h/t to http://www.examiner.com/seminole-cou...ormance-claims

First shot: Wall Street Journal reports lifetimes of CFL bulbs significantly exaggerated; PG & E real world results nowhere near projections

A side bonus in subsidy management: California commission considering paying bonuses just for technology, not for actual results

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...595565026.html

California's utilities are spending $548 million over seven years to subsidize consumer purchases of compact fluorescent lamps. But the benefits are turning out to be less than expected.

One reason is that bulbs have gotten so cheap that Californians buy more than they need and sock them away for future use. Another reason is that the bulbs are burning out faster than expected.


Getty Images Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa handed out free compact fluorescent light bulbs in 2009.

California's experience is notable because energy experts have placed high hopes on compact fluorescent lamps. Often spiral-shaped, they screw into existing light sockets and offer energy savings of about 75% over traditional incandescent light bulbs.

Many nations are relying on them to help cut emissions from power plants and stretch electricity supplies further. The United Nations says 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions are linked to lighting, and that adoption of compact fluorescent lights could cut pollution.

The World Bank has helped dozens of mostly poor nations begin the switch to the bulbs to make electric lighting more affordable. Last June, for example, Bangladesh gave away five million of the bulbs in a single day.

No state has done more to promote compact fluorescent lamps than California. On Jan. 1, the state began phasing out sales of incandescent bulbs, one year ahead of the rest of the nation. A federal law that takes effect in January 2012 requires a 28% improvement in lighting efficiency for conventional bulbs in standard wattages. Compact fluorescent lamps are the logical substitute for traditional incandescent light bulbs, which won't be available in stores after 2014.

California utilities have used ratepayer funds to subsidize sales of more than 100 million of the bulbs since 2006, most of them made in China. It is part of a comprehensive state effort to use energy-efficiency techniques as a substitute for power production. Subsidized bulbs cost an average of $1.30 in California versus $4 for bulbs not carrying utility subsidies.

Anxious to see what ratepayers got for their money, state utility regulators have devoted millions of dollars in the past three years for evaluation reports and field studies. What California has learned, in a nutshell, is that it is hard to accurately predict and tricky to measure energy savings. It is also difficult to design incentive plans that reward—but don't overly reward—utilities for their promotional efforts.
When it set up its bulb program in 2006, PG&E Corp. thought its customers would buy 53 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008. It allotted $92 million for rebates, the most of any utility in the state. Researchers hired by the California Public Utilities Commission concluded earlier this year that fewer bulbs were sold, fewer were screwed in, and they saved less energy than PG&E anticipated.

As a result of these and other adjustments, energy savings attributed to PG&E were pegged at 451.6 million kilowatt hours by regulators, or 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program.



One hitch was the compact-fluorescent burnout rate. When PG&E began its 2006-2008 program, it figured the useful life of each bulb would be 9.4 years. Now, with experience, it has cut the estimate to 6.3 years, which limits the energy savings. Field tests show higher burnout rates in certain locations, such as bathrooms and in recessed lighting. Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.

California regulators have debated whether utilities should be held to the energy savings they promised in order to earn bonus pay. Staff of the state utilities commission said utilities missed their overall-energy savings targets, partly because of disappointing results from light bulbs. Utilities disagree with many of the staff's conclusions.

Steve Malnight, vice president of energy-efficiency programs at PG&E, said the researchers "lost sight of the fact that utilities have produced tremendous value for our customers." Experts agree that compact fluorescent lights save energy over incandescent lights and typically burn longer.

One complexity of California's incentive program is it seeks to reward utilities only for energy savings they directly cause. For example, utilities aren't supposed to get rewarded for bulbs purchased by people who say they would have bought them even without utility promotions.

"We're not only trying to measure the technical side, but determine how much of a difference utilities have made in transforming the market," said Peter Miller, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that supports the utility-lighting programs.

For the 2006-2008 program, utilities said they achieved energy savings from all their energy efficiency programs that were 151% of the goal set by regulators. But the commission's staff, armed with exhaustive studies, said utilities saved only 62% of the goal amount, hurt by the bulbs.

Nevertheless, anxious to move on to the current 2010-2012 program, the commission last month gave the utilities $68 million of rewards, on top of $143.7 million of incentive pay previously awarded. PG&E pocketed $104 million total.

Dian Grueneich, one of two commission members who voted against the final incentive payment, said it rewarded utilities "for subpar performance."

Commission President Michael Peevey, who favored the extra pay, said he didn't want to ding utilities for an incentive program that was "unworkable."

Later this month, the commission will consider a proposal to simplify the incentive program. Utilities would be judged, henceforth, for technology installation rates, but not for the amount of energy actually saved by their efforts.
shot #2: CFL bulbs less bright than claimed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...im-future.html

Buyers of the main type of energy-saving bulb, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), are told on the packaging that they shine as brightly as an old-fashioned bulb. For example, an 11W CFL is labelled as being the equivalent of a 60W incandescent bulb.

However, the European Commission, which was responsible for the ban, has now conceded that this is "not true" and that such claims by manufacturers are "exaggerated".

...

In our test, we used a simple lamp with a light metre placed half a metre away, in an otherwise-darkened room, to measure the illumination provided by a range of clear and frosted 60W incandescent bulbs, as well as 11W CFLs said on their labels to be equivalent.

After giving each bulb 10 minutes to warm up, a reading was taken in lux, a measure of illumination.

Clear 60W bulbs provided around 120 lux of illumination while pearled 60W bulbs produced 101 lux.

By comparison, the best performing energy efficient light bulb, an 11W CFL made by General Electric and handed out free to Southern Electric customers, rated 79 lux. The worst performing 11W CFL, an Eveready, produced just 60 lux.

A Philips Softone 12W energy saving bulb also claimed to be equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb, but it only produced 77 lux of illumination.
shot 3: US household electricity use for lighting, CFL vs. incandescent heat generated, overall percentage of electricity used for lighting

Note how US households only expend 9% on lighting while overall the figure is said to be 22%. And what do offices use for lighting?

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8868#_ftn7

The heat of incandescent lights — more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour[7] — can help to warm a room.

...

[7] A fluorescent bulb generates 92.18 Btu an hour.
The 22% overall electricity usage for lighting figure in the article above is wrong. The EIA link pointing to electricity use for lighting actually refers to cooling.

The actual percent electricity use for lighting estimated by EIA - and extending into the future:

Delivered Energy Consumption by Fuel
Purchased Electricity 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Space Heating 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
Space Cooling 0.87 0.83 1.11 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82
Water Heating 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47
Refrigeration 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.35
Cooking 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12
Clothes Dryers 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18
Freezers 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Lighting 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.61 0.58 0.57
Clothes Washers 1/ 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Dishwashers 1/ 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Color Televisions and Set-Top Boxes 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33
Personal Computers and Related Equipment 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17
Furnace Fans and Boiler Circulation Pumps 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Other Uses 2/ 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.95
Delivered Energy 4.71 4.65 4.97 4.63 4.67 4.61 4.60 4.60
Percent Lighting vs Delivered Energy 15.29% 15.26% 14.24% 15.05% 14.82% 13.32% 12.69% 12.36%
Note that the overall electricity used for lighting is declining by a very, very small amount: by 2014 with the full ban on incandescents, the overall absolute value change is from 0.72 quadrillion Btus to 0.58 quadrillion Btus - or an overall percentage drop from 15.29% to 12.69%