2015/12/18

MORAL DIMENSIONS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY




In the recently held Clean Asia Energy Forum sponsored by the Asian Development Bank, speakers strongly recommended greater investments in clean energy and energy efficiency to meet rising Asian demand while limiting the impact of climate change. An optimistic view was taken by Bindu Lohani, ADB vice-president for knowledge and management and sustainable development. He pointed out that renewables are becoming more competitive as technology progresses but lamented the fact that the low hanging fruit of energy efficiency is not being sufficiently pushed in Asia. He told the audience not to be deterred by the current low prices of oil and other fossil fuels. Given the history of great volatility of oil prices in the past, he surmised that “low prices will end even if we do not know when.” On the other hand renewables continue to experience rapid development and prices can only go down in the long run.

A local group called the Philippine Solar Power Alliance (PSPA) shares the optimism of Mr. Lohani. The group, which consists of the country’s solar power developers, signified their intention to the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) to build as much as 2,000 MW of solar power projects in the country over the long run. Predictably, the group has set as a condition certain innovations on the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) scheme, a framework under which the Department of Energy offers long-term contracts and guaranteed pricing to renewable energy firms. One of their requests is for FIT not to be based on output since in some countries like Germany, with solar power becoming cheaper and more competitive, the government has shifted to incentivizing batteries for solar power storage, which can also benefit all sources of energy, whether renewable or not.

ADB announced that since the Asia Clean energy Forum started nine years ago, clear energy investments in Asia and the Pacific have risen to some $106 billion in 2013. It added that new mechanisms to spur clean energy have become more common. Among these are renewable portfolio standards, feed-in-tariffs, and concessional fundings for clean energy projects. ADB has increased its own financing for cleaner energy from only $280 million in 2005 to $2.4 billion in 2014. Despite these efforts, however, 600 million in Asia still lack access to electricity and dependency on fossil fuel remains high.

Worldwide the trend is no different. According to economist Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (June 24, 2015), the latest Statistical Review of World Energy of British Petroleum shows that global demand for commercial energy continues to grow, largely driven by growth of emerging countries, despite improvements in energy efficiency. Moreover, fossil fuels still meet bulk of the demand. In 2014, renewables contributed just over 2 percent of global primary energy consumption. Together, nuclear power, hydroelectricity, and renewable contributed merely 14 percent.

According to a report entitled “A Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change,” written by a number of high-profile British scientists and economists, there is a need to generate a technological revolution. They argue that this will require rapid technological advances. Some progress is being achieved, notably the collapse in the price of photovoltaic panels. Much more have to be done, however. Publicly-funded research is under 2 percent of all publicly-funded R&D or only $6 billion, which is dwarfed by the $101 billion spent on subsidies for renewable production and the humongous $550 billion used to subsidize fossil fuel production and consumption. As Mr. Wolf wrote: “This is a grotesque picture. Far more money needs to go to publicly funded research. The public sector has long played a vital role in funding scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this case, that role is particularly important, given the agreed goal of reducing emissions and the fact that the energy sector spends relatively little on R&D.”

These considerations bring us to the recently published Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis entitled “Laudato Si” (On Care For Our Common Home). Contrary to the views of some conservative critics, this document does not purport to settle the issue on whether or not it is human behavior that is the main cause of climate change. It is still open to the view that climate change could be in large part explained by non-human causes. It nevertheless recognizes the obvious fact that at the micro level, there are decisions by business people that do not sufficiently take into account their adverse impact on the climate.

No one can argue with this fundamentally moral assessment of the actions of some industrialists: “An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demand the transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favors, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for a full debate (par. 182)…Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or program. It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure.” (To be continued).

Villegas, B. M. (November 16).  Moral dimensions of renewable energy (Part I). Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/moral-dimensions-of-renewable-energy-part-i/

Whenever business people or policy makers justify the use of fossil fuels like petroleum or coal in the generation of electricity, there is always the major argument that these sources of energy are still the cheapest way of producing goods or services and of generating employment, especially for a developing economy.  These arguments, however, do not take into account the following moral guideline contained in Laudato Si:  “In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future, decisions must be made ‘based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives’.  This is especially the case when a project may lead to a greater use of natural resources, higher levels of emission or discharge, an increase of refuse, or significant changes to the landscape, the habitats of protected species or public spaces.  Some projects if insufficiently studied, can profoundly affect the quality of life of an area due to very different factors such as unforeseen noise pollution, the shrinking of visual horizons, the loss of cultural values, or the effects of nuclear energy use.  The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal information.”

Implicit to these guidelines is the very important moral principle of double effect.  Whenever there are actions which are good in themselves (such as producing certain goods or services to meet the needs of consumers) but which have negative side effects (such as pollution), a number of conditions have been specified by moral philosophers to determine whether such an action with a negative side effect is ethically licit. One of the leading business ethicists in the world, Dr. Domenec Mele of the IESE Business School, has written several books in which these conditions are enumerated (Business Ethics in Action, Palgrave, Macmillan, 2009).

These conditions are:  (1) There is no better acceptable alternative.  At times, with a little creativity and professional competence, the decision makers can come up with a better alternative than “do this” or “do nothing.”  (2)  There is a just cause for the decision.  This is generally present in any legitimate business involved in the production of goods or services for the market.  (3)  The action itself is not intrinsically wrong.  Again, this condition is easy to comply with in any legitimate business.  (4)  The bad effects are proportionate to the necessity of the action or decision.  Are the goods produced by the polluting technology really of greater human value to the public than the damage to the environment now and in the future.  Basic goods such as food, water, education, health for the masses may warrant the toleration of some environmental pollution.  On the other hand, if most of the goods produced are for the satisfaction of non-basic and frivolous consumption of the affluent, this condition may not be fulfilled.  An analogous case involving the destruction of the environment is the production of sophisticated personal care products for the higher-income markets from palm oil produced by cutting virgin forests.  (5) Reasonable means will be employed to minimize negative secondary effects. This is especially applicable to the renewable energy sector.  As discussed above, both the private sector and the Government must do everything possible to fund research on sources of energy that do not lead to the destruction of the environment.  (6)  “The purpose of monitoring and evaluating the situation periodically.  Circumstances can change and, inasmuch as there are negative effects, practical wisdom requires period monitoring and evaluation to establish whether the situation has persisted and to ensure that the means to minimize negative effects are being implemented correctly, or whether they might be enhanced, perhaps, by technological updates.”  Without doubt, this fits to a T the issue of solar in which, as mentioned above, prices of photovoltaic cells are dropping precipitously and enhancing technologies like battery plants for the storage of solar energy are becoming more sophisticated.  (7) Take steps to find some alternative that avoids actions with double effects in the future.  This again reiterates the need to devote more funding to Research and Development into renewable sources of energy.

We need more leaders in the energy sector who are really committed to the common good of society, over and above pursuing profits for the investors and higher salaries for themselves.

We also need policy makers and regulators in the public sector who truly understand the delicate balance between the advantages of a market approach to the delivery of electricity and other energy products to the public and the indispensable role of the State in incentivizing the appropriate investments (for example, in batteries for the storage of solar or wind energy) and in ensuring that there is no monopoly or oligopoly power that existing players are able to capture in any of the stages of energy production, transmission, distribution, and retail. The energy sector is too crucial in attaining integral human development to leave completely in the hands of free market forces.

Villegas, B. M. (November 16).  Moral dimensions of renewable energy (Part I). Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/moral-dimensions-of-renewable-energy-part-i/

Villegas, B. M. (November 23). Moral dimensions of renewable energy (Part II). Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/moral-dimensions-of-renewable-energy/

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS WILL HELP HOLD BACK CLIMATE CHANGE



The Philippine business community signed last October the 2015 Manila Declaration in support of the government program on climate change. Specifically, the Declaration backed the government’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the Philippines’ comprehensive climate change agenda which it has now submitted to the ongoing United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris, France. The Philippines set a national goal of reducing the nation’s carbon emissions by 70 percent by 2030.

In that Business Summit in October, the country’s business leaders acknowledged climate change as a threat to mankind, voiced their expectations of action from the government, and declared their own commitment to combat climate change.

Last week, in a meeting of some 50 leaders of Philippine business and industry, Commissioner Heherson Alvarez of the Climate Change Commission (CCC) proposed a concrete goal for them. He urged them to reduce their current energy usage by 2 percent per annum, replacing this with some form of renewable energy such as wind or solar. He specifically urged them to install 100 kilowatts of solar or any other altenative energy in their establishments in the next three years.

In recent months, various forms of renewable energy have become available in the Philippines. In Ilocos Norte, windmills are now generating power for the region. Right in Metro Manila, the big business conglomerate SM has installed solar panels on the roof of SM North EDSA in Quezon City, one of the three biggest malls in the country, to provide some of its energy needs.

Starting Friday, December 4, Valenzuela Mayor Rexlon Gatchalian announced, the country’s biggest solar farm, a former fishpond area in barangay Isla, will start supplying energy to Meralco. The 11-hectare solar firm has 32,692 solar panels that generate 8.6 megawatts of electricity a day – enough for the needs of over 6,000 households.

These are concrete steps being taken to reduce carbon emissions by reducing the need for the power normally produced by coal-fired plants in the country. The business leaders addressed by Commissioner Alvarez last week can make their own valuable contributions. Even households can help; some have installed their own solar panels to reduce their reliance on the usual power supply.

The ongoing Paris conference will seek to forge an agreement among all the countries of the world to contribute all they possibly can to the global effort against climate change. Ultimately, it is the people within these countries who must carry out the national plans and programs that will make up the global effort to save our planet Earth. The Philippine business community signed last October the 2015 Manila Declaration in support of the government program on climate change. Specifically, the Declaration backed the government’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the Philippines’ comprehensive climate change agenda which it has now submitted to the ongoing United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris, France. The Philippines set a national goal of reducing the nation’s carbon emissions by 70 percent by 2030.

In that Business Summit in October, the country’s business leaders acknowledged climate change as a threat to mankind, voiced their expectations of action from the government, and declared their own commitment to combat climate change.

Last week, in a meeting of some 50 leaders of Philippine business and industry, Commissioner Heherson Alvarez of the Climate Change Commission (CCC) proposed a concrete goal for them. He urged them to reduce their current energy usage by 2 percent per annum, replacing this with some form of renewable energy such as wind or solar. He specifically urged them to install 100 kilowatts of solar or any other altenative energy in their establishments in the next three years.

In recent months, various forms of renewable energy have become available in the Philippines. In Ilocos Norte, windmills are now generating power for the region. Right in Metro Manila, the big business conglomerate SM has installed solar panels on the roof of SM North EDSA in Quezon City, one of the three biggest malls in the country, to provide some of its energy needs.

Starting Friday, December 4, Valenzuela Mayor Rexlon Gatchalian announced, the country’s biggest solar farm, a former fishpond area in barangay Isla, will start supplying energy to Meralco. The 11-hectare solar firm has 32,692 solar panels that generate 8.6 megawatts of electricity a day – enough for the needs of over 6,000 households.

These are concrete steps being taken to reduce carbon emissions by reducing the need for the power normally produced by coal-fired plants in the country. The business leaders addressed by Commissioner Alvarez last week can make their own valuable contributions. Even households can help; some have installed their own solar panels to reduce their reliance on the usual power supply.

The ongoing Paris conference will seek to forge an agreement among all the countries of the world to contribute all they possibly can to the global effort against climate change. Ultimately, it is the people within these countries who must carry out the national plans and programs that will make up the global effort to save our planet Earth.

Reference:
MB (December 2).  Editorial: Renewable energy projects will help hold back climate change. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/editorial-renewable-energy-projects-will-help-hold-back-climate-change/


CLEAR GOVT POLICIES KEY TO REAPING REWARDS OF RE LAW

CLEAR GOVT POLICIES KEY TO REAPING REWARDS OF RE LAW

THE National Grid Corp. of the Philippines (NGCP) stressed the importance of the government’s role in reaping the benefits of the seven-year-old renewable-energy (RE) law.
NGCP President and CEO Henry Sy Jr. said the enforcement of government policies is as important as the investments poured in by the private sector.

“Much has been said about the benefits of renewable energy, most especially in developing countries like the Philippines. However, for us to reap the benefits of renewable energy, we need more than investments on power plants, transmission facilities and other infrastructure. Clear policies, stringent regulation and commensurate incentives are equally important in the
effective implementation of the RE law,” Sy said during the Philippine Energy Summit last week. RE was among the issues discussed during the summit held on Friday.

In December 2008 the Philippines enacted Republic Act (RA) 9513, also known as the Renewable Energy Act of 2008. The law affirmed the government’s commitment to accelerate the exploration and development of Philippine RE resources. RA 9513 declared the state’s policy to achieve energy security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and minimizing exposure to price fluctuations in oil markets. The government agencies tasked to implement the law include the Department of Energy, the Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Renewable Energy Board.

RA 9513 also seeks to increase the utilization of RE resources by developing national and local capabilities in the use of RE systems, and promoting their efficient and effective application by offering fiscal and nonfiscal incentives.

These incentives include: income-tax holiday; duty-free importation of renewable machinery, equipment and materials; special realty tax rates; net operating loss carryover; corporate tax rate of 10 percent; accelerated depreciation of plant, machinery and equipment; zero-percent value-added tax rate; tax exemption on carbon credits; and cash incentive for missionary electrification. Industry stakeholders, however, are still facing tough challenges, including high up-front cost and technologies, and inaccessible financial packages.

Sy said open dialogue and exchange are very essential in an industry, such as the power sector, that is composed of varied stakeholders with different interests. “It is high time that industry players start the conversations going and work toward cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, and toward a successful and competitive energy industry that is at par with, if not better than, Asean counterparts,” Sy said.

“Today, we take a look at the opportunities that the Philippine power industry faces, starting with the rapidly changing global energy outlook; the possibility of one Asean grid; the prospects for gas and its emergent role in the generation sector; and the direction we need to take to improve and maximize the spot market,” he added.

Last month the Department of Energy  reported that it has awarded 616 RE contracts to date. As of end-October this year, the agency said that these contracts have a potential generation capacity of 12,128.30 megawatts (MW) as against a total installed capacity of 2,950.86MW.

Reference:
Lectura, L. (December 14). ‘Clear govt policies key to reaping rewards of RE law’. Business Mirror. Retrieved from http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/clear-govt-policies-key-to-reaping-rewards-of-re-law/

2015/12/02

FOSSIL FUEL FOLLIES

Below is opinion piece in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

It tackles on the continued financing of fossil fuel base power generation technologies.

The financing for fossil fuel base power generation should now be limited and funding must find it's way into renewable energy sources such as Solar and Wind (our opinion). 


***
BERLIN—If the world is to avoid climate catastrophe, it will have to forego burning almost 90 percent of proven coal reserves, plus one-third of oil and half of natural-gas reserves. But instead of implementing policies aimed at realizing that objective, governments continue not only to subsidize the fossil-fuel industry, but also to use scarce public resources to find new reserves. That has to change—and fast.

In an effort to help spur that change, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and Friends of the Earth International have aggregated key data about the coal industry in the just-released Coal Atlas. The figures are striking.

According to the International Monetary Fund, post-tax subsidies for coal (including environmental damage) reached 3.9 percent of global GDP this year. G20 governments are estimated to spend $88 billion per year on exploration subsidies for new fossil fuels. And a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, and the World Wide Fund for Nature revealed that from 2007 to 2014, governments channeled more than $73 billion—or over $9 billion per year—of public money toward coal projects. Leading the way were Japan ($20 billion), China (around $15 billion), South Korea ($7 billion), and Germany ($6.8 billion).

Reference:
Fuhr, L. (November 26). Fossil fuel follies. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/90641/fossil-fuel-follies

2015/11/25

Excess energy to home grid-storage system

On grid solar set up in the Philippines is still at it's infancy state. The net metering scheme or set-up is relatively new and is mostly applied for home roof top systems.

Net metering scheme mandates the distribution utility (DU) to credit the net energy exported by the on-grid solar power system in the roof during low demand (day time). Net energy only arises when the solar power generation system generates more electricity than the household consumes. When we say credit, this means monetary i.e. Peso equivalent of the energy exported into the grid. The rate of credit is equivalent to generation charges of the distribution utility. So if the DU generation charge is Php6 per kW-hr, that will be the credit rate for every kW-hr exported to the grid. Sounds fair?

Not so. Not so because if instead of exporting the excess energy the household uses/consumes it, then the monetary value should be equal to the power rate per kW-hr by the DU. The average power rate is around Php10 per kW-h. This means that for every kW-hr exported to the grid, the system owner loses Php4 or whatever the difference of the generation charge and power rate.

It is advisable for home owners to consult with system providers like EastGreenfields the proper size of the on-grid system that will optimize the cost of the system. Only if the full generated energy is used 100% by the home owner the system gives its full value and fast ROI. But if the system exports too much of it's excess energy then the ROI takes longer time to recover.

Enter the small scale grid storage options...

What if using the excess energy is use to charge the batteries for use at night (lights and to power not so heavy loads like desk top or lap tops and LED TV sets for 4 hours) rather than exporting it.

EastGreenfields will be introducing the home base on-grid storage in 2016 and we are very excited. We will be testing the pilot project in Q1 of 2016, and we will introduce to the market after our own testing and adjustments.



We will be introducing 500 watts to 2000 watts on-grid battery storage system.

Watch us out!



2015/11/19

POTUS Talks about climate change during the APEC 2015 in Manila

POTUS Talks about climate change during the APEC 2015 in Manila.

As a company EastGreenfields is all geared up to face the challenge and provide solutions combat climate change.

Visit us www.eastgreenfields.com or email us: inquiry@eastgreenfields.com, and lets discuss in deeper detail how we can help you save the environment.



http://fortune.com/2015/11/18/obama-interviews-jack-ma-at-apec-about-climate-change/

2015/04/30

ERC approves new rate for solar projects

ERC approves new rate for solar projects
By Alena Mae S. Flores

The Energy Regulatory Commission approved a solar feed-in tariff of P8.69 per kilowatt for an additional capacity of 450 megawatts.

ERC said it based the new rate on total project cost, engineering, construction and procurement cost, net capacity factor, switchyard and transformers, transmission interconnection cost, equity internal rate of return, peso and dollar exchange rate, inflation and consumer price index.

The regulator said in a resolution solar plants commissioned prior to the new solar feed-in tariff rate would continue to enjoy the original feed-in tariff rate of P9.68 per kWh.

The additional 450 MW brought the solar installation in the country to 500 MW.  Only solar projects that qualified for the first 50 MW and endorsed by the Energy Department would qualify for the original rate.

“It shall be effective immediately after the publication of the resolution adopting the same. To align the same with the DOE’s certification dated April 30, 2014, the new solar FIT shall be valued until March 15, 2016,” ERC said in a decision.

The agency said it computed the total plant cost for solar at $1.958 million per megawatt, or within the capital costs of ground mounted solar plants based on the report of REN21 entitled Renewables 2014 Global Status Report.

The National Renewable Energy Board earlier proposed a feed-in tariff rate of less than P9.10 per kWh for the additional 450-MW solar installation.

NREB vice chairman Ernesto Pantangco earlier said many solar developments had applied for feed-in tariff rates, or the preferential rates for renewable energy projects.

NREB is the implementing agency of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008, which ushered in the entry of renewable energy power projects in the country.

2015/03/27

Earth Day - Carbon dioxide emission 2014

While March 28 2015 is designated as 2015 Earth day, it is high time during this event to know about the carbon dioxide emission that each of us contributed every time we switch on every bulb, television, computers and charging our cellphones.

Carbon dioxide is a leading green house gas that warms our planet to unprecedented levels. The level of annual temperature increase already leads to climate pattern disturbances that includes cyclones, super typhoons, drought, rising of sea level, remember super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) in 2013, it is attributed to global warming.

In 2014, Meralco has distributed a total of 30,611.85 Giga watt hours of electricity within Metro Manila, parts of Bulacan, Cavite, Rizal, Quezon Laguna and Batangas. Do you know how much of this electricity was produce using fossil fuels and how much was produce using earth friendly (renewables) means? When we say about renewables that means energy from geothermal, hydro, wind, biomass, solar and biodiesel. Renewables are carbon neutral and does not contribute to global warming.





So who are the electricity generation plant source for Meralco in 2014?




And what are the fossil fuel type used by electricity generators that Meralco distributed in in 2014?



Meralco source it's 2% of distributed electricity in 2014 from renewable energy sources. Meralco sourced it's RE electricity from San Roque hydro electric from San Miguel Corp, WESM (Wholesale Electricity Spot Market) and from its own embedded customers like those from solar roof tops, biomass plant, landfill gas plants in Payatas and Montalban.




Electricity derived from hydro electric plant is the largest renewable energy contributed to Meralco. 

While WESM has several type of renewable energy, its renewable energy contribution to Meralco is 291.40 GWH. The fossil based electricity contributed by WESM to Meralco is 1,046.74 GWH.




The renewable energy technology contributed by WESM are geothermal, hydro, wind and biodiesel. These technology are carbon neutral or non CO2 emitting technology. Biodeisel contributed 2 GWH, Geothermal 172 GWH, Hydro electric 113 GWH and Wind 2.94 GWH. 



Do you know that in 2014 for every kWh of electricity we used, we contributed 0.59 kg of CO2.

So if each one of us uses 720 kWh per year, that means 177 kg of CO2 release into the air. 

Typical Filipino household consumes 300 kWh per month, that means 3600 kWh per year and CO2 emission of 2,124 kg CO2.

Do you know that each mature tree (5 years old and above) absorbs 23 kg of CO2. That means for each year if your household has an emission of 2,124 kg CO2 and you need to have at least 92 trees! 

Ask yourselves, did you plant 31 trees last year to offset your CO2 emission? Think about the environment each time you switch on that bulb, or the time spent playing computers or watching TV... each activity contribute to green house emission.

So how would you celebrate earth day in 2015? And how would you reduce your electricity consumption to help reduce the green house gas emission?


sources: Meralco website, WESM website and UN IEA website (for CO2 factor emission)

This blog was created with Metro Manila electricity consumption and its carbon emission in mind. 

































2015/03/21

Philippine consumer net metering experience

Philippine consumer net metering experience

This blog entry is about the QE (Qualified End-user) experience after installation of a Photovoltaic Generation system.

The installation is located south of Metro Manila Philippines. 

The installation is composed of 3 arrays:

2x 230 watts Canadian Solar PV module driven by micro inverter.
3x 235 watts Yingli PV module driven by micro inverter.
5x 250 watts Yingli PV module driven by a string inverter.

The total name plate capacity of the system  is 2,415 watts-peak.

History of the installation:

The installation started with 2x 230 watts array in early 2012.(http://www.eastgreenfields.com/solen-project)

The installation (lets now call it Project) was not expanded since Net Metering is not yet in place. Net Metering implementing rules and regulation (IRR) was only approved in late 2013.

The project was applied for net metering connection in 4th quarter of 2013, and was finally commissioned on July 2014.

When energized the total nameplate capacity was increased to 1,165 watts-peak. The Project capacity was further increased to 2,415 watts-peak as of mid-February 2015.

The electricity usage since the Project was approved for net metering increases, and the last 12 months average decreases. This means that the household now have extra electricity to power the appliances, while the import energy practically remains the same. Refer to graph below:




The last 12 months import average decreases while the actual load demand increases, this means more available energy for use generated from PV system. 




From July 2014 (when net metering starts) up to mid-February 2015 (before expansion to 2415 watts-peak capacity) the own use against exported energy is higher, but when the expansion system was put on-line the export energy is now higher than the own use energy.





Actual bill payment decrease as export credit increases.




Graph  shows the overview of the Project with the actual data from Meralco billing record.






Savings from actual load (usage of electricity without solar) ranges from 16% to 34% during the first 7 months of the Project with a capacity of 1165 watt-p system. The savings from actual load rises up to 63% when the system was expanded to 2415 watt-p capacity.



Following scan copy of the actual Meralco Bills...
















2015/03/17

Farm wastes as sources of renewable energy


By Rudy Romero
Manila Standard Today (online) 

Whenever they ponder alternative energy sources, most people usually think of energy derived from geothermal resources, the sun, wind and waves. They hardly ever think of a renewable energy source that, because of the abundance of its raw material, is one of the least expensive alternatives to oil. I am referring to methane gas derived from animal wastes.

Sometime in the 1980s, when I was doing investment-banking-type work, I was introduced to a German company that specialized in energy projects powered by methane gas generated from farm wastes. The company was looking for a Philippine partner for a methane gas project, with technology as their contribution thereto. Unfortunately, with Filipino alternative-energy mindsets oriented at that time towards geothermal and solar power, I was unable to package a project for the German company.

The technology for generating energy from farm wastes is relatively uncomplicated. Farm wastes – fecal matter from farm animals as well as residue from coconut and crop stalks – are collected, mixed and placed in containers so as to generate methane gas, which then goes into small turbines to produce electricity. The German executives said that with the methane gas generated by its animal and crop wastes, an average Philippine farm would be able to produce enough energy to light up the farmhouse and drive appliances and farm implements.

Given the promise that it offers, it is a great pity that renewable energy from farm wastes has not yet attracted many investors. As already pointed out, the needed raw materials are abundant in Philippine farms. This makes the production cost of farm-waste-generated methane gas probably the lowest among renewable energy sources.

A steady rise in the share of methane gas in total renewable-energy supply is not going to just happen. Much proselytizing will have to be undertaken by both the government and the private sector.

On the government side, the Department of Energy obviously will be the lead agency. More specifically, it is the Energy Development Corporation that will have to be in the forefront of development of a farm-waste-based methane gas industry. Because farm wastes are involved, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Agrarian Reform also will have to play major roles in the effort. The Department of Science and Technology also will be a key player.

On the private-sector side, it is the agricultural-industry organizations that will have to be depended upon to spread the message about the attractiveness of farm wastes as a source of energy. Particularly important will be the farmers’ and farm workers’ organizations in the coconut, sugar, rice and corn industries. These industries account for most of the farm wastes in this country. For the sugar and coconut industries the farmers’ organizations concerned are the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters and the Philippine Coconut Federation, respectively.

Just how abundant and powerful methane gas can be as a source of renewable energy can be seen from the gas fumes emanating from city and municipal garbage dumps. Before it was redeveloped, Smokey Mountain used to emit a lot of methane gas from all the recyclable and non-recyclable wastes dumped there by the local authorities. Indeed, small flames would erupt when mistakes were thrown at the dumps.

A vibrant methane gas industry based on farm wastes: that is something to be fervently wished for. It can happen. For the more stable development of the Philippine countryside and the rapid progress of the Filipino farmer, it should happen.

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/03/17/farm-wastes-as-sources-of-renewable-energy/

2015/03/16

Solar Power 101: Getting Started with Solar Electricity

Getting Started with Solar Electricity

Part 4 of 4 Series

From HP online magazine

With grid-tied PV systems becoming more and more popular, it is important for RE professionals and system owners alike to have realistic expectations of their systems’ performance. Solar-electric power production can be affected by several factors. Orientation, array tilt, seasonal adjustments, and array siting can all affect the bottom line. Proper planning and smart design will help you get the most out of your PV system and improve your rate of return. Installing modules in a sunny, shade-free spot and pointing them toward the sun could be considered common sense to many, but properly orienting and tilting your array for optimal performance is not as intuitive. A PV array’s output is proportional to the direct sunlight it receives. Even though PV modules produce some energy in a shady location or without ideal orientation, system costs are high enough that most will want to maximize energy yield. Regardless of how well a system is designed, improper installation can result in poor performance. PV systems should operate for decades, and the materials and methods to install them should be selected accordingly.

Should you install your system or hire a licensed professional to do the work? What skills and tools do you need to tackle a home-scale PV project? How much will you save if you install the system yourself? We frequently get questions like these from Home Power readers. Rather than defaulting to the obvious answer, “it depends,” we explore a long list of variables you should thoughtfully consider before tackling the design and installation of your PV system. Owner installation is definitely not for everyone. Like any home improvement project, it’s important to realistically assess your skills, and weigh the benefits and potential pitfalls. Installing a PV system certainly isn’t rocket science, but doing it well and safely requires experience working with electrical systems, some serious research, and plenty of sound advice. The installation of most residential PV systems is usually better left to the pros, but if you have the right set of skills and expectations, installing your own system can be a realistic goal.

Solar Power 101: How to Implement Solar Electricity

How to Implement Solar Electricity

Part 3 of 4 Series

From HP Online Magazine

As discussed in Step 1, there are several different applications for PV systems. Which system is right for you depends on your particular situation and RE goals. Due to available incentive programs and the simplistic nature of batteryless grid-tied PV systems, they are the most common type of system installed in the United States today. Here is a checklist to see if this type of system might work for you:

Interested in clean power? Check.
Already on the grid? Check.
Infrequent utility outages? Check.
Have a sunny location to mount PV modules? Check.
If this describes your situation, then a batteryless grid-tied PV system could be the perfect fit. Compared to their off-grid counterparts, batteryless grid- tied systems are simple to understand and design, with only two primary components: PV modules and an inverter that feeds AC electricity back into the electrical system to offset some or all of the electricity otherwise purchased from the utility. These systems are cheaper, easier to install and maintain, and operate more efficiently than battery-based systems of comparable size. Their main drawback is that when the grid goes down, they cannot provide any energy for you to use. If the grid in your area is mostly reliable and outages are infrequent, these systems can offer the best payback for the least price.

The primary goal of a grid-tied PV system is to offset all or some of your electricity usage. Yet the first step in going solar is not sizing the PV system, but reducing electricity usage through conservation and efficiency measures. Once energy-efficiency and conservation measures have been implemented, you’re ready to size a PV system to offset the remaining energy usage. Annual energy use figures can be requested from your utility, and these values can be used to determine the PV array size. However, there are a few other considerations that will impact PV system size. In residential areas especially, a primary constraint to PV array sizing can be the size of the available shade-free mounting area. PV modules can be mounted on a roof, the ground, or a pole (which includes trackers). Regardless of which mounting method is used, the shade-free area, minus clearance needed for maintenance or roof setbacks required by local fire department guidelines, will limit how large the array can be. In the case of roof-mounted systems, typically 50% to 80% of a roof plane will be available for mounting PV modules. Often the most confining consideration is budget. Currently (early 2012), the cost per installed watt of residential PV systems ranges from $5 to $8, which includes everything—modules, inverter, disconnects, racking, wire, and conduit to taxes, shipping, installation labor, and permitting. Reducing the cost is the uncapped 30% federal tax credit. Additionally, many individual states, municipalities, and utilities offer rebates that can further offset a PV system’s cost. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE; www.dsireusa.org) organizes incentive programs by state and program type, making incentives easy to research.

Off-Grid Systems: Living off the grid is a romantic ambition for some; a practical necessity for others. But whatever your motivation for off-grid living, cutting the electrical umbilical cord from the utility shouldn’t be taken lightly. Before you pull out the calculator, size up the realities and challenges of living off the grid. Designing a stand-alone PV system differs substantially from designing a batteryless grid-direct system. Instead of meeting the home’s annual demand, a stand-alone system must be able to meet energy requirements every day of the year. Determining the home’s daily and seasonal energy usage, along with considering the daily and seasonal availability of the sun, allows designers to estimate the PV array and battery bank size, and charge controller and inverter specifications. 

Solar Power 101: Why Use Solar Electricity?

Why Use Solar Electricity?

Part 2 of 4 Series

From HP Online Magazine

When we consider the true cost of energy, we need to look at the big picture, not just the rate on the utility bill. Conventional fuels have real social, environmental, and economic impacts. There are annual and cumulative costs that stem from all of the pollutants (airborne, solid, and liquid) emitted from mining, processing, and transporting fossil fuels that impact our public health and the environment. Electricity derived from coal and natural gas will never be able to outweigh the energy and continual resources required to produce it. Unlike conventional energy sources, PV systems produce clean electricity for decades after achieving their energy payback in three or fewer years—this is truly the magic of PV technology.

Grid electricity is paid for as you use it, with payments stretching out forever. In contrast, the majority of PV system expenses are paid for at the time the system is installed. After that, the energy is essentially free. In strictly economic terms, the rate of return for your PV system depends on three things—solar resource; electricity prices; and state policies or incentives. While many utilities sell electricity at affordable rates, inflation as well as energy price history and forecasts indicate price increases in our future, which will make RE systems’ payback even quicker. Historical data reported by the Edison Electric Institute shows that from 1929 to 2005, the average annual price increase for electricity has been 2.94% per year. And according to the Energy Information Administration’s June 2008 Short Term Energy Outlook, utility rates are projected to increase by an average of 3.7% in 2008 and by another 3.6% in 2009. Federal tax credits for renewable energy systems are available, reducing a RE system’s cost, and many states, regions, and utilities also offer substantial rebates, performance-based incentives, tax credits, tax exemptions, loans, and other economic incentives for solar-electric systems.

Independence is chief among the reasons for wanting an off-grid PV system where the grid is available. Off-grid systems are not subject to the terms or policies of the local utility, nor are system owners subjected to rate increases, blackouts, or brownouts. If you’re shopping for rural property, you’ll probably find that off-grid parcels are less expensive. Being off-grid can also be cheaper than getting a utility line extended to a property.

When weighing the energy options (between the grid and solar, wind or water sources) it becomes apparent that solar energy is a very democratic form of energy. Because the sun shines everywhere, the potential to utilize solar energy is available to everyone. Additionally, as compared to generators (gas, or even wind- or hydro-powered ones), because PV systems have no moving parts, they are extremely reliable and require very little maintenance.

Solar Power 101: Basics

Solar Electricity Basics
Part 1 of 4 Series

From Home Power (HP Online Magazine)

What is Solar Electricity?

Photovoltaic (PV) modules make electricity from sunlight, and are marvelously simple, effective, and durable. They sit in the sun and, with no moving parts, can run your appliances, charge your batteries, or make energy for the utility grid.

A PV array is the energy collector—the solar “generator” and does so via the photovoltaic effect. Discovered in 1839 by French physicist Alexandre-Edmund Becquerel, the photovoltaic effect describes the way in which PV cells create electricity from the energy residing in photons of sunlight. When sunlight hits a PV cell, the cell absorbs some of the photons and the photons’ energy is transferred to an electron in the semiconductor material. With the energy from the photon, the electron can escape its usual position in the semiconductor atom to become part of the current in an electrical circuit.

Most PV cells fall into one of two basic categories: crystalline silicon or thin-film. Crystalline silicon modules can be fashioned from either monocrystalline, multicrystalline, or ribbon silicon. Thin-film is a term encompassing a range of different technologies, including amorphous silicon, and a host of variations using other semiconductors like cadmium telluride or CIGS (copper indium gallium diselenide). Thin-film technology generates a lot of the current R&D chatter, but crystalline modules currently capture more than 80% of the marketplace.

To use the energy from the array, you may also need other components, such as inverters, charge controllers and batteries, which make up a solar-electric system. The components required are dependent on the system type designed. System types include:

PV-DIRECT SYSTEMS: These are the simplest of solar-electric systems, with the fewest components (basically the PV array and the load). Because they don’t have batteries and are not hooked up to the utility, they only power the loads when the sun is shining. This means that they are only appropriate for a few select applications, notably water pumping and ventilation—when the sun shines, the fan or pump runs.

OFF-GRID SYSTEMS: Although they are most common in remote locations without utility service, off-grid solar-electric systems can work anywhere. These systems operate independently from the grid to provide all of a household’s electricity. These systems require a battery bank to store the solar electricity for use during nighttime or cloudy weather, a charge controller to protect the battery bank from overcharge, an inverter to convert the DC PV array power to AC for use with AC household appliances, and all the required disconnects, monitoring, and associated electrical safety gear.

GRID-TIED SYSTEMS WITH BATTERY BACKUP: This type is very similar to an off-grid system in design and components, but adds the utility grid, which reduces the need for the system to provide all the energy all the time.

BATTERYLESS GRID-TIED SYSTEMS: These most common PV systems are also known as on-grid, grid-tied, utility-interactive, grid-intertied, or grid-direct. They generate solar electricity and route it to the loads and to the electric utility grid, offsetting a home’s or business’s electricity usage. System components are simply comprised of the PV array, inverter(s), and required electrical safety gear (i.e., fuses/breakers/disconnects/monitoring). Living with a grid-connected solar-electric system is no different than living with utility electricity, except that some or all of the electricity you use comes from the sun. (The drawback of these batteryless systems is that they provide no outage protection—when the utility grid fails, these systems cannot operate.)





2015/03/11

Efficient Home Lighting Choices


By: Chris Calwell
HP Online

Instead of trying to put a CFL in every socket, savvy homeowners interested in energy efficiency are increasingly pursuing a more nuanced strategy: Choose the right technology for each application to deliver optimal performance and cost-effective energy savings.

Understanding Lighting Terminology

The most familiar (but perhaps the least useful) way of comparing lightbulbs to each other is wattage, which tells you how much power is consumed but tells you nothing about how much light the bulbs will provide—or whether you will like their light quality. Other key terms include:

Wattage Equivalent. Most energy-saving lightbulbs claim wattage equivalent, often in bold, colorful text at the top of the package. Ignore this! The federal government declined to regulate how manufacturers calculate and report wattage equivalency, so the claims products make are all over the map and often deceptive. It’s smarter to shop on the basis of measured light output instead (see the “Lumens Equivalent” table for comparative information).

Lumens are the measure of the absolute amount of light a bulb provides. An integrating sphere is one measuring tool that’s used. It first captures the bulb’s total light output in all directions across all the different wavelengths of light. Then it weights the resulting values to reflect the human eye’s sensitivity to each wavelength, summing up all the weighted values to give an overall measure of “useful” light output. Dim bulbs may only deliver 200 lumens or so, while really bright ones can deliver 2,500 lumens or more.

Efficiency. If one lighting technology can deliver more lumens of light per watt of power consumed, it is said to be more energy efficient. Lumens per watt is the figure of merit for efficiency, but that almost never appears on product labeling or packaging, so you have to calculate it from the values that are provided separately. For example, say a standard 60 W incandescent is rated at 750 lumens—that’s 12.5 lumens per watt. Compare this to a 14 W compact fluorescent rated at 900 lumens—that’s 64.3 lumens per watt. Efficiencies can range from as little as 5 to more than 100 lumens per watt, depending on the technology you choose and the amount of light you need.

Lifetime is now reported in years on product labels and assumes three hours of operation per day (a little higher than typical usage according to utility studies). Also, remember that the difference between a projected lifetime of 20 years and 25 years on two products is probably not meaningful, given the uncertainties in the accelerated lifetime testing process and the degree to which new lighting products will continue to improve between now and then. From a practical standpoint, the warranty a manufacturer offers is more useful; the highest-quality products usually offer a 10-year warranty.

Color rendering index (CRI) tells you how accurately a bulb renders a particular subset of colors (primarily pastels). A CRI of 80 or greater is usually recommended by lighting experts, but there is debate in the lighting community about the merits of paying extra money for products with a CRI greater than 90—most users can’t tell the difference under typical household lighting conditions.

Correlated color temperature (CCT; reported in Kelvin, K) tells you how “warm” or “cool” the light from a bulb appears.  Residential users typically favor warm (approximately 2,700 K) CCTs similar to incandescent bulbs, or 3,000 K (similar to halogen bulbs). In the 4,000 K to 6,000 K range, the resulting light can appear bluish. It is common for people who live in very sunny and tropical locations to favor bulbs with higher CCTs, given their greater similarity to daylight or midday sunshine.

The Energy Star label appears on energy-efficient products that deliver good performance in most of the attributes listed above. But thousands of models now qualify for it, so you need to be more selective to find the best performers. Also, be aware that many new energy-saving lighting products are introduced to market a few months before they have completed enough accelerated lifetime testing to earn the Energy Star label. The manufacturer will later change the packaging to reflect receipt of that certification, but the product inside the package can often be the same as the one selling a few months earlier without the logo.  This means that the most recently introduced models without an Energy Star logo can occasionally be more efficient and affordable than older models that are labeled.

More specialized information can often be found on product packages or manufacturer websites, including beam angle and center-beam candlepower for reflector lamps, compatibility with common dimmers, etc. If you are buying a large number of efficient bulbs, check online reviews to find products that have been consistently popular with other users, or buy from a retailer that will allow you to return the products for a refund if you are unhappy with their performance.

Lighting Technologies

Incandescent bulbs employ a thin tungsten filament that conducts enough electricity to glow white hot. Although this technology is more than 100 years old now, it has received only a few upgrades since Thomas Edison’s original invention. However, incandescents remain widely available on the market, but most are now filled with halogen gas to allow them to comply with federal energy-efficiency standards. Unfortunately, the federal standards were drafted in such a way that many manufacturers are meeting the new power limits by making their lamps dimmer. So it takes careful label reading and comparison-shopping to get a true replacement. Use the “Incandescent Replacements” table to ensure that the halogens you buy are just as bright as the old incandescents you are replacing. 

For example, if the new halogen bulb you are considering claims to replace a 75 W incandescent but only provides 900 lumens, it’s really more like a 60 W incandescent—and won’t give you enough light. General Electric sells a Reveal halogen bulb that claims to replace a standard 100 W incandescent using only 72 W, but it only provides 1,120 lumens. It is barely bright enough to replace a standard 75 W bulb, yielding almost no energy savings!

Many types of halogen bulbs cut power use by 25% to 30% but often cut light output substantially as well, barely improving efficiency.  Modified-spectrum halogens (the bulbs’ glass has a bluish-purple hue) are the worst offenders—avoid them. When buying halogens, look for infrared-reflective (IR) models with special low-e coatings that bounce heat back onto the filament while letting visible light pass through. This allows the best incandescents to deliver more lumens per watt. 

The old-fashioned incandescent lamps that remain legal to sell without halogen gas largely fall into particular niche product categories like three-way, vibration-resistant, and extremely bright (more than 2,600 lumens).  Avoid these products as well—there are more efficient choices.

A new, promising incandescent technology potentially doubles the efficiency and life of standard incandescents by using IR coatings to reflect bulb heat back to the filament, which makes it even brighter. These bulbs may achieve a remarkable 32 to 37 lumens per watt, compared to the 7 to 18 lumens per watt seen with typical incandescent bulbs. CFLs and LEDs are still more efficient than these new incandescents, but can cost more and have subtle differences in color quality.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) are widely available in a range of sizes, prices, and light levels. They have miniaturized the technology found in typical linear fluorescent lamps, bending the tube into a small amount of space.  Thousands of models are now Energy Star qualified, and many utilities provide rebates for them.

Although they were once the only affordable energy-efficient lighting option, they come with caveats. CFLs do a reasonable job of rendering many colors, but they don’t render all colors well—and that’s easily noticed by people with particularly sensitive vision. Others have concerns about how to avoid mercury exposure if they get broken, and how to safely dispose of them. (Note that most analyses have found this to be secondary to their other environmental benefits, since their energy savings results in mitigating much greater mercury emissions from fossil-fuel power plants. See HP153, “CFLs & Mercury.”)

CFLs are also not usually dimmable, and can overheat in enclosed fixtures. This helps to explain why they are broadly used in some homes but rarely in all of a home’s light fixtures.

CFLs typically operate at about 50 to 70 lumens per watt and will run for about 8,000 to 18,000 hours before burning out. While they offer a low-cost way to save on lighting energy, they are increasingly being displaced by their better-performing cousins—LEDs.

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are quickly gaining ground as the most energy-efficient lighting technology. Although early LED models were bulky, expensive, and not very bright, those products have yielded to a new generation of quality products that use 10% to 30% less energy than CFLs, are easier to dim, and last far longer.

LEDs once operated in a similar efficiency range to CFLs, but can now achieve 85 lumens per watt across a wide range of light output levels, and best-in-class LED designs are headed to 100 lumens per watt—and beyond.

You can find comparisons of more than 17,000 LED lighting products, including information on lumens, watts, efficacy, color rendering index, and correlated color temperature, at lightingfacts.com.

The difference in color quality among incandescents, CFLs, and LEDs can be seen in the spectral distributions graph, which show how much of the light from each source falls within each wavelength of the visible spectrum, and compares that to the human eye’s sensitivity to each of those wavelengths (dotted curve). Note that incandescents (halogens) and LEDs both offer a continuous spectrum of colors, but incandescents tend to be dominant in the reds and fairly limited at the blue end of the spectrum. LEDs are often the reverse. CFLs, on the other hand, only emit light within certain portions of the visible spectrum, so can disappoint some users who are particularly sensitive to subtle color differences.

Matching Bulb to Application

Most home applications call for omnidirectional sources of light. “General service” bulbs work well in many kinds of table and floor lamps, enclosed globes, pendant fixtures, and other types of narrow light fixtures that mount close to the ceiling or wall. LEDs are a great option, but make sure they are truly omnidirectional. Many older models that have a snow-cone appearance shine most of their light upward.

Most down-lights are designed to accommodate particular reflector lamp shapes and sizes. PAR (parabolic aluminized reflector) lamps work best in deep ceiling cans and R (reflector) lamps work better in shallow ones. The diameter of the opening tells you what size of bulb to purchase. If the opening is a little less than 5 inches in diameter, a PAR 38 works well (the 38 refers to 38-eighths of an inch in diameter, or 4.75 inches). PAR 30 or PAR 20 bulbs tend to work better in smaller openings. Bulged reflector (BR) bulbs will also fit in the same ceiling cans, but tend to have very poor efficiencies, in part because their reflectors do not do as good of a job at gathering and aiming the light. The reflector lamp technology you choose is also application-specific. In general, CFL reflectors are not a good choice—their light is too diffuse. The most efficient halogen technologies can be a reasonably good choice, particularly IR halogens. LEDs are the most efficient choice, though still a bit expensive. Their directionality and dimming capability give them some natural advantages in this application, and their long lifetimes (20,000 hours or more) can be a plus, given the relative inconvenience of reaching and replacing many down-lights.

A wide variety of specialized lighting applications are not commonly served by the three major lighting technology types. If you want to distribute light uniformly over a very broad area, for example, it’s hard to beat linear fluorescent lamps for affordability and for even light distribution. Some manufacturers have begun producing linear LED “tubes” that can be inserted in place of these fluorescent lamps, but most still struggle to compete with the uniformity of linear fluorescent lighting at a reasonable cost. Linear fluorescent tubes that were 1.5 inches in diameter (T12s) have now given way to 1-inch-diameter lamps (T8s) and even 5/8-inch-diameter lamps (T5s), for improved efficiency and performance (see “Changing Fluorescents to LEDs” in this issue).

Efficient Lighting for Efficient Homes

Using the most efficient lightbulbs is especially important in zero net-energy (ZNE) homes or off-grid homes powered by renewable energy systems. The extra energy saved by using LEDs compared to CFLs, for example, is also cost-effective when compared to more PV modules and equipment for meeting the larger overall loads (see “Save on PV” sidebar).

LEDs also offer a wider range of color choices than CFLs, making them a more seamless integration with passive solar homes that rely largely on daylighting. For instance, using LEDs with a CCT between 3,000 K and 3,500 K in rooms with good natural light will help keep the light color more similar as the lights come on in the evening. Likewise, some LEDs shift their color temperature as they are dimmed, making them a good match with solar homes that get flooded with “warm” temperature sunlight at sunrise and sunset.

Purposeful Lighting

My recently completed ZNE house in Durango, Colorado, uses LEDs in almost every fixture, inside and outside. Linear T5/fluorescent lighting is used in the laundry room and master closet, and pin-based CFLs are used in one ceiling fan. Incandescent lamps are used in only a handful of aesthetically critical applications like the red glass and seashell mosaic pendant lamps over the kitchen island, the fully dimmable dining room fixture, and the small, wall-mounted reading lamps next to our bed, where the extra warmth of the light’s appearance is worth the energy-efficiency trade-off. Our brains interpret red light—similar to the light from a flame or a sunset—as a cue to go to sleep. By contrast, our brains interpret blue light from CFLs or most LEDs—similar to the light from a TV, computer monitor, or cell phone—as a cue to wake up.

While the lighting in most homes can consume 1,200 to 1,800 kWh per year or about 15% of total electricity use, our estimated lighting energy use is only about 400 kWh per year. The light source we used most widely in the house was the Cree screw-based 800-lumen LED, purchased for $10 to $13 apiece. We also relied heavily on a new type of Sylvania LED down-light that surface-mounts directly to electrical junction boxes in new construction, eliminating the need for a down-light fixture or its penetration through the insulation. These fully dimmable products were about $35 apiece, and distribute the light very evenly and unobtrusively into the room. High-quality Soraa LED MR-16 bulbs are used in low-voltage track light fixtures.

Besides its energy savings, our energy-efficient lighting looks warm and welcoming. On a public tour of the house last spring, the most common remark we heard from visitors was how pleasant and attractive the lighting was. We should never forget that a lightbulb’s primary purpose is to provide excellent light. No matter how much energy they save, they will never gain widespread acceptance unless they light up a room attractively as well.