If implemented properly (that might be a BIG if), it could result in 6% to 8% less energy use by a given building compared to the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standard, it says here.
From the article, on lighting:
“The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) has provided technical support on lighting related requirements in each iteration of the standard since 1975,” Rita Harrold, director of technology, said.
“IES continued that role in developing the energy efficiency provisions in the 2013 standard through modified LPDs and additional daylighting and controls strategies. The challenge to achieve higher energy efficiencies increases with each version of the standard and begins anew as we address targets for the 2016 edition.”
Here’s a write-up of a public appearance by a utility commission from AZ, explaining why those who go with net metering (so they can sell excess power — from solar PV on the roof, one assumes) have to pay A FEE to the local utility.
The cost: $4.90 a month. So if you spent money to put solar PV on your roof, you’re out nearly $60 a year . . . in what might otherwise be called a TAX . . . to your local utility.
Is $4.90 the right amount?
“We took a big bite of the apple [with this decision]. Is the number correct? I expect this issue will be vetted in 2015.” The commission said that the new policy will be in effect at least until Arizona Public Service’s next rate case, which the utility was directed to file in 2015.
. . . which a reasonable interpretation might be summarized as “it could be MORE.”
- – - – -
1. You did notice that AZ is a state with a lot of Sunshine, didn’t you?
2. It is the hope here that the fee entices more and more homeowners and building owners to go COMPLETELY off the grid. Battery storage systems need to be developed, improved, etc.
3. The actual reaction of the EleBlog’s proprietor upon the first 2 readings of the above-linked article involved a lot of words (in English and Sicilian) which will not be posted here.
From an English-language Chinese news site:
China’s solar power industry is starting to beam again. Overcapacity and trade disputes with the U.S. and the European Union had created a cloud over the sector and caused more than two years of poor business. But sales are brightening thanks to increased domestic demand and exports.
“Since the second half of last year, solar panels are selling very fast or even in short supply. That’s because the anti-dumping case with the EU has been finalized and resolved. The Chinese government also has announced plans to build solar power generation sites with 14 gigawatts of capacity this year,” said Peter Li at Zhejiang Astronergy.
They are CSP plants (concentrating solar power). Here’s a bit from RenewableEnergyWorld (2/12/14) -
Today SolarReserve’s 110-MW capacity Crescent Dunes project in Nevada, which combines power towers with molten salt storage, just announced that it has entered its “commissioning phase.” They’re still fuzzy about when it will be fully commercially online, phrasing it as “later in 2014,” but at full output Crescent Dunes will generate more than 500,000 MWh/year, more than twice the output per-MW-capacity of solar PV or direct-steam solar thermal, the company claims. The plant has a 25-year power purchase agreement with NV Energy.
Meanwhile, tomorrow, February 13, the 392-MW Ivanpah concentrated solar power (CSP) project in California’s Mojave Desert, also a power-tower structure but without the storage component, will be officially dedicated
What?, you say — “early” history. Yes, we’re talking about 2010. Lights of America did something wrong, and is getting public punishment for that. From a write-up on USGovInfo.About.com:
In their initial ads, Lights of America claimed their LED bulbs would burn 30,000 hours or “15 times longer than 2,000 hour incandescent bulbs.” They then backed down on their claims several times, finally advertising that their LED bulbs had a 12,000-hour life or “6 times longer than 2,000 hour incandescent bulbs.”
However, the FTC showed in court that Lights of America’s own data showed that none of their LED bulbs tested lasted more than a few thousand hours.
There’s also this, which comes from The Oregonian (deep within the article):
The [FTC's] final order also permanently prohibits Lights of America and its executives from misrepresenting any facts about its lighting products and requires them to regularly submit paperwork to the FTC over the next 20 years.
If we can overlook their bright, sometimes glaring appearance, and encourage cities to use yellow-rich LEDs rather than their blue-rich cousins, it seems that LED streetlights are a good thing. And because LED technology is progressing rapidly, LEDs of the future are likely to help cities save even more in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
. . . that’s how an intern at Earth Island Journal ends her piece on health hazards of blue LEDs in streetlighting.
A fact-filled piece from the SSL people at DOE tackles LED Lumen Maintenance and Light Loss Factors (2p PDF). You’re going to have to hit that link and read the whole thing, b/c we’re not reposting the entire piece!
Here’s a smidgen:
For LED lamps and luminaires, the rated lifetime provided by manufacturers is typically based on only the lumen maintenance of the LED package, which has become the de-facto method for providing rated lifetime for LED products.
Although the lumen maintenance lifetime of LED architectural lighting products is almost always based on L70 (the time it takes for the lumen output to fall to 70 percent of what it was originally), this is not helpful for calculating an LLD factor.
[EleBlog note: LLD = lamp lumen deprecision]
As an alternative, it may be more appropriate to instead use a known end point (e.g., the building being renovated in 15 years) in establishing the end of life used for lighting calculations. This would allow specifiers to more easily distinguish between products with different lumen depreciation characteristics and design systems that are more energy-efficient over their lifetime
According to this item, retail sales at department stores have “been falling for more than a decade.”
Makes sense? Sure. The explanation offered (as overall retail sales are NOT said to be down) is the Internet.
However: From a construction point-of-view, IF this trends is sustained, it means — MAYBE — reductions in construction (and renovation) all over the U.S., and concentrated construction of very large warehouses (from which Internet-ordered goods will be shipped).
It’s good for UPS, FedEx, and the USPS, tho.