Green: Lighting the Hopes of the Grid-less
Jul 16, 2011 New York Times
Felicity Barringer
Green: Politics
From Lenin to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 20th-century political leaders made the provision of universal electricity a centerpiece of their programs and oratory. “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country,” one slogan went. Or, in the case of F.D.R.’s Tennessee Valley Authority, “T.V.A.: Electricity For All.”
A rural family in southern India with a solar-powered light fixture.SelcoA rural family in southern India with a solar-powered light fixture.
In this century, the United Nations has updated the concept in addressing the problem that 1.4 billion people in the world are living without electricity. The new buzz phrase is “Sustainable Energy For All,” but the approach is very different, because in many cases these people cannot be connected to a grid. Given that the vast majority of the unconnected live near the equator, where the sun is at its zenith, the solutions being tried are almost all based on solar power.
One of the chief proselytizers is Richenda Van Leeuwen, who oversees the energy-access efforts of the United Nations Foundation, a philanthropic organization that works to support many of the United Nations’ humanitarian efforts. Like a Hollywood producer trying to bring together a script, a director, some actors and some financial angels, she spends her waking hours trying to assemble packages of financial resources, new technologies and new payment practices and to pinpoint willing recipients of the products.
“There are so many different targeted applications to help people solve problems on a daily basis,” she said in an interview — things like a solar-powered lantern that an Indian midwife can hang above the bed so that both of her hands are free, for example. Or the desk lamps made by the San Francisco-based company d.Light Design. Or solar-powered drip irrigation systems being used in Benin and India, or solar-powered lights for voting booths in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Ms. Van Leeuwen’s goal is to provide emerging companies making these technologies with access to funds from socially conscious investors who are willing to tolerate higher risks and less financial reward. First she seeks to ensure that the price of the products is within the reach of the people who will be using them. Then there is a need for a supply chain that can distribute the devices, and a support system that ensures that there are spare parts and local people who can do repairs.
A lot of this would not have been as possible a decade or two ago, when solar power technologies were less robust and electrical lighting usually required energy-hungry incandescent bulbs. Now, Ms. Van Leeuwen said, advances in light-emitting diodes, which provide more light with less energy, and in small-scale solar power technology are spawning a new generation of devices for people who lack access to a grid.
The effort evokes the spread of cellular phones, swiftly adopted in places around the world that had no land lines. Ms. Van Leeuwen cited a recent prediction by the United Nations publication World Energy Outlook that said that if the goal of 100 percent access by 2030 is achieved, 70 percent of those with new access will get it either through a mini-grid or off-grid devices like those mentioned above.
If the prices of the new devices can be scaled to their means, these people will form a significant potential market. “If you can get a cellphone in the remotest village,” Ms. Van Leeuven said, “you can get a small-scale energy solution, too.” In 2010, she pointed out, more money was invested in renewable energy in the developing world (mostly China) than in the developed world
Monday, July 18, 2011
lighting control and energy management
Future for incandescent lightbulbs looking dim
Jul 18, 2011 Miami Herald
So, how many members of Congress does it take to screw up a light bulb?
It only sounds like a joke. The fate of the incandescent bulb, the oldest and most common of household electrical devices, has morphed into a political litmus test, one championed by conservative leaders from Rush Limbaugh to Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann.
In a vote along party lines, the House last week blocked a GOP effort to repeal efficiency standards that will begin phasing out the worst watt-wasters next year. But backers like Florida Rep. Bill Posey who sees the notion of regulating bulbs as evidence of a “nanny state’’ run amok, haven’t abandoned the right to light fight.
“This is a sore spot with people,’’ said the Rockledge Republican. “My constituents overwhelmingly don’t want the government to decide what kind of light bulb they want.’’
Whichever way the Washington debate goes, the future is dimming for cheap, old-school filament bulbs, which haven’t changed much since Thomas Edison patented his design more than 130 years ago.
Along with now-common compact florescent bulbs, a new generation of light emitting diode (LED) bulbs claiming up to 23 years of life has begun showing up on store shelves and their eye-popping initial prices of $50-plus have started to drop. Both kinds last years longer and sip roughly a quarter of the juice of their predecessors.
David Schuellerman, a manager for General Electric Lighting, said demand for standard bulbs has dropped by half over the last five years, a trend he expects to continue as homeowners begin following the LED lead of business, which has already put the technology in everything from refrigerator cases to traffic signals.
Maintenance and energy saving easily justify higher initial costs, he said. “It’s compelling when you think that these large companies that have the capacity to crunch the numbers — Starbucks, Walmart, Target — like LED for their stores,’’
At Light Bulbs Unlimited in Fort Lauderdale, purchasing agent Marek Luce has seen increasing interest in LEDs, which are fully dimmable, burn much cooler and are so versatile they come in rope or tape strips now popular under kitchen cabinets. But he’s also noted some runs on incandescents by customers worried about “bulb ban” rumors.
“At times, if they need one, they’ll buy 10. It’s not like they’re buying 200 or 300,’’ said Luce, who believes consumer education will ease concerns. “Nobody feels like anybody’s opinion was asked. A lot of people are afraid of not being left with a choice.’’
The backlash has flummoxed environmentalists and energy efficiency advocates.
“Because the light bulb is so iconic, it’s being used a poster child for a political debate about how much government should regulate,’’ said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit whose members include 150 major corporations and organizations. “To me, it’s mind-boggling that we would try to take a step backwards from what we’ve been doing on a regular basis.’’
The standards — produced with bipartisan congressional support and signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 — were drawn up with the goal of reducing national energy demands and pollution. They mirror regulations that have been applied to appliances from refrigerators to water heaters since the 1970s.
Supporters insist the standards will save consumers billions of dollars over the long haul.
By 2020, when all bulbs will have to be about 28 percent more efficient than current standard bulbs, the average household bill is expected to drop by 7 percent, or $85 a year, according to an analysis by the National Resources Defense Council. Another study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy put overall savings for Americans at $12.5 billion a year, over $900 million in Florida alone. The study also claims the new standards would eliminate the need for 33 power plants nationwide.
The rules, which match standards already in place in Europe, have support from lighting manufacturers, trade associations and the Obama administration.
Last week, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu dismissed claims by critics that the standards amounted to a de facto ban of incandescents.
They do effectively phase out the cheapest standard bulbs by 2014, starting with 100 watt ones that are supposed to be off store shelves by January. But manufacturers say they already have halogen-based incandescents available that offer similar quality light and dimming options but will cost a bit more.
“The only difference is they help American consumers save more money,’’ Chu said.
But to some conservatives, the bulb regs have become a lightning rod.
Limbaugh, on his radio show, called them an assault on personal choice, proclaiming, “Let there be incandescent light and freedom.’’ Bachmann, the Minnesota representative and Tea Party favorite considered an early GOP presidential front-runner, proposed one bill to repeal the standard.
The House voted on a second similar one from Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. It won a majority, 233 to 193, but failed because it was introduced under a rule requiring two-thirds approval.,
The debate extends beyond Washington. Last month, the Texas Legislature passed a bill allowing use of incandescents — but only if they’re made in the state. South Carolina and Pennsylvania are considering similar measures
Critics point to the high cost of alternatives and pollution concerns from mercury used in compact florescent bulbs, which are supposed to be recycled and require careful cleanup if they’re broken — both concerns supporters contend have been exaggerated,
Maureen Martin, senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank based in Chicago, believes congress has long overstepped its authority with efficiency standards.
“Just because we have always done something in the past doesn’t make it right,’’ she said. But she also acknowledged that the debate was bigger than the bulb.
“It has become a symbol for low-flow toilets and all the other restrictions that have been imposed on everyday things,’’ she said. “People are so fed up at the grass roots level.’’
Florida Rep. Posey supported the repeal, even though it was opposed by an LED manufacturer in his district, Satellite Beach-based Lighting Science Group.
The company’s chief executive, Jim Haworth, issued a statement crediting the tougher standards with sparking industry innovation, helping his company grow from 100 to 350 employees in the last year and reducing energy use and pollution. Haworth called lighting, which consumes 19 percent of global electrical output, the “low hanging fruit’’ in energy conservation.
Posey, who said he used both traditional and florescent bulbs in his home and offices, stressed the repeal wasn’t intended to promote aging light bulb technology but aimed at preserving consumer choice and cutting through the regulatory red tape.
“To have 40 pages of federal code over what kind of light bulb you can have is ridiculous,’’ he said.
Though the repeal failed, foes have already launched a back-door attack with an amendment that would strip the efficiency program of funding, but with the Senate controlled by Democrats, their hopes appear to be flickering.
Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the environmental group NRDC, said GOP ideologues had hijacked a common sense measure that had already made many appliances more efficient.
“I don’t think anybody really wants to go back to ice boxes or 1960s refrigerators, do they?’’
Jul 18, 2011 Miami Herald
So, how many members of Congress does it take to screw up a light bulb?
It only sounds like a joke. The fate of the incandescent bulb, the oldest and most common of household electrical devices, has morphed into a political litmus test, one championed by conservative leaders from Rush Limbaugh to Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann.
In a vote along party lines, the House last week blocked a GOP effort to repeal efficiency standards that will begin phasing out the worst watt-wasters next year. But backers like Florida Rep. Bill Posey who sees the notion of regulating bulbs as evidence of a “nanny state’’ run amok, haven’t abandoned the right to light fight.
“This is a sore spot with people,’’ said the Rockledge Republican. “My constituents overwhelmingly don’t want the government to decide what kind of light bulb they want.’’
Whichever way the Washington debate goes, the future is dimming for cheap, old-school filament bulbs, which haven’t changed much since Thomas Edison patented his design more than 130 years ago.
Along with now-common compact florescent bulbs, a new generation of light emitting diode (LED) bulbs claiming up to 23 years of life has begun showing up on store shelves and their eye-popping initial prices of $50-plus have started to drop. Both kinds last years longer and sip roughly a quarter of the juice of their predecessors.
David Schuellerman, a manager for General Electric Lighting, said demand for standard bulbs has dropped by half over the last five years, a trend he expects to continue as homeowners begin following the LED lead of business, which has already put the technology in everything from refrigerator cases to traffic signals.
Maintenance and energy saving easily justify higher initial costs, he said. “It’s compelling when you think that these large companies that have the capacity to crunch the numbers — Starbucks, Walmart, Target — like LED for their stores,’’
At Light Bulbs Unlimited in Fort Lauderdale, purchasing agent Marek Luce has seen increasing interest in LEDs, which are fully dimmable, burn much cooler and are so versatile they come in rope or tape strips now popular under kitchen cabinets. But he’s also noted some runs on incandescents by customers worried about “bulb ban” rumors.
“At times, if they need one, they’ll buy 10. It’s not like they’re buying 200 or 300,’’ said Luce, who believes consumer education will ease concerns. “Nobody feels like anybody’s opinion was asked. A lot of people are afraid of not being left with a choice.’’
The backlash has flummoxed environmentalists and energy efficiency advocates.
“Because the light bulb is so iconic, it’s being used a poster child for a political debate about how much government should regulate,’’ said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit whose members include 150 major corporations and organizations. “To me, it’s mind-boggling that we would try to take a step backwards from what we’ve been doing on a regular basis.’’
The standards — produced with bipartisan congressional support and signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 — were drawn up with the goal of reducing national energy demands and pollution. They mirror regulations that have been applied to appliances from refrigerators to water heaters since the 1970s.
Supporters insist the standards will save consumers billions of dollars over the long haul.
By 2020, when all bulbs will have to be about 28 percent more efficient than current standard bulbs, the average household bill is expected to drop by 7 percent, or $85 a year, according to an analysis by the National Resources Defense Council. Another study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy put overall savings for Americans at $12.5 billion a year, over $900 million in Florida alone. The study also claims the new standards would eliminate the need for 33 power plants nationwide.
The rules, which match standards already in place in Europe, have support from lighting manufacturers, trade associations and the Obama administration.
Last week, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu dismissed claims by critics that the standards amounted to a de facto ban of incandescents.
They do effectively phase out the cheapest standard bulbs by 2014, starting with 100 watt ones that are supposed to be off store shelves by January. But manufacturers say they already have halogen-based incandescents available that offer similar quality light and dimming options but will cost a bit more.
“The only difference is they help American consumers save more money,’’ Chu said.
But to some conservatives, the bulb regs have become a lightning rod.
Limbaugh, on his radio show, called them an assault on personal choice, proclaiming, “Let there be incandescent light and freedom.’’ Bachmann, the Minnesota representative and Tea Party favorite considered an early GOP presidential front-runner, proposed one bill to repeal the standard.
The House voted on a second similar one from Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. It won a majority, 233 to 193, but failed because it was introduced under a rule requiring two-thirds approval.,
The debate extends beyond Washington. Last month, the Texas Legislature passed a bill allowing use of incandescents — but only if they’re made in the state. South Carolina and Pennsylvania are considering similar measures
Critics point to the high cost of alternatives and pollution concerns from mercury used in compact florescent bulbs, which are supposed to be recycled and require careful cleanup if they’re broken — both concerns supporters contend have been exaggerated,
Maureen Martin, senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank based in Chicago, believes congress has long overstepped its authority with efficiency standards.
“Just because we have always done something in the past doesn’t make it right,’’ she said. But she also acknowledged that the debate was bigger than the bulb.
“It has become a symbol for low-flow toilets and all the other restrictions that have been imposed on everyday things,’’ she said. “People are so fed up at the grass roots level.’’
Florida Rep. Posey supported the repeal, even though it was opposed by an LED manufacturer in his district, Satellite Beach-based Lighting Science Group.
The company’s chief executive, Jim Haworth, issued a statement crediting the tougher standards with sparking industry innovation, helping his company grow from 100 to 350 employees in the last year and reducing energy use and pollution. Haworth called lighting, which consumes 19 percent of global electrical output, the “low hanging fruit’’ in energy conservation.
Posey, who said he used both traditional and florescent bulbs in his home and offices, stressed the repeal wasn’t intended to promote aging light bulb technology but aimed at preserving consumer choice and cutting through the regulatory red tape.
“To have 40 pages of federal code over what kind of light bulb you can have is ridiculous,’’ he said.
Though the repeal failed, foes have already launched a back-door attack with an amendment that would strip the efficiency program of funding, but with the Senate controlled by Democrats, their hopes appear to be flickering.
Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the environmental group NRDC, said GOP ideologues had hijacked a common sense measure that had already made many appliances more efficient.
“I don’t think anybody really wants to go back to ice boxes or 1960s refrigerators, do they?’’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)