CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLES – WAY TO GO!

Studies and the experience of various cities and utilities have shown that conservation in different forms and the use of renewable energy can greatly reduce energy demand. This can lower costs to the consumer, bring jobs to local areas, and address climate change in a significant way. Here are some facts that should be of interest to all citizens in these regards:

— While changing out light bulbs alone will not solve all our energy and warming problems, it is one small way we can all help. Replacing 8 million incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents would reduce pollution as much as removing 55,000 cars from the road. Even safer and more efficient than compact fluorescents are LED bulbs, induction lighting, and solid state lighting, whose prices will go down as demand increases.

— A free weatherization program for low-income families, as is done in some cities, can save nearly one kilowatt per house. If 50,000 houses are weatherized, the savings would be a very substantial 47.5 megawatts of electricity.

— The average central Texas house can reduce its energy consumption by over 50 percent through duct sealing/insulation, attic insulation, and solar screen installation. The payback on the cost of these retrofits can be less than 4 years.

— Cogeneration (or CHP), which is the capture and use of waste heat, can greatly increase energy-generating efficiency. According to Wikipedia, “CHP uses heat that would be wasted in a conventional power plant, potentially reaching an efficiency of up to 89 percent, compared with at most 40 percent for…conventional plants. This means that less fuel needs to be consumed to produce the same amount of useful energy.” ConEdison, the New York utility, “produces 30 billion pounds of steam each year through its 7 cogeneration plants…before pumping it to 100,000 buildings in Manhattan – the biggest commercial steam system in the world” (Wikipedia).

— Stronger building codes that require more efficiency features in new commercial and residential construction, as have been passed in some cities, can substantially decrease energy demand. Buildings that are more energy efficient are more likely to sell at a good price than buildings that are not, and high “green” ratings can allow buyers to obtain lower-interest mortgages, state and federal tax credits, etc.

— Texas has the potential of being number one in the U.S. for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy. It is estimated that three states alone – Texas, South Dakota and North Dakota – together have enough wind energy to provide the entire country with electricity. The wealth of no longer functioning oil and gas wells all over Texas have excellent potential for geothermal use in the state. San Antonio sits in or near an area of high biomass potential for electricity production.

— According to a bulletin of the Public Citizen organization, “It is technically and economically feasible for a diverse mix of existing renewable technologies to completely meet our energy needs….Renewable energy… could provide 50 percent of the world’s primary energy by 2040.”

— In California, 34 solar-energy projects that could produce as much as 24,000 megawatts of power have initiated requests for right-of-way on federal lands. The California Energy Commission has identified 6 large solar projects as the most promising. BrightSource Energy is the first company to ask permission to build, with plans to produce 400 megawatts of power. A Pacific Gas and Electric solar project on 6,000 acres of Mojave Desert will generate 553 megawatts of electricity annually — enough to power 400,000 homes —

when it is completed in 2011. Solar can and should be a primary source of energy elsewhere, too.

— The Public Utilities Commission of California will spend $3.2 billion during the next decade to subsidize the installation of solar energy for new buildings. That sum is expected to generate four times its value in jobs in the state. Other states can follow California’s example.

— The City of Austin has approved the building of 2 small solar projects, a 500 kW installation atop the Austin Convention Center and a 210 kW installation at a city warehouse. Austin Energy is seeking partners in a large solar project it is developing in West Texas. Austin has committed to meeting 30 percent of its energy needs from renewables by 2020. San Antonio should aim for at least 20 percent by 2020.

— The amount of carbon that goes into the air from forest destruction is greater than that from all the world’s cars. One tree with a 30” trunk can sequester at least 200 pounds of carbon and significant amounts of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide a year. One properly placed 10” diameter tree has the cooling effect of five window air-conditioning units. Three mature trees next to a home can reduce air-conditioning use and cost by up to 50 percent.

— The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has established and committed funding to a goal of 15 percent reduction in overall energy use within 10 years. As part of this commitment, the district has funded the planting of 400,000 trees since 1990. The shade from properly placed trees can reduce peak residential energy demand by 30-50 percent. Annual summertime energy savings are about double the cost of the tree plantings. The utility estimates that the 400,000 trees already planted will save enough energy to power ca. 14,000 homes. Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C., all have ambitious tree-planting programs.

— Across the U.S., efficiency and conservation have had tangible benefits for cities. Audits and retrofits of 15 million square feet of public buildings in Chicago have resulted in $6 million in annual savings. Energy-efficiency measures in Seattle resulted in net savings of $2.5 million in only three years. The BP Oil Company invested $20 million to increase energy efficiency in all its production facilities and offices and in only three years wound up saving $650 million in fuel costs. Efficiency means a reduction in capital expenditure, so utilities and city government save as well as consumers.

— Salt Lake City, Utah, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 7 perent from 1990 levels. By the end of 2005 it had exceeded that target and boosted city revenues by increases in energy efficiency and methane recovery.

— According to Greg Harmon (The Current, Oct. 24-30, 2007), “The average CPS customer used 1,538 kW hours [of electricity] this June when the state average was 1,149 kWh….Compare that with Austin residents’ 1,175 kWh and San Marcos residents’ 1,130 kWh, and you start to see something is wrong.” San Antonio’s rates are lower than Austin’s but total energy bills are generally higher. Conservation is key to closing those gaps and reducing energy demand. Texas on the whole could reduce its energy consumption substantially. The state uses twice as much energy per person as California.

(This bulletin was prepared and brought to you by the ALAMO GROUP SIERRA CLUB, P.O. Box 6443, San Antonio, Texas 78209. Web address: www.alamosierraclub.org. Telephone: 210/497-5470.