 2011 unless it meets limits on energy consumption. The standard tightens further in 2013. (Larger screens were left for future examination.)

Sets sold in California under the standard would consume 33% less electricity in 2011 and 49% less in 2013 than the average set sold today, according to the commission. The standard replaces a rule that only considered energy use when sets were in standby mode.

The move is the latest example of California's campaign to reduce energy waste and cut emissions from power plants. Once it takes effect, the rule is expected to save California consumers $1 billion a year in electricity costs and cut energy use by an amount equivalent to the output of one large power plant, according the commission.

It also could prompt Federal Trade Commission officials to consider similar national rules. In the past, standards set in California on issues from automobile exhaust to appliance efficiency have influenced products sold in other states, because it is easier for manufacturers to make everything to a common set of standards.

The California standard, which takes aim at energy-hogging liquid-crystal-display and plasma sets, was motivated by a finding that TVs now account for as much as 10% of home electricity use -- equivalent to the electricity used by refrigerators.

Before the commission's unanimous vote, member Art Rosenfeld, who has advocated for efficiency standards for three decades, said "it looks like a very good deal for society." He added that the agency wanted to counteract a trend of unrestrained growth in energy demand as TV sets gradually have morphed into home-entertainment centers.

The Consumer Electronics Association, a trade group, opposed the standard, saying that the FTC already is poised to act in the next couple of years and that manufacturers are working to make sets more energy efficient anyway.

"It's unnecessary," said Doug Johnson, a government-policy specialist for the CEA. He added that "a mandatory limit would stifle competition and harm consumers."

Vizio Inc., based in Irvine, Calif., was the only television maker to publicly endorse the rule.

About 30 million TV sets are sold each year nationally; between four million and five million are sold in California. Old-fashioned sets with cathode-ray tubes use about 100 watts of power when turned on. Newer -- and typically bigger -- plasma sets often use four times as much electricity, the commission found. Many continue to consume energy even when they are off.

Commission staff said there will be no added cost to consumers because more than 1,000 products manufactured by dozens of makers already meet the 2011 standard.

Top of Form

It's Raining Money

Recovery-Act funding rules may signal a longer-range policy to

underwrite water efficiency.

By David Engle, Water Efficiency, Sept-Oct 09

”SHOVEL-READY” WATER PROJECTS, numbering in the hundreds, are getting underway all at once, thanks to Congress and a newly arrived Obama administration eager to shovel fiat money their way.

Upon being signed into law last February, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) began pumping billions into clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements: $4 billion via the longstanding Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, and $2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) complement. Together, they pay for water, wastewater treatment, watershed estuary, and nonpoint source pollution cleanup control, and now—besides serving these worthy purposes—they’ve been ramped up and prioritized to help get people back to work and jumpstart a sagging economy.

To put this year’s $6 billion in perspective: In 2008, the CWSRF programs funded more than $5.8 billion in loans; and, over for the previous 20 years, C/D WSRF totaled $68 billion. Comparing ARRA to the multi-trillion-plus that was funneled into financial bailouts, $6 billion is a trickle—but it’s still a lot of money to spend on water, and in a hurry.

Within weeks of the ARRA’s passage, EPA was already calculating the magnitude of money to be made available state-by-state; as of late May, a total of 30 states had submitted applications, and EPA had obligated itself to over $1.4 billion of the total, a statement from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson reported.

A few examples—and these are just the first wave: Vermont, $194,000; Delaware $19.5 million; Nevada, $38.9 million; Arizona, $82 million; Kansas City, MO, $28.7 million; Massachusetts, $1.34 million; New Hampshire, $395,000; Indiana $120 million; Kansas, $19.5 million; and Iowa, $53 million.

Not to be left out, several other federal agencies also opened the money spigots for water this year:

· In March, the Army Corps of Engineers began publishing lists of new lake, dam, river, channel, creek, and flood control projects to be funded. Corps engineers maintain that “Recovery Act projects will create or maintain approximately 26,000 direct and indirect jobs per billion spent,” notes a prepared statement.

· In late May, the US Department of the Interior announced the availability of a $1-billion fund.

· EPA announced $39 million for Water Quality Management Planning (WQMP) grants to support standard-setting, water quality monitoring, river pollution cleanup plans, and clean water protection plans.

· In late spring, the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant program earmarked $3.7 billion for rural water and wastewater infrastructure for communities of 10,000 or less.

· In April, the Bureau of Reclamation issued a new funding opportunity for cost-shared water projects in the western states.

Besides the scale and urgency, what’s unprecedented in this funding wave, notes EPA’s Eric Byous, of the Region Nine office in San Francisco, CA, is that much of this money is free. In prior years, State Revolving Funds (SRFs) came as repayable loans, “but the big change with the Recovery Act,” he says, “is that 50% is being given in the form of a subsidy of some sort—[essentially] a grant that does not require repayment,” called a “forgivable loan”—and the balance is typically repaid at zero or very low interest.

Byous—manager of the regional infrastructure office in the water division—is involved in reviewing applications that will be chasing $600 million—about one-tenth of the EPA C/D SRF total—allocated to four western states. Although the sums and terms are extraordinary, is there ever really enough?

At his office, “Definitely, many more applications are being received than could be funded,” he says.

What’s in It for “WE”?

Besides being free or low-interest, another major difference gives a tantalizing hint at what may be a paradigm-shift in federal funding earmarked specifically for water efficiency.

As a key criterion for selecting projects, comes the stipulation that 20% (i.e. $1.2 billion) should not simply go to the usual water pipes or treatment plants, but rather, must be invested in what the Act calls high-priority “green infrastructure improvements” for water and/or energy efficiency, “and other environmental innovations and wet weather management,” says Byous.

EPA Administrator Jackson called this “one of the most exciting aspects” of the Recovery Act’s funding, noting that the set-aside will promote desirable practices like water harvesting, water reuse, riparian restoration, floodplains, and wetlands, with “long-term benefits” beyond those of traditional infrastructure projects, a prepared statement notes.

Moreover, certain specific kinds of projects, listed as “Green Project Reserve,” are deemed so desirable that funding requests are pre-approved for rubber-stamping, without the requirement of detailed review. In a guidance issued by EPA, dozens of examples are listed under three headings, but the agency, pointedly, “…anticipates that ‘water or energy efficiency’ projects will likely be the principal focus of the Green Project Reserve under the DWSRF” (emphasis added). EPA defines water efficiency as “the use of improved technologies and practices to deliver equal or better services with less water.”

At the head of the list of these examples is the installation of water meters, followed by retrofit or replacement of water using fixtures, fittings, equipment, or appliances; efficient landscape or irrigation equipment; systems to recycle graywater; reclamation, recycling, and reuse of existing rainwater, condensate, degraded water, stormwater, and/or wastewater streams; and collection-system leak detection equipment.

At Odds Over Land, Money and Gas

By Mireya Navarro, NYTimes, Nov 28 09

In New York City, natural gas exploration is largely seen as a threat to the drinking water the city gets from watersheds to the north in the Catskills. But in the rural communities above the shale, the reaction has been far more mixed — and far more contentious.

Niko J. Kallianiotis for The New York Times

NOT INTERESTED Lisa Wujnovich and her husband, Mark Dunau, refuse to sign a lease to allow natural gas drilling on their 50 farmland acres in Hancock, N.Y.

CHENANGO, N.Y. — Chris and Robert Lacey own 80 acres of idyllic upstate New York countryside, a place where they can fish for bass in their own pond, hike through white pines and chase deer away.

But the Laceys hope that, if all goes well, a natural gas wellhead will soon occupy this bucolic landscape.

Like many landowners in Broome County, which includes the town of Chenango, the Laceys could potentially earn millions of dollars from the natural gas under their feet. They live above the Marcellus Shale, a subterranean layer of rock stretching from New York to Tennessee that is believed to be one of the biggest natural gas fields in the world.

As New York environmental officials draft regulations to allow drilling in the shale as early as next year, thousands of residents like the Laceys in upstate counties have banded together in coalitions to sign leases with gas companies for drilling on their land — for $5,000 to $6,000 an acre for a term of five years, and royalties of up to 20 percent on whatever gas is found.

“When I heard about drilling, what came to mind was ‘Thank you,’ ” said Mrs. Lacey, 58, who has lived on her property here for 27 years with her husband, Robert, 68, a commercial insurance agent. “Finally our community can recover, and our children don’t have to leave the state to find jobs.”

Some residents welcome the drilling as a modern-day gold rush and salvation from the economic doldrums that they say have chased jobs and young people away from their area. Others express concerns about the environment and quality-of-life issues like noise and heavy-truck traffic.