Macro-Economics

Using the data in the Buildings Energy Data Book - Table 5.9.1 (09/07) and the light- bulb data previously posted, there can be a huge asset transfer by switching all incandescent to CFL bulbs. On an annual basis:

consumers could save $13.5 billion
bulb manufacturers could gain $650 million
utilities would lose $12.85 billion (enough to build six nuclear reactors).

CFL Bulbs Save Money

This is not news, but I hadn't realized how much saving. Simple calculations show that CFLs save 2/3 of of the cost of incandescents when electricity costs are included. What I found:

95% of the cost of an incandescent is the cost of electricity, compared to about 3/4 for CFL.

The total cost of a CFL is about 1/3 of the six incandescents needed to get the same amount of lighting.

There is no break-even point for buying bulbs - the total incandescent cost exceeds the CFL cost after 700 hours, which is below the incandescent lifetime.
-----------------------------------
Details of calculation:

CFL = 25W costs $5.00 & lasts 6000 hours

Incandescent = 100W costs $0.50 & lasts 1000 hours (need 6 bulbs to equal 1 CFL)

Cost of electricity = $0.091/kWh (in Columbus, Feb. 2008)

Global Warming is a Materials Problem

Actually, it's more of a people problem. But materials development has been key to much that we accept now - the Internet and all of our other modern communications technology would not be possible without the invention of the transistor. Here are three materials contributions to advanced energy generation techniques as reported in the Feb issue of Advanced Materials and Processes"


Glass/polyester wind turbine blades have higher stiffness
Glass texture improves efficiency of solar cells
Fuel cell powered by sunlight on titania-coated electrode

The magazine also reports about five other weight-saving developments in more mundane applications - save weight = save fuel!

The Big Energy Wasters

I'm very taken by a graph entitled 'U.S. Energy Energy Flow Trends - 2002' produced by Lawrence Livermore. It shows that about 85% of energy losses are due to electrical-generation/transmission and transportation.

Since electrical transmission is a small part of the loss, it's clear that the best thing we can do is to make power plants more efficient. And, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the technology is available to increase plant efficiency. If we only look at greenhouse gasses, we need more nuclear - no improvement in efficiency, but a big drop in emissions.

For transport, Congress passed a law increasing mileage on cars and Light-trucks/Vans/SUVs. According to the Energy Information Administration, car mileage has been trending upwardsfor about 30 years, while vans, etc. have plateaued since 1990. But big trucks have made no gains in mileage for 40 years. I find this hard to believe, so will check further.