QUEST Community Science Blog Author: Jim Gunshinan

All Posts by Jim:

Tweeting for Energy Efficiency

June 26th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

Are you using Twitter or other social media as a way to promote progressive causes like energy efficiency? What do you think about mandatory home energy audits or line drying clothes versus machine drying? Source image: Tina KellerSomebody close to me recently turned 50. Okay, it was me who just turned 50. My how things have changed since 1959! My first experience with computers was as a freshman lining up to hand over my punch cards to the computer operator to be fed into a computer that filled a room. Up until recently I got my news of the world through newspapers and television. For most of my life I stayed in touch with distant family and friends through letters and phone calls. When my brother was in Vietnam during the war we had to call him through short wave radio to tell him that his Corvette got smashed. (He didn't care. He was relieved that we were all okay.)

Now I get my information mostly off the Internet and through Twitter, the social media service that is in the news because of its use by the opposition parties in Iran. Twitter is like snail mail cubed. You send messages from your computer or smart phone that immediately show up on the computers or phones of all your "followers." You get followers generally by following others. It's kind of an unwritten rule that if someone is following you should return the favor. So far I am following about 30 people or groups and have 11 followers. But I just started.

I am following Energy Circle, a new Internet resource that is using social media to report news about home energy efficiency on Twitter. A recent "tweet" connected me to an article by Peggy in Toronto who thinks that mandatory home inspections should be replaced with mandatory energy audits upon the time of sale of a home. Advanced Energy's Research Director Melissa Malkin-Weber, tweeted "Energy saving smugness nixes scratchiness of air dried sheets. But don't ask my kids about how those stiff cloth diapers felt."

I agree with Peggie and Melissa. But what do you think about mandatory home energy audits or line drying clothes versus machine drying? Are you using social media as a way to promote progressive causes like energy efficiency? You can respond below, and your response needn't be limited, like "tweets" are, to 140 characters. Or sign up for a Twitter account and join the conversation at KQED Science!




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Engineering, Environment, KQED, Partners | 1 Comment

How toxic is a busted compact florescent bulb?

June 12th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan


Which is worse for you, a can of tuna or a broken CFL bulb? Sorry, Charlie… image by Dave LifsonA paper expected to be published in the August issue of the lighting industry journal, LD+A, may quiet some of the controversy over the dangers of mercury in compact fluorescent lights (CFL). I’ve argued in this blog that the cut in mercury emissions from power plants due to the electricity saved when traditional incandescent bulbs are replaced with CFLs, greatly outweighs the amount of mercury that could escape from broken CFLs, plus what is emitted during the making and transportation of CFLs. But the paper, by Robert Clear, Francis Rubinstein, and Jack Howells, who do research at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), goes a step farther by showing that even a person who breaks a lamp is more at risk from mercury in the environment than from the mercury in the lamp itself.

The researchers point out that there is a distinction between the kind of mercury that you are exposed to from broken CFLs—elemental mercury—and the mercury emitted from power plant smokestacks after it finds it’s way into waterways and oceans, where it becomes methyl mercury. Methyl mercury accumulates all up the food chain, so that large fish like tuna can contain a lot of it. Methyl mercury crosses the blood-brain barrier and passes through a pregnant woman’s placenta to her fetus. Methyl mercury is responsible for developmental problems, while elemental mercury, which is inhaled, appears to be more of a hazard for adults and children, and only then in the case of severe or prolonged exposures. In most mild cases, when the elemental mercury exposure ends, the bad effects diminish and go away. This is unfortunately not true for the developmental problems caused by methyl mercury.

The startling conclusion of the paper is that in a worse case scenario—you break a CFL in a closed, unventilated room; you vacuum the carpet, throwing mercury into the air; you set the vacuum in a corner; and then sit in the room breathing for eight hours—the amount of mercury exposure is about equivalent to the exposure you’d get from eating a can of Albacore tuna.

Eating a can of tuna has positive health effects as well as the negative health effects from the mercury. There are no positive health effects from a broken CFL, and you can reduce your exposure. The researchers suggest that in the case of a broken CFL, you should immediately open a nearby window. You can limit contamination by gathering up the large pieces of the broken bulb into a bag and set the bag outside. The room should then be left to air out for an hour or so. If the lamp broke on a carpet you can vacuum, but it should be done quickly while the room is being ventilated, the vacuum cleaner should be removed to an outside area, and again the room should be left vacated for an hour or so. Once the vacuum cleaner has cooled, you can empty the contents of the vacuum cleaner bag into the bag with the broken bulb. Take the bag to your nearest recycling center.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Environment, Health, KQED, Partners | 5 Comments

2 Top Kitchen Appliance Energy Myths De-bunked

May 29th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

Who's more energy efficient with the dishes– you or your dishwasher? Image: Ronan_tlvA microwave oven is the most efficient way to heat water for a cup of tea, hot chocolate, or coffee. True or False?

Now as a regular morning coffee drinker who uses a kettle and a gas stove to heat water for coffee (not instant– yuk! I use a coffee filter cone and PEET's coffee, of course) instead of the microwave, since our microwave is an old piece of inefficient junk that takes forever to heat water, I thought that buying a new microwave would make me a more energy efficient coffee drinker. But I was wrong!

Jennifer Mitchell-Jackson, while a graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, measured the energy use of an average microwave oven, an electric stovetop, and a gas stovetop to heat up a mug of water. Turns out that an electric stove uses 25% less electricity than an average microwave oven to heat a mug of water. A gas stove is less efficient and uses more energy than a microwave oven, but depending on the cost of gas, it might cost less to heat a mug of coffee with gas compared to the microwave.

It is more efficient to wash dishes by hand than it is to use a dishwasher. True or false?

How many arguments has that one caused! The research to dispel this myth came from Germany. Rainer Stamminger, a professor of household and appliance technology and his colleagues at the University of Bonn, gathered more than 100 volunteer dishwashers with varying skill levels and dishwashing styles in a laboratory, and measured the amount of water and energy each used to wash big stacks of dirty dishes. He then washed similar dirty dishes in dishwashers and measured the dishwashers’ water and energy use.

His conclusion: The machine is more efficient than the hand. In general, the dishwashers used much more water and somewhat more energy than the dishwashing machines. Some test subjects used 53 gallons of water to clean 12 place settings! But there is a wide variation in the styles and economics of hand dishwashing.

Clearly, a new, efficient dishwasher is best. But if you can’t afford one, or like to spend a lot of time with your hands in soapy water, Stamminger and company have some suggestions:

• Remove large dish scraps with a fork or spoon.
• Do the dishes soon after a meal before the food has dried on the plates (get your dinner guests involved).
• Do not pre-rinse your dishes under running tap water (same goes for dishwasher use).
• Use a hot-water sink for washing and a cold-water sink for rinsing.
• Use just the amount of detergent recommended by the manufacturer.

And put that coffee mug in the dishwasher when you're done.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Environment, KQED, Partners | 2 Comments

LEED or Get Out of the Way

May 15th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

This is a LEED-certified building on Columbus Circle
in New York City. Anything wrong with this picture?The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program has been around for many years, and has became a well-known "brand" among builders, developers and much of the general public nationwide. The program was developed and is administered by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). There are LEED certifications (certified, silver, gold, and platinum) for commercial and residential buildings, building retrofits, and the USGBC is developing a LEED certification for neighborhoods. The focus of LEED is to mark buildings (and now neighborhoods) that are sustainable, healthy, and energy efficient. The program has become so popular and well known that many cities now require that new municipal buildings be built to LEED standards.

But there is some question as to whether LEED buildings actually save energy. Henry Gifford, an engineer and mechanical system designer in New York City, "…the best data available shows that on average, they (LEED-certified buildings) use more energy than comparable buildings." His view is controversial, but I have seen the data he used and have studied his analysis and it seems reasonable to me, though I am not a statistician and have done a limited amount of number crunching in my short career as an engineer before becoming a writer.

I have heard the arguments from the other side and haven't been convinced. Even from a common sense perspective, it seams unrealistic that LEED buildings are built to save energy. I've seen too many LEED certified buildings with a large percentage of windows as exterior walls–that is like trying to build an energy efficient building without walls. Also, LEED certification does not require performance testing of buildings. A building can achieve points for energy efficiency from modeling alone. In my role as editor of Home Energy Magazine, I have wanted to publish in-depth articles about LEED-certified homes, but I have been unable to find a LEED-certified building owner or designer who is willing to publish a full year of performance data, post-occupancy.

The LEED program has made green building a common term and a sought after designation among architects, builders, and developers across the nation. LEED buildings may use more environmentally friendly materials and be healthier for their occupants. But it is not yet clear to me that they save energy compared to business as usual. If we want to achieve energy independence, combat the worst effects of global warming, and grow a green economy, we can't afford to build–and celebrate–buildings built as usual.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Engineering, Environment, Partners | 4 Comments

Turning Lemons Into Energy Efficient Homes

May 1st, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

Dave Robinson is the "anti-flipper." Credit: Tom White
I'm in Kansas City at the annual national meeting of Affordable Comfort, Incorporated, (ACI) an organization that helps train weatherization technicians, energy auditors, and other home performance contractors. It's an exciting time to be in the field. While new housing is stalled in the United States, there is lots of funding-in the billions of dollars-on the way for weatherization, residential energy efficiency, and renewable energy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But economic relief is not coming fast enough for the cab driver, a native of Nigeria, who drove me to the convention center from the airport. "What's this I hear about a bailout?" he complained. "The bailout I want is for a rich banker to leave his wallet in my cab!"

The cab driver is a renter, and when I told him that the conference he was driving me to was about residential energy efficiency, health, sustainability, and affordability, he complained that his landlord is not interested in making his rental home energy efficient, since the landlord doesn't pay the energy bills. We call this a split incentive. The split incentive facing the imaginary bankers in the back seat of my driver's cab-he wants to keep the bailout money for himself but he's supposed to use it to help people struggling in a down economy-may not end up putting a fat wallet in the cabbies back seat.

I met a man here who can handle a split incentive pretty well. David Robinson is a retired contractor who recently started doing what he calls Energy-Wise Renovations of foreclosed homes. He is buying clusters of homes in rundown neighborhoods in the South Bay, and retrofitting them with measures such as R-50 insulation in the attics, air sealing, and Energy Star appliances. But he is also creating some pretty stylish kitchens, redoing hardwood floors, and installing granite countertops, crown molding, and wainscoting in these homes. "You can't sell a home on energy efficiency alone," says Robinson.

Robinson is having no problem selling these houses for 20% above market prices, and he's still giving the homebuyers, and the neighborhood, a very good deal. "I believe that there is a wonderful and huge opportunity in bank-owned foreclosures-millions of them-and we must rescue all those wonderful opportunities from the normal house flippers who would turn them into a rental and lower the values and miss the opportunity for deep energy reduction. I buy all foreclosed homes and don't feel bad about beating up the bank to get the really good deals."

Robinson is looking for former or current realtors, and financial backers. He wants to teach them his method and therefore accelerate the process of converting our housing stock to affordable, efficient, and sustainable housing, and to make a good living doing so. If you want to know more, call him at (605) 475-4800.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Environment, KQED, Partners | 2 Comments

Have the Energy Munchies? Curb your "Snackwell Effect"

April 21st, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

Recent articles in USA Today and California's Flex Your Power e-Newswire discussed the phenomenon known in energy efficiency circles as "take back" or the "Snackwell Effect" (see "Consumers Can Sabotage Energy-Saving Efforts," and "The Snackwell Effect: Consumers Sabotage Energy-Saving Efforts").

Stanley Jevons first described the take back effect in 1865, so this is nothing new. Jevons observed that new efficient steam engines decreased coal consumption, which led to a drop in coal prices. But the lower prices meant that more people could afford to use coal, and so coal consumption increased.

The "Snackwell Effect" takes it's meaning from the habit of people on diets who eat lots of low-cal snacks that add up to many times the calories of a regular snack. The example given in both articles mentioned above is a West Virginia couple that bought an energy efficient washing machine to replace their old inefficient one. Their energy bills were no different after the conversion. Turns out they were doing more loads of laundry, even washing one piece of clothing in one load, because they were lulled into complacency by their energy efficient purchase.

I asked Jim McMahon, the head of the Energy Analysis Program at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), about the Snackwell Effect and appliance energy use. I recently heard him speak about the great efficiency gains made between the first energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil embargo in 1973, and today. Those gains are significant; refrigerators today use about half the energy on average than they did in the 1970s. "This effect [Snackwell Effect] has been studied for a long time, [it was] formerly called the rebound or take back effect," he says. One 2001 study concluded that for every gain in energy efficiency, about 10% is taken back by an increase in energy use. Greater air conditioner efficiency, for example, may mean that people lower their thermostats, since they expect their energy bills to be lower, and this eats into the efficiency savings. "I think that there are a number of energy-using devices where consumers do not exhibit the Snackwell effect, such as refrigerators or televisions. In those cases, in my view, the usage behaviors are unrelated to the cost of energy, at least for most households in the United States," says McMahon. He does admit that more study is needed in this area. A 10% take back effect is significant, but certainly not a barrier to serious energy efficiency improvements.

Karen Ehrhardt-Martinez, a sociologist, studies human behavior and energy use for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "The relationship between energy efficiency and energy consumption is not as straightforward as it may initially appear and as some people like to portray it."

The trends show that: 1) residential energy consumption increased by roughly 57% between 1970 and 2005; and 2) residential energy consumption per capita increased by only 7%".

According to Ehrhardt-Martinez, a bigger problem than the 10% of energy lost due to the take-back effect-or the Snackwell Effect-is the proliferation of energy using, albeit more efficient, devices in American homes; lifestyle choices, such as the dramatic increase in the size of homes while families got smaller; population increase; and the "invisible" energy, such as standby power or phantom loads, that is hidden from consumers. "However," says Erhardt-Martinez "if we were able to combine efficiency improvements with better lifestyle choices (i.e. smaller, more energy efficient houses), smart purchasing behaviors, and improved information mechanisms that allowed consumer to actively manage their energy consumption, then we could have a much more dramatic impact on both household level consumption as well as state and national level consumption."




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Engineering, Environment, Partners | 2 Comments

An Optimistic Look Forward at Energy Policy

April 3rd, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

This 1928 home in Albemarle County, Virginia recently
underwent a renovation through the EarthCraft Virginia
existing homes renovation program. After the renovation,
electricity use dropped by 24% and energy costs dropped
by 42%.

Home Energy Magazine is celebrating its 25th anniversary with a special May/June issue. We're taking the opportunity to look back at the past several decades of energy policy in America, and look ahead to what may come. Here's a sneak preview of some of what we're thinking.

Alan Meier, Senior Executive Editor, and Steve Greenberg, Technical Editor, among others, lived through the first energy crisis precipitated by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and its aftermath. They remember the sudden interest in energy efficiency and renewable energy; the proliferation of solar water heaters on the roofs of homes that broke down quickly, had no one trained to fix them, and have become rusted monuments to the best of intentions gone wrong; the sudden and short lived gain in the average car’s fuel efficiency. They also recall some major successes: the huge and lasting increase in appliance efficiency, especially refrigerators; the success of the Energy Star program; and California’s progressive Title 24 building standards.

Alan, in a yet-to-be-published editorial, has been musing on what will happen after the billions of dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have been spent on building and retrofitting more efficient and sustainable buildings. Will it be the same three steps forward, two steps back pattern that we’ve seen before? Not so, according to Alan, if we:

require third-party evaluation and certification that buildings and appliances perform as well as they were designed to perform;

make sure that we retrofit homes to be more efficient before we install expensive, but sexy, solar electric panels on the roof;

aggressively target middle and upper-middle class homes for energy retrofits and not just low-income homes; and

train the people to do the work described above well, and consistently.

Steve came up with some powerful images to stimulate our thinking about the future of energy efficiency:

We've been on a ramp with a rather gradual (and usually upward, with notable exceptions) slope. Suddenly the ramp gets so steep it looks like a wall. If we make it to the new, much higher level, what does the terrain look like? Do we go off a cliff, completing a boom and bust cycle the likes of which we've never seen? Or is there a reasonable ramp down to a sustainable level?

I lived through the lines for gasoline, though I couldn’t yet drive. I've observed the resulting interest in miles per gallon instead of horsepower; the return to a horsepower-mentality; and the recent switch back to a concern about miles per gallon. My family had a great experience with our new-fangled heat pump in the early 70s. My Dad, an engineer and all-around handy man, first got me interested in how houses and cars work during that time. I guess I vote for a steep, but not impossible ramp up in efficiency, followed by a less intense, slow and gradual climb that continues for a long time, with sudden jumps due to new, undreamed of (or only just dreamed of) technology. The pressure will come from high energy prices and people starting to feel the real effects of global warming and unhealthy air. I don't think these things will change anytime soon.







37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Engineering, Environment | Please Comment

Don't be a "Wasteful Wendy"

March 20th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

Cool the Earth is an organization that reaches into elementary school classrooms and Girl Scout troops all over the country, and they're working to make saving energy and being good stewards of our natural resources fun. Participating schools are given a packet of materials to kick off the program with an all school assembly, where characters like Koda the polar bear, Earth, Mother Nature, and Mr. Carbon (boo! hiss!) introduce the topic of global warming and how human actions contribute to the problem. The kids are inspired to save Koda's icy homeland by getting rid of the villain Mr. Carbon.

The students are given a small book of action coupons to take home that recommend tips such as powering down home electronics that use energy when officially "off" but are still in standby mode by unplugging the device or turning off the power at a power strip. Students can earn rewards in the form of prize cards featuring Wasteful Wendy, Rennie Reusable and other characters, for actions such as getting their families to eat one pound less of beef in a week, thereby saving 130,000 gallons of water (the water to grow the crops to feed the cattle, and so on.)

Monthly highlights focus on a particular action, and an Action Banner tracks the progress of the whole school, charting the amount of energy saved and the amount of greenhouse gases avoided. School teachers can go online to access materials, get advice from the staff of Cool the Earth, or just brag about how their school is doing.

The program is working because it employs an age-old motivational strategy– get to the parents through their kids. And the results are tangible. The program so far can account for more than 25 million pounds of carbon emissions avoided. There are 149 schools involved in the program so far, and there is a waiting list for participation. Almost 23,000 students are involved– translating into many more thousands of parents, brothers, and sisters.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Environment | Please Comment

Eyes on the Street

March 6th, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

I haven't talked about the elderly in my blog entries so far, but they make up a growing segment of the U.S. population. Those my age– 50-ish– who don't like to think of themselves as baby boomers, will be in that demographic in no time. And many of us worry, sometimes a lot, about finding the best place for our elderly parents to spend their last years.

Research shows that to be healthy physically and psychologically, when we grow old we should stay connected to others. My father moved into an apartment that he had built next to my sister's house in Maryland. My mother and father-in-law are still able to live in their home in Orinda after more than 40 years there. My grandmother on my mother's side lived for nearly 100 years. She spent the last 20 or so years of her life in a community, where everyone had their own apartment, but everyone was responsible, according to their ability, to see to the safety and well being of the others. She rode with three other elderly women to daily Mass and shopping in a big blue Cadillac.

Recent research results published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives shows that the buildings we live in influence whether we stay connected– and stay healthy– or not. Researchers from the University of Miami, the University of Maine, and Lehigh University in the departments of medicine, education, human development, and architecture, studied a community of mostly elderly, Hispanic, and low-income people in a place called East Little Havana, a neighborhood in Miami. They gathered information about the health and lifestyles of more than 250 people over the course of two years, as well as the buildings they occupied.

Here is a summary of their findings:

1. People who live on blocks where there is a high percentage of porches, stoops, and with buildings built with windows overlooking sidewalks were healthier and happier than those on blocks with fewer of these architectural features. Interestingly, people in buildings with low windowsills out front (less than about a meter between the bottom of the window and the main level of the first floor) were more likely to feel isolated than those with higher windowsills. The researchers speculate that residents felt a lack of privacy with the low windows that made them feel vulnerable, and therefore less likely to interact with people outside the home.

2. People in East Little Havana who lived on blocks with a high level of first floor parking garages did worse physically and psychologically than those living on blocks with more buildings that had people, not cars, living on the first floors. Since newer buildings tend to have the first floor parking, it seems that buildings built before cars became widely available, say pre-1945, are more conducive to the health and well being of their elderly occupants.

The Cadillac my grandmother rode in? It was parked in a parking lot.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Health | Please Comment

"Leafing" Through the Economic Stimulus Package

February 23rd, 2009 by Jim Gunshinan

The front of Leaf House. Photo credit: The Leaf Community
Highlights from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed by President Obama on Tuesday:

1. The economic stimulus act provides $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program; increases the eligible income level for the program from 150% of poverty level (determined by criteria established by the Office of Management and Budget) to 200% of poverty level; increases the amount of money that can be spent per home from $2,500 to $6,500; and allows weatherization assistance for homes that were weatherized before 1994 (previously, homes weatherized after 1979 could not be "re-weatherized").

2. $4 billion was allocated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to retrofit public housing, and $510 million to retrofit the homes of Native Americans.

3. The stimulus bill gives $500 million to the Department of Labor to train workers for careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

4. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides increased tax credits for homeowners for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations; the act increases the tax credit for energy efficiency improvements from 10% to 30%, and gives a 30% tax credit for the cost of qualified solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines, and fuel cell systems.

5. The tax credit for homeowners who install a natural gas refueling system for a natural gas car, a charging system for a plug-in electric or hybrid vehicle, a hydrogen refueling station for a fuel cell car, or another refueling system in their homes is doubled from $1,000 to $2,000. The credit is good through 2010 for most refueling systems and through 2014 for hydrogen refueling systems.

There are many more provisions in the bill that support building energy efficiency, automotive energy efficiency, the manufacture and use of renewable energy systems, and research into (among other things) high performance batteries.

We recently covered in Home Energy Magazine a story from Italy about the Leaf Community. It is a live/work community outside of Rome where they create all the energy they need by taking it from the sun, the wind, and the ground (using geothermal heat pumps). They are doing a lot of research into storing energy, and that is clearly becoming a top priority among scientists. Energy produced from the sun and wind, for example, is intermittent, and sun and wind resources are often far from populations that need clean energy, requiring expensive transmission systems (more overhead wires). At Leaf House, they produce hydrogen using the electricity produced by photovoltaic solar panels, and store the hydrogen in a "chemical battery". The hydrogen can later be reclaimed and used in a fuel cell to create electricity.

Retrofitting homes to be more efficient, healthy, and sustainable is a "three-fer", as President Obama called it in a recent television interview: it saves energy; makes homes more affordable; and creates jobs. And research such as that taking place at Leaf House opens the door to unimagined, elegant solutions to our energy challenges. One thing that the economic stimulus package has already delivered — something that has long been lacking in the energy efficiency and renewable energy community — is hope.




37.8686, -122.267




Posted in Engineering, Environment, Partners | 3 Comments
Next Page »