Disqus - Latest Comments for tharrison

Re: TED 5000 Runs Google PowerMeter Here. Now.

Tom Harrison — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:25:48 -0000

Brandon -- currently the PowerMeter API is accessible only to utilities and device partners, notably TED. I assume Google will make it more easily accessible at some point, but the main thing to wonder about, I think, is what the API will allow one to do.

Privacy issues are key -- I find it unlikely that Google would allow direct access to anyone else's data, for example because it would be pretty easy for a thief to see when the house is occupied and not.

I guess we'll have to see where Google goes with this -- in my mind, the ability to compare and aggregate household data over many houses is where the real juice is. It's nice to see my usage in a pretty graph (actually, more than nice, it's very cool and helpful), but seeing multiple houses, doing competitions, comparisons, and the like seem far more interesting to me in the longer run.

Re: Insulation

Tom Harrison — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:43:20 -0000

@craigsenglin -- right you are! Hot air rises because it is less dense than cold, and thus is only relevant in a case of convection -- air movement. Heat, being a higher energy state than the lack thereof (which us humans know as "cold") always goes away, this point being made in the laws of thermodynamics, in particular the one known as entropy.

In practical terms, don't just insulate your attic! Heat gets out any way it can. Insulate your walls, floors and basement.

Tom

Re: The Promise of the Home Star Cash for Caulkers Program--Our View

Tom Harrison — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:36:35 -0000

I couldn't agree more -- but also think this program is worth it. I started writing my blog five years ago with the goal of helping people change their habits, and realized with some dismay a few years in that I was preaching to the choir, and people do tend to fall back on what they are comfortable with. The idea of buying the new TV based on energy savings sounds like a classic American solution -- we don't really seem to want to consume less at all, or if we do, we get a big prize. But this is one problem, and I think we need to find ways to help people understand how to change.

But... this doesn't make certain energy efficiency efforts entirely worthless. Yes, in the end, long-term, meaningful change is the goal, but a barrel of oil not burnt is a barrel of oil not burnt. I have no doubt that there will be issues with such a program -- it won't be perfect. But it will get a whole new batch of people into a new line of work, learning new things, about energy efficiency. Caulking and the like are easy things to do; the leaders of the effort will learn how they can build profitable businesses out of it.

It's not all or nothing.

Re: Historic Preservation and Deep Energy Retrofits Not Really at Odds

Tom Harrison — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:04:55 -0000

I agree -- it's worth asking out of all the historical houses out there, which ones will simply become too expensive to maintain or improve and fall into disrepair? I live outside of Boston, and the effort to renovate the Paul Revere house was very contentious. This is naturally an historical landmark -- and it's a museum, not a house. If we hope and expect that people will live in houses built in earlier centuries, doing their best to preserve their unique character, historical societies and preservationists must strike the right balance between the codes and technologies of today and what defines the true essence of a house.

Re: Electricity Monitoring: The Importance of Knowing Your Baseload

Tom Harrison — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:34:58 -0000

Susan --

If you're reading your bill, then you're reading correctly -- check to make sure the number of days in the billing cycle is around 30. A really good place to start is the electricity bill, and many bills these days have historical monthly usage figures.

Based on my TED 5000, for the past December, our modest, single-family house with four people used 530kWh, 240 kWh of which was baseload -- "always on". November was 410/200 respectively, and October was the first month Google PowerMeter was available, so only have partial data there. According to PowerMeter, this usage is on the low end of a 2 bedroom apartment -- at 80kWh/month your usage is downright incredible, and yes, a 1KW array could probably more than cover your usage.

Now, if only around 100 million other American households could follow your lead, we would be on to something :-)

Tom

Re: 10 Big Ideas for Home Energy Efficiency in 2010

Tom Harrison — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:35:20 -0000

Derek -- saving energy and resource and having clean air is important, to be sure. In the larger picture, there are scores of good reasons that it makes sense to use less energy. Energy security seemed to be something everyone wanted (during the 2008 Presidential campaign, for example) -- another good reason. Population growth and water depletion -- more great reasons. Saving money works.

I understand that some people don't believe that climate change is real, or important, or something we can do anything about. One of my sisters, a very smart, well-educated, rational person is unsure about climate change -- I don't think she's a bad person, or "an idiot" or anything, except perhaps inadequately informed. I just disagree with her position.

For me, personally, climate change is far and away the most important driver of the kinds of changes Energy Circle and many other sites and organizations thinking about energy conservation are accomplishing. Climate change is why I have made changes in my life -- I think other impacts of excessive energy and resource use are bad, but this is the one that has made me change the way I live my life.

For now, I guess it doesn't matter why you think conserving energy and resources is important. I am glad to hear you do! And I wouldn't take on the effort of attempting to convince people that climate change is a critical issue (for that, see for example Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog).

But in the not-distant future, we're all going to need to come to terms with the realities of climate change. I salute Energy Circle and others who aren't afraid to take a position.

Respectfully,

Tom

Re: Home Energy Monitoring: Surprises, Malfunctions, and Fixes

Tom Harrison — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:08:01 -0000

We had dinner with some friends last night -- both had bought energy monitors (based on my recommendation :-), and both reported some pretty amazing reductions in electricity usage -- 20% in one case, 25% in another over the last year or so. While I am personally kind of obsessive about monitoring, it's something I am sure I can get help with from a qualified mental health professional. But these people, they are ... normal, balanced individuals. They also use a lot more electricity than I do, so a 20% reduction certainly pays for the monitor.

And, for one family, electricity monitors were Christmas presents this year.

The truth is, these devices aren't just one-shot things; they just keep a little information in front of you that helps you understand (as Demetrios says) and make changes evident, easy and rewarding.

Re: Smart Lighting Solutions: Put Timers to Good Use

Tom Harrison — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:25:36 -0000

Jasper -- while I recognize that it's easy to think any given country is behind where we may want, I would have to say that my observations of the UK are simply that more progress has been made than here in the US. The NY Times article noted earlier strikes me as being a fairly clear indication that there will be a "revolt" against these devices here in the US (as it seems there is a revolt against any change). It would be funny if it didn't represent a real and significant setback to what should be a somewhat unassailable device. But while we may not be unique, we citizens of the United States are certainly very protective of our inalienable rights. I celebrate this spirit in most cases ... but not all.

The article is remarkable in that it points out only peoples' unproven observations or allegations of incorrect meter readings. There was precious little actual data to support these assertions. It is not beyond belief that a purely profit-motivated utility would install smart meters and then use their smartness to get more money out of customers. This is certainly the implication of the article, and no doubt it is true in some cases, at least. But I also don't think it likely that the meters are any less accurate than the ones they replaced -- it's simple to audit these measurements (heck, anyone wanting to could just buy an electricity monitor), and certainly fraud on a large scale would be a scandal (perhaps larger than the recent Tiger Woods one, even).

Whether it be the UK, or US, or any place with people, I think the main issue is that we simply don't like change. We're a suspicious lot, us people. Has the UK moved forward further than the US? Yes -- without doubt. But it's only because the UK had ever so slightly more foresight (or political will) than the US to confront the change, and the process may have worked its way along a little more.

But another area that the NY Times article gets wrong is the assertion that residential smart meters are somehow integral to the implementation of a smarter grid. As it turns out, they are merely the most obvious and customer-facing change needed -- far more important changes involving the numerous steps between the residential meter and the generation facility will have far more sweeping implications, and are independent of simple changes of meters that provide a little more information to the utility. We have made even less progress on that front, sadly.

For those of us who thrive on change, the distaste and suspicion of it is only a frustration. But patience is called for. All good things will come in time.

And, those who distrust their utility may easily buy an energy monitor -- just make sure it's the kind that actually measures delivered power, and not one that simply reads the output of the utility's meter. The consumer will have his or her say in the end, to be sure. Hopefully utilities are not so woefully stupid as to try to pull a fast-one on us! (Then again, they are the utilities -- not known for their forward thinking :-).

Re: Deep Energy Retrofits: Planning for the Long Haul.

Tom Harrison — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:08:15 -0000

Hmm, maybe I don't quite get it. Is she saying we shouldn't bother making incremental steps in energy efficiency in our houses -- it's all or nothing? Or just that we need to have a plan of attack that makes the process efficient? And, is she saying that if we cannot get to 70% to 90% reductions in the end, it's not worth it?

If you want my opinion (and I know you do), that's baloney. OK, there. I said it.

Sure, if all houses got a deep energy retrofit, the world would be a better place indeed. But let's be real, here -- that's not happening any time soon.

So why not take intelligent incremental steps? As Peggy writes, sometimes it's not financially practical to do the whole job at once. Shouldn't a qualified energy auditor be able to review a given house and deliver a plan that arrives at something close to the goal, but also suggests a path to get there that meets some realistic financial constraints of the home owner?

So I guess what's getting my goat here is that her solution, as I understand it, is kind of petulant: if I can't have the whole thing I don't want any of it. That is certainly not a view shared by scientists studying climate change -- we know the impact is going to be severe, but how, and when it unclear -- the only thing that is clear is that the sooner we start taking action, the better.

Us environmentalists tend to see things in stark terms. But that's not helpful -- we need to help people understand that they can, realistically, incrementally make changes. I have been working on improving my house's efficiency since we moved in 12 years ago. Just in the last few years, we have reduced our total energy consumption by almost 1/2. Should I have not wasted my time?

Re: Home Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives: Why Do We Resist?

Tom Harrison — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:34:08 -0000

James --

I totally agree with your point. And I think there's another hurdle -- people tend to have an unbalanced view of future reward versus current payoff. I recall a study done where people were asked if they would rather have $500 a month for 10 months, starting next month, or $500 now; obviously the former is a far better proposition, yet the majority said they would take the $500 now. This is a pretty hardwired human behavior.

So not only does "cost neutral" not cut it, even a significant future benefit will not. What does work, however, is programs like "cash for clunkers" (and by "work", I mean it caused people to get off their butts). Whether something like this is politically feasible, and manageable is a different question. But how about "we'll give you $1000 now, and financing for air sealing and weatherizing your house to meet a certain standard"?

Anyway, the point is that we need to find ways to make the inherently dull "conservation" term sound like something totally worth doing, now!

Re: The Green Skeptic™: Global Climate Change: World Bank Says, Oil Will Come Down Hard; Sovereign Wealth Can Fund Climate Fight

Tom Harrison — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:51:04 -0000

It was hot in Boston here for the last 4 days. Probably a record, but if not close. Global warming. Probably not. But in aggregate, even the US Government has accepted that whatever it is, they need to start dealing with the actual repercussions (source found in my post here: http://fivepercent.us/2008/....

People react when bad things happen. There's not much evidence to support other theories of social change.

Re: The Green Skeptic™: Global Climate Change: World Bank Says, Oil Will Come Down Hard; Sovereign Wealth Can Fund Climate Fight

Tom Harrison — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:46:17 -0000

No doubt current oil prices will fall. The Economist recently wrote about the "rebound effect" of various conservation efforts (http://www.economist.com/di.... In short: when prices rise, as they have with oil, there are many incentives to reduce consumption, and thus demand. Lower demand results in lower prices.

With lower prices, all of the current enthusiasm/fear that is affecting consumer, corporate and governmental behaviors will lose its immediacy and something else more important will take over the collective conversation (perhaps Iran, or Britney Spears).

That's the cynical view, at least. But there are several mitigating factors that may help keep matters in the public eye.

First, this pesky global climate change thing may start affecting us more than it already has. Even the US Government thinks so. And there are indeed some "sticky" things that have begun to happen; people have bought smaller cars, more efficient appliances and housing, and just a teensy bit of awareness may have crept in.

Oil prices are the current, major factor in raising awareness of energy dependence. But oil prices are just one symptom of the many other related global issues we are facing. Even when prices fall again, perhaps we will have a long enough memory to continue taking positive actions.

A little leadership from everyone, notably the US Federal and State governments, could help seize the opportunity and memory and actually make change happen even after oil prices fall.

Tom