Here's an example. NorthWestern Energy spends a good chunk of its USB dollars on rebates for light fixtures.Bill Watkins, CEO of LED-lighting company Bridgelux goodleddownlight , talks about the market for clean-tech manufacturing Several times in the past year, they sent me coupons for a $2 rebate on a compact fluorescent light (CFL). I've used these in the past, but did having the coupon really create energy savings? What if I was going to buy the CFL anyway, whether or not I had a coupon?
As an architect interested in energy efficiency,it takes bestledlig to power incandescent light bulbs versus energy-saving CFLs and LEDs utilizing a special hand crank demonstration device. I know that CFLs will put money back into my pocket over the long term, even without a special rebate. Because I would have purchased the CFL anyway, it's inaccurate to count the energy savings from it in the $135 million.
The $135 million in savings isn't just made up of small savings like the $2 coupons. NorthWestern Energy spends some of its USB funds on rebates for existing buildings like schools, hospitals and offices. The rebates are available for a variety of measures, like insulating walls or buying energy-efficient water heaters.
For larger projects, the rebate amount increases, although the rebate is often not large enough to justify the expense. For example, on a recent commercial project, I calculated that insulating the exterior walls would cost $6,000, but would only be eligible for a rebate of about $160. That kind of math just doesn't offer the incentives building owners need to save energy.
The USB programs have other problems that result in even more missed opportunities. The current rebates discourage the use of systems with very high energy efficiency, because the utility companies typically consider those systems to be too expensive,To showcase how light bluecrystal1 can be used in various urban environments, Philips has launched the Lighting Experience Center or worse, to save too much energy.Unlike the ccrystall previous generation of submersible LED lights, these ring lights have a number of LED light sources in a circle around a central opening that contains the water jet. The utility companies question why they should spend their USB dollars on a project that would pay for itself anyway.
I understand this logic, but it unnecessarily limits the types of systems that can benefit from the USB program. Rather than using dollars to pay for a small portion of a specific system, USB funds should instead be based on the energy use of the whole building. This would allow building owners and architects the freedom to select the best heating, cooling and lighting systems that meet their needs.
Energy savings could then be calculated for the overall building, and the utility company could fund the project at a level that offered reasonable incentive for the building owner.
There are a lot of USB funds collected in Montana — NorthWestern Energy spent more than $10 million in 2010 alone. Too much of these funds are being spent in ways that may not save any energy, like the $2 CFL coupons. Too often, the USB funds are being offered in such small amounts that new energy savings aren't being created — the funds only help pay for projects that were going to happen anyway.Cleverly combined with bestledlight2011 LED lights and controls, it offers a highly efficient lighting solution throughout the day.
A big purpose of the USB program is to save utility costs through new energy conservation. Let's make sure our utility companies maintain a focus on doing this with an eye toward real, measurable savings.
As an architect interested in energy efficiency,it takes bestledlig to power incandescent light bulbs versus energy-saving CFLs and LEDs utilizing a special hand crank demonstration device. I know that CFLs will put money back into my pocket over the long term, even without a special rebate. Because I would have purchased the CFL anyway, it's inaccurate to count the energy savings from it in the $135 million.
The $135 million in savings isn't just made up of small savings like the $2 coupons. NorthWestern Energy spends some of its USB funds on rebates for existing buildings like schools, hospitals and offices. The rebates are available for a variety of measures, like insulating walls or buying energy-efficient water heaters.
For larger projects, the rebate amount increases, although the rebate is often not large enough to justify the expense. For example, on a recent commercial project, I calculated that insulating the exterior walls would cost $6,000, but would only be eligible for a rebate of about $160. That kind of math just doesn't offer the incentives building owners need to save energy.
The USB programs have other problems that result in even more missed opportunities. The current rebates discourage the use of systems with very high energy efficiency, because the utility companies typically consider those systems to be too expensive,To showcase how light bluecrystal1 can be used in various urban environments, Philips has launched the Lighting Experience Center or worse, to save too much energy.Unlike the ccrystall previous generation of submersible LED lights, these ring lights have a number of LED light sources in a circle around a central opening that contains the water jet. The utility companies question why they should spend their USB dollars on a project that would pay for itself anyway.
I understand this logic, but it unnecessarily limits the types of systems that can benefit from the USB program. Rather than using dollars to pay for a small portion of a specific system, USB funds should instead be based on the energy use of the whole building. This would allow building owners and architects the freedom to select the best heating, cooling and lighting systems that meet their needs.
Energy savings could then be calculated for the overall building, and the utility company could fund the project at a level that offered reasonable incentive for the building owner.
There are a lot of USB funds collected in Montana — NorthWestern Energy spent more than $10 million in 2010 alone. Too much of these funds are being spent in ways that may not save any energy, like the $2 CFL coupons. Too often, the USB funds are being offered in such small amounts that new energy savings aren't being created — the funds only help pay for projects that were going to happen anyway.Cleverly combined with bestledlight2011 LED lights and controls, it offers a highly efficient lighting solution throughout the day.
A big purpose of the USB program is to save utility costs through new energy conservation. Let's make sure our utility companies maintain a focus on doing this with an eye toward real, measurable savings.
沒有留言:
張貼留言