By Sarwar A. Kashmeri
For the Valley News
Travel where you will in the Upper Valley, the topic of rising energy costs and what to do about them is a prime topic of conversation.
Alternative forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biomass and other nonfossil, renewable energy generators, are actively discussed but lead quickly to frustration for a number of reasons: The substantial cost to install even an entry-level systems (a reasonable solar system, for instance costs as much as an automobile); absence of adequate federal incentives; the absence of any incentives in New Hampshire and the marginal incentives that Vermont can afford; and environmental and aesthetic concerns.
All these crosscurrents were evident at a breakfast forum organized by the Upper Valley Computer and Information Industry Association at the Fireside Inn and Suites last week to discuss whether the Upper Valley can become energy independent.
Ably moderated by former state Sen. Matt Dunne, the panel of experts discussed renewable energy alternatives for the Upper Valley. At the end, however, they conceded that energy independence for a small and relatively sparsely populated area was not realistic. Participants left with a wealth of knowledge, however, and the UVCIA is to be commended for its effort to illuminate the complexity of this important issue.
As one small example of the complexities involved in alternative energy generators, one of the panelists discussed the installation of a residential water-turbine. Should you have a fast running stream on your property and your family has considered installing a water-turbine to generate electricity, you might want to will the installation to your grandchildren.
The permitting process involves a long list of permits, licenses and inspections by local, state, and federal officials to assess the impact of diverting the water on fish and other organisms, the impact on wildlife, the possibility of damaging a wetland that may be connected or fed by the stream miles downstream, and so on.
The stream that runs alongside our property in Reading, Vt., flows into a bigger water drain that later connects to the Connecticut River, which finally flows out into Long Island Sound. I shudder to even contemplate the layers of permits we would have to get to use that stream for power generation.
No, it is not easy to contribute to controlling global warming.
So it was with some excitement that I learned about the European Union's decision last week to replace every energy-inefficient incandescent bulb in Europe with fluorescent lamps by 2009. An incandescent bulb (the ones in general use throughout America and the rest of the world) con
verts less than 5 percent of the energy it uses to light, and is little changed from the time Edison invented it in 1879. The EU's decision will save Europeans more than $9.2 billion a year in electricity costs and cut out about 25 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions to boot. It is an idea that can be put into place with existing technology combined with a healthy dose of political and business leadership.
The reason fluorescent light bulbs have failed to gain traction with consumers is mainly because of their cost, even though they are cheaper to operate and last longer. But their price is bound to decrease as the European market responds to a demand for billions of the new light bulbs annually.
The success of the EU switchover seems assured because all the manufacturers of light bulbs support the change. It turns out that one of these manufacturers is United States-based General Electric. So here is an idea for the Upper Valley's energy and environmental champions: Why not start a movement to convince New Hampshire and Vermont business and political leaders to hitch a ride on the European juggernaut and replace all of the Upper Valley's incandescent light bulbs by -- let’s give ourselves one more year -- by 2010 and then extend the project to the rest of both states.
A rough calculation tells me that there are something like 14 million incandescent lamps in use throughout the Twin States. Assuming the Upper Valley has a third of these, that is around 5 million lamps. A drop in the sea compared with the estimated 3.2 billion inefficient lamps that are plugged into the EU's grid.
If New Hampshire and Vermont followed in the EU's footsteps, using the savings estimates developed by the EU, the Twin States would save about $34 million annually in electricity costs (Upper Valley estimated savings: $11 million), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 90,000 tons, with the Upper Valley's emissions dropping by 30,000 tons.
Vermont and New Hampshire already have a sizeable commercial relationship with the EU. The two states' exports to Europe exceed $1 billion, and EU investment in both states is around $8 billion, which supports more than 30,000 jobs. The light bulb project would add more depth to these business links and expand the regional economy.
Brussels starts putting together an impact switchover assessment review in May. Perhaps a Twin State business-government delegation could be sent to the EU to use that assessment as a template. That would provide the governors and legislative leaders of both states with hard numbers to quantify the costs and benefits of adopting the European idea.
As a regional organization that is supported by business and nonprofit groups throughout the Upper Valley, the UVCIA seems ideally suited to act as a catalyst to jump-start this initiative. What do you think?
***
Sarwar Kashmeri is the author of the recently released book: America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. He is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association, a strategic communications adviser, and lives in Reading, Vt. Your comments may be posted on the Business Climate blog: http://www.sakbizcol/ .blogspot.com
For the Valley News
Travel where you will in the Upper Valley, the topic of rising energy costs and what to do about them is a prime topic of conversation.
Alternative forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biomass and other nonfossil, renewable energy generators, are actively discussed but lead quickly to frustration for a number of reasons: The substantial cost to install even an entry-level systems (a reasonable solar system, for instance costs as much as an automobile); absence of adequate federal incentives; the absence of any incentives in New Hampshire and the marginal incentives that Vermont can afford; and environmental and aesthetic concerns.
All these crosscurrents were evident at a breakfast forum organized by the Upper Valley Computer and Information Industry Association at the Fireside Inn and Suites last week to discuss whether the Upper Valley can become energy independent.
Ably moderated by former state Sen. Matt Dunne, the panel of experts discussed renewable energy alternatives for the Upper Valley. At the end, however, they conceded that energy independence for a small and relatively sparsely populated area was not realistic. Participants left with a wealth of knowledge, however, and the UVCIA is to be commended for its effort to illuminate the complexity of this important issue.
As one small example of the complexities involved in alternative energy generators, one of the panelists discussed the installation of a residential water-turbine. Should you have a fast running stream on your property and your family has considered installing a water-turbine to generate electricity, you might want to will the installation to your grandchildren.
The permitting process involves a long list of permits, licenses and inspections by local, state, and federal officials to assess the impact of diverting the water on fish and other organisms, the impact on wildlife, the possibility of damaging a wetland that may be connected or fed by the stream miles downstream, and so on.
The stream that runs alongside our property in Reading, Vt., flows into a bigger water drain that later connects to the Connecticut River, which finally flows out into Long Island Sound. I shudder to even contemplate the layers of permits we would have to get to use that stream for power generation.
No, it is not easy to contribute to controlling global warming.
So it was with some excitement that I learned about the European Union's decision last week to replace every energy-inefficient incandescent bulb in Europe with fluorescent lamps by 2009. An incandescent bulb (the ones in general use throughout America and the rest of the world) con
verts less than 5 percent of the energy it uses to light, and is little changed from the time Edison invented it in 1879. The EU's decision will save Europeans more than $9.2 billion a year in electricity costs and cut out about 25 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions to boot. It is an idea that can be put into place with existing technology combined with a healthy dose of political and business leadership.The reason fluorescent light bulbs have failed to gain traction with consumers is mainly because of their cost, even though they are cheaper to operate and last longer. But their price is bound to decrease as the European market responds to a demand for billions of the new light bulbs annually.
The success of the EU switchover seems assured because all the manufacturers of light bulbs support the change. It turns out that one of these manufacturers is United States-based General Electric. So here is an idea for the Upper Valley's energy and environmental champions: Why not start a movement to convince New Hampshire and Vermont business and political leaders to hitch a ride on the European juggernaut and replace all of the Upper Valley's incandescent light bulbs by -- let’s give ourselves one more year -- by 2010 and then extend the project to the rest of both states.
A rough calculation tells me that there are something like 14 million incandescent lamps in use throughout the Twin States. Assuming the Upper Valley has a third of these, that is around 5 million lamps. A drop in the sea compared with the estimated 3.2 billion inefficient lamps that are plugged into the EU's grid.
If New Hampshire and Vermont followed in the EU's footsteps, using the savings estimates developed by the EU, the Twin States would save about $34 million annually in electricity costs (Upper Valley estimated savings: $11 million), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 90,000 tons, with the Upper Valley's emissions dropping by 30,000 tons.
Vermont and New Hampshire already have a sizeable commercial relationship with the EU. The two states' exports to Europe exceed $1 billion, and EU investment in both states is around $8 billion, which supports more than 30,000 jobs. The light bulb project would add more depth to these business links and expand the regional economy.
Brussels starts putting together an impact switchover assessment review in May. Perhaps a Twin State business-government delegation could be sent to the EU to use that assessment as a template. That would provide the governors and legislative leaders of both states with hard numbers to quantify the costs and benefits of adopting the European idea.
As a regional organization that is supported by business and nonprofit groups throughout the Upper Valley, the UVCIA seems ideally suited to act as a catalyst to jump-start this initiative. What do you think?
***
Sarwar Kashmeri is the author of the recently released book: America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. He is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association, a strategic communications adviser, and lives in Reading, Vt. Your comments may be posted on the Business Climate blog: http://www.sakbizcol/ .blogspot.com
10 comments:
Excellent column this week. If every household in Vermont and New Hampshire changed one incandescent bulb to a compact fluorescent, it would make a big difference in our energy consumption. Last year Poultney, Vermont, held a successful drive, encouraging residents to change at least one bulb. It's the least we can do to help curb global warming.
Hear! Hear! The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Sarwar,
It is amazing how much insight the EU continues to show in regards to the issues of sustainability and overall global development. If we can get the Upper Valley represented in the May 2007 meetings, that would be a powerful catalyst for continuing to do two things: 1) work to integrate the local economies with the EU so that we promote socio-economic ties with a significant trading partner and allies; 2) position ourselves as an involved community spanning two states that is acting to address sustainability with a partner that is leading the movement globally.
R/S,
vin
Vin,
You are right on the mark. The VT Council on World Affairs and the VT Dept of Ec Dev are planning a EU-VT business day shortly. Will pass on your thoughts. Thank you.
When we used fluorescent lamps for a cellar light, the starters failed sooner then incandescent lamps burned out making them uneconomical.
Some fluorescent lamps don't work with dimmers.
Some fluorescent lamps don't work well in cold weather - some not working at all and some taking a long time to turn on. If they take a long time to turn on, they are not suitable to see who is at the door or for use with motion detectors.
AT one point, fluorescent lamps didn't turn on fast enough to be used at the top of stairs. I expect this problem has been solved.
Some fluorescents don't produce the same color spectrum as incandescent lamps and distort the color of paint and furnishings. When we moved to Burlington, we couldn't figure out why some paint on the 2nd floor showed with a green tinge yet the paint showed OK on the first floor. We then discovered that lights on the 2nd floor were fluorescent.
Some fluorescents cost a lot more then is advertised - we recently got a bulb (equivalent to a 75 watt flood light) for cold weather use that cost about $30.That's a lot different then the $2+ advertised.
I am suspicious of governments that mandate a technology (fluorescent, incandescent, LED) rather then the specifications (lumens per watt).
My wife and I will gradually shift from incandescent bulbs to something better, but we have to make sure we get the right ones. Who knows, maybe in a few years, LEDs will be more effective then fluorescents. Manufacturers are replacing bulbs on cars, boats, and flash lights now.
Hi All and thanks Sarwar
I think our goal should be to get off of fossil fuel completely and then see if we need to start sequestering atmospheric green house gasses to offset climate change. This will require a discussion of methods we could take action on locally and then deciding which steps have the best chance of adoption with the most personal and community benefits. I believe that there are many formulas for getting to carbon neutral and that we really do have a choice as to what path to take. As for compact fluorescents, they are great. Efficiency Vermont calculates that the best return on investment is to replace the six most used bulbs in a household. I have replaced virtually all of mine. If we look at this in terms of our carbon footprint and we replaced all our incandescents we are only looking at an overall carbon reduction of perhaps 3%. Less tangible steps could yield much more reduction… conservation through living thoughtfully might get us a 20-40% reduction. Moving to heating with cord wood or the more automated pellet burners could do 30%. Solar hot water another 8.5%. See http://www.vtpeakoil.net/community/document.php?id=64 for a more complete carbon footprint document of the FIRST BRANCH SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT.
Henry
Henry,
Wise words. Perhaps you should help structure another UVCIA forum to take us forward?
you're playing my song... most of the bulbs i buy these days are flourescent. great column!
kh
While the ideas of carbon neutrality and energy independence are admirable and may be a cause to rally around, I doubt they are attainable with current technologies or within the foreseeable future. This is, however, not to say that we should not be thinking and organizing regionally around maximizing cost-effective efficiency and renewables measures. There is a huge amount that can be done and still fall short of zero carbon and total independence. The danger in promoting such lofty goals may be that those goals may be proven unattainable and folks who bought into the goals may feel failure. I think we need to strive toward improving, setting attainable goals and celebrating achievements along the way. The 1st Branch group has made great strides in this direction with its goal of getting 50 solar hot water panels up by May. Whatever your perspective is on the above, SERG is ready and willing to work together toward an efficient and renewably powered Upper Valley with all interested participants.
Bob
Bob Walker
Sustainable Energy Resource Group
www.SERG-info.org
SERG - "Where Efficiency Makes $ense"
The discussion here has inspired my wife and I to do something we've put off for quite a while: change all our Victorian era incandescent light-bulbs to the new energy efficient ones. We are 3/4 done and by this weekend will have completed our project. Feeling quite virtuous! Thank you also to Vermont's energy rebate program, it really helps
Post a Comment