Wind Power to the Offshore Northeast

In a recent NYT article about wind power, it appears that the coastal states may be on the verge of capitulating to the idea of wind power.  While wind power is no stranger to Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and other interior states, where there are 50,000 turbines; it has been to the coastal states. In October, the wind turbines will begin to operate off of Block Island.  It will be small by European standards; 5 turbines versus 300 turbines.  The 5 turbines will power 17,000 homes.  This is an important development because there was a previous attempt off Cape Cod - a project of 130 turbines.  Those with views of that potential area fought it vigorously, until the project was withdrawn. That was a decade ago.  What a difference 10 years makes.  Offshore prices are falling, but they are still more expensive than those in Europe.  They have developed the ship technology and other technologies to raise the pylons in water.  That being said, this may the beginning of offshore wind power projects. 

The US energy strategy has been too politicized.  Each geographic area of the United States has its own unique energy capability.  The Pacific Northwest has hydropower.  The Southwest has solar. The North Central has wind and South Central has wind and solar.  The Rockies have solar and geothermal.  The South has solar.  Natural gas is everywhere in the US.  Shhh, we also have nuclear power available everywhere in the US.  The Northeast now can have wind to add to the nuclear and natural gas (piped in).  That sounds like a progressive energy policy, with a low carbon footprint.   

Latest Data from Our House on Electricity Usage - Huge Electricity Savings and Carbon Savings

As I have mentioned in an earlier blog, LED lighting is really a big deal.  The below chart shows my electricity usage for the past three years.  I have been diligent in my purchase of LED bulbs, waiting patiently for the price to fall to $5.00 per bulb.  Thanks to Xcel, they made that possible.  I was able to average the cost of all of my bulbs to slightly above that price and have a payback of less than 12 months.  Now, the LED bulbs are less than $5.00 per bulb and your payback will be less than mine.

Look at the change in my electricity bill.  As you can see, there are roughly three drops in power consumption.  In 2013, the kilowatt-hours consumed were 1,300 kWh (I only bought bulbs for the heaviest used spaces).  The second round of LED purchases (outdoor lighting), dropped the power consumption to roughly 1,000 kWh.  After I purchased the third set of bulbs (the basement and rest of the house),  my electricity consumption dropped to an average of 700 kWh.  Those are savings that everyone should be interested in.  Not only is there a kilowatt-hour savings, there is a CO2 emissions reduction.  Your carbon footprint should drop appreciably.

The electricity savings and the lower carbon footprint per household could significantly reduce the number of coal-fired power plants.  As I calculated in an earlier blog, we could retire 87, 667 megawatt coal-fired plants, if everyone were to switch to LEDs.  That would make a vary real dent in US and global emissions, without the need for more, new power plants.

Convert to LED lighting and Save on the Carbon Footprint

I recently purchased a UPS Store franchise.  The lighting was less than optimal and not very aesthetic.  With my success at home with the installation of LED lighting, I went ahead and replaced 64 four-foot long T8 fluorescent lamps and 15 two-food long T8 fluorescent lamps with LED lamps. An Xcel Energy consultant (our energy company) give me the estimate and the specifications of what I needed. It took 4 hours to replace all 79 lamps.  The lighting is now clean, bright and fresh, not dingy and spotty.  It improves the readability of everything in the store and everywhere in the store.  Xcel Energy will rebate some of the cost of converting.  After rebates, I estimate that my payback will be about 18 months.  I will provide a chart in a month or two to show the savings.

Get out there and convert to LED. 

Part 2 - LED Lighting's Impact to Our Home - Switching to LED Eliminates 87 Coal-Fired Power Plants of 667 Megawatts Capacity

On March 18, 2015, I published Part 1 - LED Lighting's Impact to Our Home.  I am including part of that blog here.  The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed by President George Bush on December 18, 2007 was an energy policy intended to make better use of our resources and help the United States become energy independent.  Part of the law sets energy efficiency standards for light bulbs; the first phase went into effect January 2012. The incandescent light bulbs were phased out January 1, 2012 for 100 watts, January 1, 2013 for 75 watts and January 1, 2014 for 60 and 40 watts.  The following table shows the incandescent wattage and its equivalent lumen and LED-CFL wattages (Source: www.energystar.gov/la/products/lighting/cfls).

Incandescent Bulb (Watts)	Minimum Light Output (Lumens)	Common Energy Star Qualified Bulbs (Watts)
25	250	4 to 9
40	450	9 to 13
60	800	13 to 15
75	1100	18 to 25
100	1600	23 to 30
125	2000	22 to 40
150	2600	40 to 50

Efficiency is measured by the number of lumens per watt.  Brightness is measured by the number of lumens.  Watts is the amount of energy that a light bulb uses.

  

Below is a comparison of incandescent, CFL and LED bulbs

• A standard 60 watt incandescent light bulb provides 13 to 14 lumens per watt.
• An equivalent CFL provides between 55 and 70 lumens per watt.
• An equivalent LED provides between 60 and 100 lumens per watt.

Source: www.energystar.gov/la/products/lighting/cfls

My first foray into efficient lighting was CFL.  I then moved to LED bulbs after the bulb cost dropped to about $5.00 per bulb.  I stuck to that price and only purchased them when there were sales or promotions on them.  Xcel Energy and Cree offered several sales in 2014, 2015 and this year.  I purchased 20 LED bulbs in August 2014.  Being an energy analyst, I set up a spreadsheet to measure the electricity use of my house over the past 17 months and included Xcel’s electricity usage by my neighbors and my most energy efficient neighbors. 

I now have about four years of data, with August 2014, the beginning date of LED use.  As you can see from the below chart, the monthly use of electricity for a 4-person household (two teenaged boys, who think electricity is free as testified by rooms lit up to the max while empty).  The use of LED clearly provided us with a savings of electricity of step-wise proportions.  I then went for round two of LED bulb purchases, employing them outside which are left on for 6-8 hours depending upon the season.  They provided and other step-wise decrease.  I went for a third round which was to place LED bulbs in the remaining lights in the house.  I also purchased smart plugs which would turn off electrical appliances, when not in use or when no one with a smart phone was present (these smart plugs turn devices on and off depending upon the presence of the smart phone, due to Bluetooth technology).  Now look at the energy consumption for 2016.  I have been able to take out almost 400 kilowatt-hours of consumptions, about 30% of the 2013 consumption.

So, while the above is actual savings, my spreadsheet is empirical savings based on a huge study entitled "Residential Lighting End-Use Consumption Study: Estimation Framework and Initial Estimates" by DNC KEMA Energy and Sustainability, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.  Assumptions were made about the number of lights in an average home of about 2,400 square feet in area and the number of hours each of the lights were lit, based on metering devices recordings.  I used the actual number of lights in my house and used there assumption of the number of hours the lights were lit.  Because my house is 4,300 square feet, there are more lights.  Some of those rooms are not occupied, so the lights are not lit, while other rooms are occupied longer than the assumptions of lights lit.  So, net-net, it should be approximate.  

The results of switching from incandescent lighting to LED lighting was a savings of 10,500 watt-hours per day, or 10.5 kilowatt-hours per day, or 315 kilowatt-hours per month, or 3,835 kilowatts-hour/year.  Back to the about graph, the empirical calculations are roughly equal to the actual savings shown in the chart.  Scientists and statisticians like this kind of back testing and verification.  

So, the savings are real.  Now, let us calculate something different.  How many average sized coal-fire power plants do these savings represent?  ( The average coal-fired power plant produces 667 megawatts.)  One kwh/year equals 0.114079 watts, translates to 437 watts (3,855 kilowatt-hours per year), or 0.000437 megawatts.  That is my energy consumption SAVINGS per year.  How many households would that represent to eliminate one 667 megawatt coal-fired power plant?  The answer is 1.526 million homes.  Assuming that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has measured properly, the number of households in the US, then at 133.9 million households, the savings is 87 coal-fired power plants that could be shut down.  Think about that 87 power plants.  This does not include electrical consumption from industrial consumers, government consumers, or corporate consumers.  My cost for my almost 30% energy savings was $650.  Multiply that by the 113.9 households and that equals a cost of $7.4 billion  to save 30% on your electrical bill and eliminate 87 power plants.  Between 2012 and 2016, there were 175 coal-fired power plants closed representing 27 gigawatts of capacity.  LED bulbs barely make any of that impact (total number of coal-fired power plants generating electricity at the end of 2012 was 1,308, obviously less the 175, or 1,133).  The 87 coal-fired power plants to be shut down is another 8% of U.S. capacity.  WE CAN DO THIS - GET OUT AND PURCHASE LED BULBS.  THEY ARE NOW ON SALE EVERY WHERE FOR LESS THAN $5.00 PER BULB.

Massive Job Losses in the Energy Business - what does it mean?

Having drilled oil wells in the North Dakota in the 1980s and then becoming an energy analyst for several mutual funds and lecturing about the industry, I am sensitive to the current condition of the energy market.  So, let's start with the energy jobs loss recently published in the StarTribune of 120,00 people (exclusive of the 3 largest coal companies all in bankruptcy proceedings).  While there maybe people applauding the shrinking energy industry, the job losses are not minimum wage positions.  These jobs paid well because the work is hard, dangerous and long hours in remote places far away from families.  These jobs pay anywhere from $80,000 to $200,00 for offshore petroleum engineers and geophysicists.  Because the job market is dominated by the lower end - oil truckers, water haulers, rig hands, oil field services employees, let's use $100,000 as an average salary.  Multiplying the 120,000 job losses by the $100,000 in lost wages is roughly $12 billion in lost wages.  Every MBA or CFA student studies what a multiplier effect is.  Basically the multiplier effect is the injection of these wages which leads to more spending and creates more income, more spending, more income - a circular flow.  The multiple effect refers to the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending.  Suffice to say, the multiplier has a savings component.  Assuming that a consumer saves 20% of each new dollar (definitely on the high side), the multiplier is 5 times.  That means that for every $1 increase in income, $5 new dollars of income are created.  This can go into reverse, if savings are increased by the individuals, increase in taxes, or job losses.  So the $12 billion in lost wages becomes $60 billion ($12 billion x multiplier of 5).  If the multiplier is 10 (a savings rate of 10%, still too high for US savings rate), then the negative impact is $120 billion.  That means that state governments lose $12 billion in tax revenues, assuming a 10% state income tax rate.  The Fed losses $30 billion in tax revenue, assuming a 25% federal income tax rate.  And we have not talked about the coal sector, which is in a death spiral.  The three largest coal companies in the US are in bankruptcy.  Add another several 10s of thousands of employees and their multiplier effect.  These are seriously large losses of incomes and tax revenues, not being made up from the gains in renewable energy job creation.

How does this bode for the future?  I am a Colorado School of Mines (CSM) graduate, a petroleum development geologist, and energy economist and analyst,  I keep an eye on the anecdotal stories of CSM graduates, friends in the industry, trends from my discussions with energy company executives, college students soliciting advice from me and economic statistics, I represent the last large supply of hydrocarbon energy specialists.  The over 50 year-old demographic represents about 60% of the total energy specialists (geologists, geophysicists, engineers, land people) in the industry.  The current trend of graduating seniors is moving away from the hydrocarbon sector.  What this means is that this cycle will result in a massive loss of a knowledge base that is not being replaced.  

What does this mean?  It means that the US had better move with lightning speed to replace this expertise with solar and wind expertise, or cold fusion or something else, faster than it is currently being added.  Because with coal consumption down from 50% to 39% (EIA) of fuel consumed to generate electricity, nuclear at 20% (also under continued pressure), hydropower at 10% (also under pressure to be dismantled), natural gas increasing from 20% to 30% (basically replacing coal's decrease, but also under pressure), we will need solar and wind to be deployed faster (I like tidal for the East, West and Gulf Coasts, solar for the Southwest and Front Range, wind and solar the Central and Midwest).  We are pushing for consumption of renewable energy at a faster rate than supplying of renewable energy.  This is a problem.

Another problem is that both solar and wind are intermittent and interruptible energy sources.  A big push is being made to develop batteries to store these energies in the off-peak to be deployed at peak power demand, but there is no talk about the source of the battery materials - lithium.  The building of Elon Musk's lithium-ion gigafactory to supply those Teslas and what he hopes to be micro grids of homes that are interconnected to one another, presupposes the securing of lithium.  Ironically, lithium must be either mined (always under environmental pressure) or evaporated from brine rich solutions (which takes time).  Where does this endlessly demanded supply come from?  So, we had better get after these renewable energy sources and new ones, because there will be a time in the very near future, that when you go to turn on the light, you will be in the dark.  

Skydrop Smart Water Controller - 5 Stars

This is a wonderful app that I would give a 5 star rating.  The controller was simple to install.  The website software was easy to follow and program my lawn information.  And the app shows more information than my website application, giving me override ability from home or away.  This is a fantastic app.  

After creating an account, your first screen in the Skydrop app is below.  This is a screenshot from my iPhone.  I have programmed this to follow City of Plymouth watering rules of even days (determined by the odd or even number of the last digit of your address).  This screen shows the next watering day, current temperature in Plymouth, MN, the project forecast with all 12 zones depicted by small circles under the forecast.  What is unique about this, is that the smart controller does not water every zone on every even day.  With the data that you have initially entered, it determines from empirical data, how much water and where it needs to be applied.  If you have shade covered grass, less water is required because of its lower evaporative rate than non-shaded areas.  The forecast for my zip code area indicates rain on Monday, May 23, then again on May 25, 27 and 28.  Therefore, the smart controller tentatively will not water on those days.  As weather is dynamic, the controller will update the weather constantly to refine the watering schedule.

Scrolling down the first page, all of the zones on your lawn are shown - below.  The number of minutes for watering per zone, the name of the zone (your input), when that zone was last watered and what type of zone it is - grass, shrubs, trees, flower beds, etc.  The circle with the arrow pointing to the right is an override.  You can activate any controller by pressing that arrow and beginning a watering cycle for that zone.  By touching the far right arrow, you open up the zone setting which includes the name, zone enabled, plant type, sprinkler type, shade type, slope type and soil type.

​SLXL 

The zone setting is shown in the next two screenshots.  The dynamic minutes are enabled.  What this means is, that if five minutes before the schedule watering for that zone, the controller accesses the web and the local forecast has been updated for rain, the controller will halt the watering schedule. Say that the 50% error rate of a weather forecast comes to fruition, and the updated rain forecast didn't occur, then the dynamic nature of the controller will look back and see that the zone watering was canceled and begin the watering.

The dynamic nature of the controller allows it to apply less water or more water as weather conditions change.  The below screen depicts the watering schedule that occurred last night.  Notice not all 12 zones received water, only zones 6,7,8 and 9 received water.  It cycle back and forth between the zones.  The controller that came with our irrigation system does not do this.  

​​SLXL

All of this is customizable.  If you dig up one zone to plant flowers, you can change the soil, shade, and slope profile directly on the iPhone or smart phone.  You can also experiment with the watering time length by tapping on the More Water or Less Water buttons shown in the third photo.  This could come in hand for areas with clay soil and little to no shading.  

All in all this controller and software is well laid out, easy to use and is saving me on water already. This system should pay itself back within 2 years here in Minnesota, faster if you live in water constrained California.  We will be installing telemetric water meters this year in the City of Plymouth. So, I suspect that people will all of a sudden take more interest in watering as a more accurate picture of water usage is determined and charged for by the City.

Skydrop Smart Water Controller Installation

I mentioned in my previous blog that I had purchased a Skydrop irrigation controller.  I am very handy and have done many household repairs and construction, but I am always sensitive to working around water and electricity.  Installing an irrigation controller means working with both.  I first reviewed Skydrop’s installation video, which was very informative and short.  I then reviewed another video, which was a bit longer and equally informative. 

I prepared by doing two things.  First, I took my laptop into the garage, where my irrigation controller was located.  I accessed the installation video so that I had it there to work from and to test the strength of WiFi signal.  I had full bars – this was good as it meant that I did not need to install a WiFi range extender.  Second, I found a pad of paper and a pen to write everything down.  If you are like me, then you will want to prepare a map (which the irrigation installer should have prepared for me along with all of the necessary information) and a spreadsheet outlining the number of sprinkler heads, the type of sprinkler heads, gallons of minute throughput and location.

With all of this ready, I started up the video again and began the step by step installation.  I first opened my existing controller and took pictures of the wires and connections with my iPhone.  I would use these photos if needed as a backup.  I disconnected the controller from the electrical outlet.  I then disconnected one wire at a time, labeling each with the number of the corresponding water zone.  I have 12 zones.  The Skydrop controller only has room for 8 zones (controller is approximately $250, which may sound expensive, but if you need to replace your existing one with an updated model, you will pay the same or more depending upon the features).  However, Skydrop offers an expansion panel for an additional 8 water zones for a total of 16 zones.  This extension costs about $50.  So, your all in cost is $300 plus your time and labor.  Check your local communities and utilities to see if they have any rebates.

The controller mounts to the wall with 4 screws (included).  It also includes a level to level the mounting panel.  Once leveled and secured to the wall, plug the power cord into the panel and then into the electrical outlet.  Connect the common wire (usually white) to the C on the panel.  Then, take your numbered wires and consecutively connect them one by one.  This control panel includes a Hot position marked H, which is used to test each zone.  This was perfect because I walked to each zone to see if the connection turned on the zone and if it did, I diagramed the number of sprinklers on my map and put the information on my spreadsheet.  After testing the zone, I inserted the wire into its corresponding numbered connection.  I did this for all 12 zones.  From watching the videos to finally connecting the LCD screen of the controller to the mounting panel and expansion panel, it took about 90 minutes.  I have lived in the house for 16 years and this was the first map and spreadsheet that I had of the irrigation system. 

The moment that I clicked the LCD screen to the mounting and expansion panels, the Skydrop logo light turned on and the jog dial turned on – yellow.  The jog dial turns a different color for a different action.  There are 5 different colors: 

Yellow – controller will need to be connected or reconnected to the WiFi for Smart Watering and remote access, or controller can be setup (as-is, no WiFi) using Custom Scheduling or Interval Watering.

Red – error with the valves or wiring.  Usually, the faulty zone is indicated within the user interface of the controller, web app or mobile app.  Once the zone is determined, a thorough investigation of the valve and wiring will help resolve the problem.

Green – controller is ready to receive and execute instructions.

Blue – controller is watering and edits cannot be made without ending the current water cycle.

White (no glow) – on controller, you can disable the green glow while idling, which turns off the jog dial.  On the web or mobile app, this indicates that watering is currently disabled.

The yellow glow was present as it was searching for a WiFi signal.  Once it lists the signals, you rotate the jog dial until your WiFi is highlighted and press the jog dial to accept.  The controller then guides you through several instructions to setup the controller to your protected WiFi.  It asks you to download the iPhone or Android app and type into the app – a code.  Once the controller recognizes the receipt of the code, it moves to the next set of instructions.  After inputting the zip code, I declined to set up a watering schedule and hit finished.  I could have stood there and entered all of the relevant information for each zone, but using the jog dial would have taken too long.  I took the laptop back inside, accessed the web and logged in.  Setting up the schedule was very straight forward.  It asks for the type of soil, sunlight exposure, type of watering sprinkler, number of water sprinklers per zone, etc.  I was able to give a name to each zone, which will be easier to trouble shoot any problem should one develop later.  There is also a provision for water restrictions that may be set at the community, city or state level. Once everything was saved on the web, I tapped the iPhone app and voila, all of the information that I had typed into the website populated to the app.  I tested both the app and the website app to remotely turn on one of the zones and everything worked. 

The total amount of time to connect to the internet and program the apps took about 30 minutes.  Add this to the above 90 minutes of actual installation of the controller and testing of the zones, you need 2 hours for 12 stations.  All of this was easier and quicker than I expected.  The software was far more robust and much easier to navigate than I expected.  So far, I would give this a 5-star rating.   The next blog will cover the actual operations.