Here is an article I wrote in December of 2000. I published this as my first Blog on my EnergyHotwire.com website, The date was May 30, 2001, long before Blogs were popular. The article provided sound advice, facts and recommendations for our country’s energy plan. This is an article that knew what needed to be done to prevent serious problems so many years before.
Bill Lauto, GTG
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!
Here are comments on this first Blog post from Yesteryear:
June, 2001:
I just read on your web site your U. S. Energy Plan and I was amazed at the facts about nuclear waste and how much energy we can save. Intelligently written and powerfully executed. A brilliant plan. Now only if our government leaders would read this.
Paul, New York.
---
March 26, 2002:
Bill,
I just emailed my brother Frank to read your outstanding article posted at www.Energy Hotwire.com
Phenomenal writing, I really enjoyed it.
Joe, Buffalo New York
Coffee Table Chatter With all the discussions taking place about the new national energy plan that would build more power plants and have fewer regulations, I was compelled to write about the subject. Mostly due to the multitude of assumptions, enormous potential, misconceptions, new technology, incorrect applications, amazing statistics, stalled ingenuity and the fact that no matter who is conversing about the topic, without all the facts from all the expert circles, the conversation amounts to nothing more than coffee table chatter.
To the reader, I thank you, for allowing me some of your time to read this. I have learned from "both sides of the fence" on energy and environmental issues and I always listen to everyone who expresses opinions or facts about these topics. Nevertheless, I am aware that I do not have all the data on all the topics. No one person or even one review committee can. There is just too much data, research, results, warnings, greed, concern, fortitude and common sense from around our world on these topics. The question and challenge is: Who in our country is bold enough to start a monumental effort that will embrace all these facts, evaluate them and implement the best long term solution for all of the people today as well as for our tomorrows? The remainder of this article will present just a diminutive amount of facts that will demonstrate how acutely we Americans need leadership that will boldly step forward to answer the above challenge with proper administrative policy. One of the primary issues to be determined deals with the question of building more power plants. The direction of this dissertation is to present facts that will answer that very question.
To the reader, I thank you, for allowing me some of your time to read this. I have learned from "both sides of the fence" on energy and environmental issues and I always listen to everyone who expresses opinions or facts about these topics. Nevertheless, I am aware that I do not have all the data on all the topics. No one person or even one review committee can. There is just too much data, research, results, warnings, greed, concern, fortitude and common sense from around our world on these topics. The question and challenge is: Who in our country is bold enough to start a monumental effort that will embrace all these facts, evaluate them and implement the best long term solution for all of the people today as well as for our tomorrows? The remainder of this article will present just a diminutive amount of facts that will demonstrate how acutely we Americans need leadership that will boldly step forward to answer the above challenge with proper administrative policy. One of the primary issues to be determined deals with the question of building more power plants. The direction of this dissertation is to present facts that will answer that very question.
Nuclear is NOT the Answer I am not ruling out the possibility that some new power plants may have to be constructed. But federal funding should also increase research on new technology that makes other types of safer power distribution feasible. Additional research and development should go toward building better non-recyclable garbage to electric power plants. Then if a power plant is needed, the newest technology should be used to build the most efficient, cleanest and long term operating one. That means no Nuclear or Coal fired power plants. There isn’t any technology that can burn coal cleanly and none that can prevent radioactive waste. Nuclear plants are a short term and dangerous solution. One of the last Nuclear power plants that didn’t open was reported to have the longest operating life of forty years. A plant engineer told that to me very proudly during my internship. I asked the engineer what occurs after forty years, reconditioning of the reactor, replacement or what. The answer was in the "what" category. Depending on how different variables worked out the contaminated core could be sealed up and the plant would be closed down. Welcome to the real world of making money today, leaving major problems for tomorrow. How fast is forty years? Well if this plant did open, today it would be twenty-two years closer to being useless and having forty years of radioactive waste bequeath to us. Waste that takes Mother Nature over 5,000 years to complete one half-life. That is the amount of time for half of the atoms that are radioactive to disintegrate. However, even then, the waste is not safe for human contact.
To be concise, conservation is not needed to save energy and more power plants are not the solution; the proper application of the available technology is. I have never recommended to one of my clients a step that made them conserve. Yet all have saved for their country as well as for themselves. Conservation and pre-Earth Day thinking, is thinking without all the facts . I have done and managed thousands of energy reports for homeowners. Not one report recommended a single action that implied sacrifice. I never stated once that to save money and energy one must turn down their thermostat and wear a sweater. However, I am instrumental in saving my clients money and oil for our country. In my own home we do not sacrifice by doing more with less, in fact we have more and pay much less. I made my house efficient with common sense and the correct application of new technology that really works. Thus, my energy bills are 1/4 of my neighbors with comparable homes. In fact, some of my clients have saved so much that their Utility Companies believed that something was wrong with their electric meter. This is the type of dramatic savings that can be realized when properly implementing energy saving technology in your home or business. Thus, America is wasting up to 75% of our energy, because of using archaic products and the improper application of new technology. Even energy saving products designed cheaply, waste energy. If homeowners were able to implement all the proper energy recommendations, an average savings of eight hundred dollars a year could be realized. However, the cost of new properly designed energy efficient products always cost more than the less efficient ones. Today these energy efficient refrigerators, window/wall air conditions, central air conditioners, heating systems, lighting fixtures and products such as solar operated attic fans are more difficult to find in stores. Then to add insult to injury, it is a challenge to find a well-trained and knowledgeable sales person on the subject.
To be concise, conservation is not needed to save energy and more power plants are not the solution; the proper application of the available technology is. I have never recommended to one of my clients a step that made them conserve. Yet all have saved for their country as well as for themselves. Conservation and pre-Earth Day thinking, is thinking without all the facts . I have done and managed thousands of energy reports for homeowners. Not one report recommended a single action that implied sacrifice. I never stated once that to save money and energy one must turn down their thermostat and wear a sweater. However, I am instrumental in saving my clients money and oil for our country. In my own home we do not sacrifice by doing more with less, in fact we have more and pay much less. I made my house efficient with common sense and the correct application of new technology that really works. Thus, my energy bills are 1/4 of my neighbors with comparable homes. In fact, some of my clients have saved so much that their Utility Companies believed that something was wrong with their electric meter. This is the type of dramatic savings that can be realized when properly implementing energy saving technology in your home or business. Thus, America is wasting up to 75% of our energy, because of using archaic products and the improper application of new technology. Even energy saving products designed cheaply, waste energy. If homeowners were able to implement all the proper energy recommendations, an average savings of eight hundred dollars a year could be realized. However, the cost of new properly designed energy efficient products always cost more than the less efficient ones. Today these energy efficient refrigerators, window/wall air conditions, central air conditioners, heating systems, lighting fixtures and products such as solar operated attic fans are more difficult to find in stores. Then to add insult to injury, it is a challenge to find a well-trained and knowledgeable sales person on the subject.
Costly Appliances As an example, the average American family with 2.5 kids is probably using a 20 cubic foot sized refrigerator from 1985. The yearly operating cost at an average electric rate of .10 per kilowatt hour would be at least $160.00. If that family purchased the most efficient 20 cubic foot refrigerator made today the electric cost would only be $58.00 per year. The problem is that even after you find a dealer who carries the most efficient model the price tag is $809.99 without delivery and sales tax. A model that is the least energy efficient would only cost around $575.00 to buy. Perhaps the best approach in solving just this one aspect of the energy situation is that our administration’s policy should state: When you purchase the most energy efficient refrigerator model made in the 20 cubic foot size between July 4, 2001 and July 4, 2004 you will receive a tax credit of two hundred dollars and pay no state sales tax. (If the tax credit is financially unfeasible for the government, then offer a tax deduction up to 75% of the appliance’s total cost.) An energy policy that includes incentives such as these is not much different from possible tax credits that may be offered to consumers who buy a super-efficient car. However, there are two notable differences, energy efficient refrigerators are available now, super-efficient cars are not. The electrical power saved from a refrigerator is dealing directly with our infrastructure of power plants. A car deals more with our gasoline supply.
With new home construction, most builders install ceiling High-hat lighting fixtures. Unfortunately, the less expensive and smaller High-hat fixture is usually installed. The energy saving light bulbs in a flood light configuration can not fit into these cheaper fixtures. At present, for example, the homeowner is forced to use 75 watt incandescent flood lights instead of the 18 watt energy saving flood lights. The differences between these two sources of light are numerous. For 18 watts you receive the same amount of light as the 75 watt incandescent. The saving on the electric bill not only pays for the more expensive 18 watt flood, but also saves the homeowner approximately $60.00 more per light over its lifetime. The 18 watt flood will last ten times longer, give off the same light color and 1/4 the heat. The savings on the electric bill and drums of oil for America add up immediately. Another fact is that 90% of the energy used by the 1928 designed incandescent light bulb creates heat! Only 10% of the electrical energy produces light! Talk about waste, here is the ultimate example. And infested with this waste is just about every office and home in America. The best approach to this electrical lighting situation is that our administration’s policy should state: Starting from July 4, all new construction utilizing High-hat lighting fixtures must install the large R-40 size fixture with an adjustable socket height to insure that the homeowner can have the option of using energy saving flood lights. A tax credit or deduction should be offered to each existing fixture changed over to use energy saving bulbs and then all incandescent light bulbs should be phased out over a period of time. When a product waste 90% of the energy it uses in order to create light, it is time to make that product both illegal to manufactured and sell. This is a bold step, but here is the reason why it is justified: Only two products have been presented for the home that save energy without sacrifice, a refrigerator and light bulbs, there are hundreds more. Due to this, EnergyHotwire.com has been established to further assist with free facts on saving energy. The few people, who have taking some energy saving steps over the past decade, though small in number, are part of the reason why for 22 years this country did not need to build a single nuclear power plant! Studies have been done and published over the years proving the enormous power individuals have when it comes to saving energy. One study that comes to mind was done in the state of Massachusetts. I believe the results showed that if every homeowner updated their old refrigerator and changed their incandescent light bulbs that were used four hours or more a day to the energy saving light bulbs, enough energy would be saved to close down one oil fired power plant in that state. Talk about power, power saved from just two energy saving steps. A major appliance and lighting! The miniscule and voluntary effort that has occurred over the past twenty years by individuals has been a sufficient example for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. We need a policy that provides the education, tax credit, laws and far less problems for tomorrow by not saying to conserve or build more polluting power plants, but by assisting the correct implementation of effective energy saving technology. -ehw
Updated Blog Post - Article on EnergyHotwire.com to GoingTrueGreen.com Blog
Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!
With new home construction, most builders install ceiling High-hat lighting fixtures. Unfortunately, the less expensive and smaller High-hat fixture is usually installed. The energy saving light bulbs in a flood light configuration can not fit into these cheaper fixtures. At present, for example, the homeowner is forced to use 75 watt incandescent flood lights instead of the 18 watt energy saving flood lights. The differences between these two sources of light are numerous. For 18 watts you receive the same amount of light as the 75 watt incandescent. The saving on the electric bill not only pays for the more expensive 18 watt flood, but also saves the homeowner approximately $60.00 more per light over its lifetime. The 18 watt flood will last ten times longer, give off the same light color and 1/4 the heat. The savings on the electric bill and drums of oil for America add up immediately. Another fact is that 90% of the energy used by the 1928 designed incandescent light bulb creates heat! Only 10% of the electrical energy produces light! Talk about waste, here is the ultimate example. And infested with this waste is just about every office and home in America. The best approach to this electrical lighting situation is that our administration’s policy should state: Starting from July 4, all new construction utilizing High-hat lighting fixtures must install the large R-40 size fixture with an adjustable socket height to insure that the homeowner can have the option of using energy saving flood lights. A tax credit or deduction should be offered to each existing fixture changed over to use energy saving bulbs and then all incandescent light bulbs should be phased out over a period of time. When a product waste 90% of the energy it uses in order to create light, it is time to make that product both illegal to manufactured and sell. This is a bold step, but here is the reason why it is justified: Only two products have been presented for the home that save energy without sacrifice, a refrigerator and light bulbs, there are hundreds more. Due to this, EnergyHotwire.com has been established to further assist with free facts on saving energy. The few people, who have taking some energy saving steps over the past decade, though small in number, are part of the reason why for 22 years this country did not need to build a single nuclear power plant! Studies have been done and published over the years proving the enormous power individuals have when it comes to saving energy. One study that comes to mind was done in the state of Massachusetts. I believe the results showed that if every homeowner updated their old refrigerator and changed their incandescent light bulbs that were used four hours or more a day to the energy saving light bulbs, enough energy would be saved to close down one oil fired power plant in that state. Talk about power, power saved from just two energy saving steps. A major appliance and lighting! The miniscule and voluntary effort that has occurred over the past twenty years by individuals has been a sufficient example for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. We need a policy that provides the education, tax credit, laws and far less problems for tomorrow by not saying to conserve or build more polluting power plants, but by assisting the correct implementation of effective energy saving technology. -ehw
Updated Blog Post - Article on EnergyHotwire.com to GoingTrueGreen.com Blog
Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!
