| Each month, I have the honor of communicating with nearly a million people served by Xcel Energy. Often I receive thank-you notes on the info, tips, rebates, etc. provided viaYour Energy e-Magazine. Occasionally, I receive some not-so-complimentary emails from readers who are frustrated with rate increases and who dismiss our energy efficiency programs as "smoke and mirrors." | |
Frustration over price increases is a normal, and I would argue, healthy response. We see prices increasing constantly for gasoline, milk and just about anything that requires energy to produce. I guess the question that remains in some minds, is whether or not the practice of taking energy-saving steps in your home or business really pays off. While it would be great if you took my word for it, I think it would be even better for me to share the experiences some of our readers were kind enough to share . Letter from the Your Energy Mail Box Hello Xcel Energy....Just wanted to let you know about something we did in our new home that seems to have paid off immediately. Last October, my wife and I moved into a 20-year-old home. We got an idea from the office we work in to install motion-sensor light switches in key areas of the home. We put one in the kitchen, one in the hallway and one in the master bathroom. One of the nice features of these switches is that you can also adjust the daytime light sensitivity so the lights don't come on with motion unless the ambient room light is low (near sundown). After just one month our kilowatt hour usage dropped by 100 kWh. It seems feasible that the motion-sensor switches are the main reason for the reduced electricity use. The switches are also adjustable as to how long they stay on after they stop sensing motion. We paid about $18 for each switch and they are easy to install. Sincerely, Phil from Colorado Comfort Is a Big Payoff And here's a note from another customer, Roy Schewe, who requested an energy audit and as a result made home improvements through Xcel Energy's Home Perfomance with ENERGY STAR(R) program. Here's the note from Mr. Schewe: Utilizing incentives from the Xcel Energy Home Performance program, we bought an ENERGY STAR thermostat. We did the air sealing and added insulation to the attic and replaced all the light bulbs in the house with CFLs. We also sealed up and insulated the crawlspace. Our house is MUCH more comfortable, both in hot and cold weather. We noticed that we didn't need to run the air conditioner as often and the same goes for the furnace. The kitchen floor no longer requires us to wear slippers in the winter! The Good, the Bad, the Energy Efficient There is good news and bad news on the horizon. The bad news, energy prices will most likely continue to rise. The good news, there are many things we all can do to keep our energy bills as low as possible and help improve the comfort of our homes. Following is a list of websites that can help: Resource Guide to Energy Efficiency ENERGY STAR Energy Savvy for Minnesotans Recharge Colorado ResponsibleByNature.com Tax Incentives for Energy Efficiency Xcel Energy Rebate Programs Email me with your comments (yes - even the less-than-cheery ones) and stories. Nikki Blessinger, a.k.a. Nikki B. Energy Vampire Slayer is the editor of Your Energy e-Magazine. Currently in a self-prescribed 10-step program for energy addiction, Nikki is on a personal mission to help people like her change their energy-using ways. Click here to see the article and Xcel Energy video | |
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Is There Really a Payoff for doing Energy Saving tricks?
Yes. And Nikki Blessinger knows it. She is the editor of Xcel Energy's Energy e-Magazine and wrote an article on the benefits of saving energy, and saving money wasn't the only one. Follow the link at the end of the article to see Xcel Energy's energy saving video with other great tips and tricks.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The TRUE Price of Coal
Why do we burn so much coal for power generation? Supposedly because it's cheap. However, the true price of coal is far, far more than what it's bought and sold for per tonne. The real cost to the USA's economy through the human health and environmental damage it wreaks has been calculated - and it is mind-boggling.
Greenpeace recently hosted a preview of a soon to be published study by Dr. Paul Epstein, Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment.
The study looks beyond the already very thorny issues such as subsidies and examines human health and environmental impacts of coal throughout its entire life cycle; based on peer-reviewed studies already published.
The result: the impact of coal in the USA costs a third to over half a trillion dollars annually. Not billion, trillion. Each year.
Breaking that down, based on the 500 billion dollar mark, that amounts to a debt of $1,515 per man, woman and child in the USA, every year in relation to the impacts fossil fuel has on the nation's bottom line.
This figure is based on damages due to climate change; public health damages from nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury and other toxins and emissions; accidents during coal transport; the public health cost in regions such as Appalachia in relation to coal mining; government subsidies and lost value of the land around abandoned mines.
That incredible financial impact makes clean, renewable electricity generating technologies like solar power seem a heck of a lot cheaper - and just the subsidies component of fossil fuels is one of the reasons why solar energy isn't cheaper than what it is today.
If the subsidies that had gone into fossil fuel had been redirected to renewables years ago - after all, the oil and coal companies have been doing quite well for themselves for decades - solar would be far more affordable. Even so, it does show the strength and potential of solar power given that it has come so far already in the face of such competition from fossil fuel.
As mentioned in my post in regard to President Obama's 2011 State of the Unionspeech, perhaps fossil fuels may finally be approaching a final stop on the coal black gravy train ride, as the President wants to divert a big chunk of subsidy cash from coal to clean energy.
However, while that "clean energy" includes solar power, President Obama said it also includes "clean coal". There is no such thing. Clean coal technologies require more energy, therefore more coal, to be mined and burned. Carbon sequestration is still unproven. Filters and scrubbers don't get rid of mercury emissions. Toxic fly ash will be produced in even greater quantities.
Back to the study - the true cost of coal is so great that the study found it conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from the filthy fossil fuel per kilowatt hour generated. This real cost makes renewables such as wind energy and solar power along with energy efficiency and electricity conservation, economically competitive *right now*.
It's often argued that fossil fuels are a major employer and so many jobs will be lost if subsidies were cut back and removed. They don't have to be lost as such, they will just change and people in those industries will need support to re-skill (an industry in itself).
It's not a case of killing off fossil fuels and replacing them with nothing; it's about replacing it with greener technologies - and with those will come an abundance ofgreen jobs. Like the computer revolution that created similar unfounded fears, thereal clean energy revolution can provide employment for many.
Greenpeace recently hosted a preview of a soon to be published study by Dr. Paul Epstein, Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment.
The study looks beyond the already very thorny issues such as subsidies and examines human health and environmental impacts of coal throughout its entire life cycle; based on peer-reviewed studies already published.
The result: the impact of coal in the USA costs a third to over half a trillion dollars annually. Not billion, trillion. Each year.
Breaking that down, based on the 500 billion dollar mark, that amounts to a debt of $1,515 per man, woman and child in the USA, every year in relation to the impacts fossil fuel has on the nation's bottom line.
This figure is based on damages due to climate change; public health damages from nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury and other toxins and emissions; accidents during coal transport; the public health cost in regions such as Appalachia in relation to coal mining; government subsidies and lost value of the land around abandoned mines.
That incredible financial impact makes clean, renewable electricity generating technologies like solar power seem a heck of a lot cheaper - and just the subsidies component of fossil fuels is one of the reasons why solar energy isn't cheaper than what it is today.
If the subsidies that had gone into fossil fuel had been redirected to renewables years ago - after all, the oil and coal companies have been doing quite well for themselves for decades - solar would be far more affordable. Even so, it does show the strength and potential of solar power given that it has come so far already in the face of such competition from fossil fuel.
As mentioned in my post in regard to President Obama's 2011 State of the Unionspeech, perhaps fossil fuels may finally be approaching a final stop on the coal black gravy train ride, as the President wants to divert a big chunk of subsidy cash from coal to clean energy.
However, while that "clean energy" includes solar power, President Obama said it also includes "clean coal". There is no such thing. Clean coal technologies require more energy, therefore more coal, to be mined and burned. Carbon sequestration is still unproven. Filters and scrubbers don't get rid of mercury emissions. Toxic fly ash will be produced in even greater quantities.
Back to the study - the true cost of coal is so great that the study found it conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from the filthy fossil fuel per kilowatt hour generated. This real cost makes renewables such as wind energy and solar power along with energy efficiency and electricity conservation, economically competitive *right now*.
It's often argued that fossil fuels are a major employer and so many jobs will be lost if subsidies were cut back and removed. They don't have to be lost as such, they will just change and people in those industries will need support to re-skill (an industry in itself).
It's not a case of killing off fossil fuels and replacing them with nothing; it's about replacing it with greener technologies - and with those will come an abundance ofgreen jobs. Like the computer revolution that created similar unfounded fears, thereal clean energy revolution can provide employment for many.
Let's start hammering a few more nails in fossil fuel's coffin very soon - aside from saving money, the environment that sustains us depends on it.
GES found this article on www.greenlivingtips.com. Visit them to learn more.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
What is Air Sealing and why do you need it?
Want to know more about Air Sealing? It could change your home dramatically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
