GE: net zero energy homes by 2015

[Dr Mordrid]

All using their equipment, both in the house and at wind farms, solar farms etc. etc., which is why they're such strong proponents of cap-and-trade and other enviro projects.

Yes kiddies, all this environmental stuff comes after years of preparation in the form of contributions to the right politicians (of both parties). Their GE-fu is strong, and it will put us at GE's mercy instead of other energy companies.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Link....

GE: Smart grid yields net-zero energy home

NISKAYUNA, N.Y.--General Electric unveiled a project at its research labs that will let homeowners cut annual energy consumption to zero by 2015.

These "net-zero energy homes" will combine on-site power generation through solar panels or wind turbines with energy-efficient appliances and on-site storage. Consumers will get detailed energy data and potentially control appliances with Home Energy Manager, a device that is expected to cost between $200 and $250, according to GE executives at a smart grid media day.

GE is piloting the in-home products this year and expects to have the appliances and energy display available next year. The premium for the more efficient, networked appliances will be about $10 more, GE executives said. A net-zero energy home would cost about 10 percent more by 2015, executives said.

Kevin Nolan, vice president of technology at GE's Consumer & Industrial unit, shows off GE's demand response appliances and Home Energy Manager at GE's smart grid symposium at its Global Research Center in upstate New York.
(Credit: General Electric)

Studies show that when consumers have more detailed information on their energy use, they can find ways to reduce consumption by 5 to 10 percent. When utilities have variable, or time-of-use, pricing, consumers could cut electricity use by 15 percent at on-peak times, typically in the morning and early evening.

GE appliances have been converted to have electronic controls and will have a small module in the back that will allow it to communicate with a home's smart meter. With that communication link in place, consumers can find out how much electricity individual appliances use and program them to take advantage of off-peak rates.

"I don't think any of us look forward to the day when we are monitoring hour to hour the cost of electricity. But I think all of us look forward to the day when we can set it and forget it," said Bob Gilligan, GE's vice president of transmission and distribution. "That's the future we look forward to."

For example, a consumer can set up the system so that the temperature in a water heater or thermostat can drop down to a certain level when nobody is at home.

Consumers can turn off features that will enable appliances to communicate with utilities to participate in utility-run demand-response programs, where a utility can adjust thermostats or appliances to shave peak-time consumption, according to Michael Beyerle, a marketing manager at GE's Consumer & Industrial appliance division.
>

[UtwigMU]

Zero energy or net positive energy homes have been around for a while. The most energy in home goes for heating and for water heating. It's easiest to get close to zero energy by good planning, good properly done insulation (50-60cm thick walls for a passive house, the cost insulation amortizes itself in 20-30 years by heating costs savings), good design of heating and ventilation, use of heat pump (about 30% of energy that would be required for heating) and using solar power for heating of water. There are a lot of centuries old design principles that significantly contribute to energy efficiency such as green porches that provide shade in the summer but not in the winter, proper orientation of rooms towards sun, size of windows and openings on different sides.

The appliances and energy used up by them don't contribute much. With electricity it's possible to use solar power as addition, however it also requires storage of energy for cloudy days. If the state has regulations, where utility companies are required to buy power from homes, it takes expensive and problematic battery out of the equation. Wind is more problematic, since you can't install wind turbines in all places.

The best thing is using clean, efficient thermo-power plant combo (possibly using renewables such as wood pellets or waste from farms) and provide hot water to homes. Basically in thermo plants not all energy can be converted to kinetic energy and then to electricity, so it just goes in the air through giant cooling towers. That energy can be instead used for heating of homes and water.

The "smart grid" project above is probably just a ploy to have people replace all their appliances with the "new and better" smart grid ones.

[cjolley]

All using their equipment, both in the house and at wind farms, solar farms etc. etc., which is why they're such strong proponents of cap-and-trade and other enviro projects.

Yes kiddies, all this environmental stuff comes after years of preparation in the form of contributions to the right politicians (of both parties). Their GE-fu is strong, and it will put us at GE's mercy instead of other energy companies.

...

Did somebody forget to take their meds this morning?

Do you really mean these comments?
They are just wacky on so many levels hard to know where to begin.


PS Actually, it makes me feel pretty good about the GE stock I bought a couple of month ago

[Dr Mordrid]

No, I did not forget my meds....not that I take any 'mental health' ones anyhow.

Look, I appreciate the tech. It's neat and all. The problem I have is their pushing questionable techs like wind power, something T. Boone Pickens dumped billions on before getting out of it last week, through environmental policy where without subsidies it can't make it on its own at the current state of the art. GE needs subsidies too, but instead of drawing back like Pickens until the tech is ready they want to push ahead by suckling at the public teat.

IMO wind won't work until the cost of construction/operation is less than half of what it is now, mainly because they use a huge amount of the power generated just to run their internal electronics. Then there is that their up-time is only about 25 to 30 percent.

Another problem is noise. Billions are spent on noise abatement in this country and all of a sudden they want to put thousands of very noisy windmills up. Ever been near those things? Sounds like a small airport.

[Brian Ellis]

As UMU says, zero-emission homes have been built in Europe (you can say experimentally) for at least 15 years. These are just about available off catalogue now. What is more important is that they don't involve any cap and trade.

The idea of GE would not work in Europe as the Monopolies Commission would not allow it unless GE allowed other manufacturers of appliances to use exactly the same equipment.

Speaking personally, our carbon footprint has been very substantially reduced over the past two years or so, by a series of measures:
-- aluminium framed double glazed windows replaced by UPVC framed ones
-- installation of hot water circulation pumps
-- replacement of clothes washer and dishwasher by AAA appliances
-- replacement of old solar hot water heater with more efficient one
-- replacement of tungsten filament lamps by compact fluorescent ones
-- replacement of car by hybrid car

Our electricity consumption, including for heating and air conditioning, is about 45 % down, on average, on what it used to be, and the cost is still lower despite the massive increases in the price of electricity. Our cost of motor fuel is down by over 50%.

It only requires a little commonsense and some capital outlay to make massive economies in the consumption of energy. As a general rule, the capital outlay that I have made may be amortised in three to eight years at today's cost of energy. If the price of energy rises further, as may be expected, then my amortisation period will be less. Okay, we are far from being carbon neutral because we live in a conventional house with poor insulation. But it is significant that just changing the window frames has made an enormous difference to heating and air conditioning costs. It was not cheap, but the change in comfort alone has made it worthwhile, quite apart from the reduced energy aspect.

I am of course aware that the conditions in the USA are far different from where we are living. Our climate is different and road conditions are different and house construction is very different, partially due to the regulations regarding resistance to earthquakes (even in California, many houses are wooden a frames -- over here, they are all reinforced concrete framed, with floating slabs and massive roof trusses. This construction may not be very energy-efficient but they do protect us!). It is therefore very difficult to make a direct comparison between Europe and the USA. Notwithstanding, I get the impression that GE's initiative is very much more commercial than environmental!

[Brian Ellis]

No, I did not forget my meds....not that I take any 'mental health' ones anyhow.

Look, I appreciate the tech. It's neat and all. The problem I have is their pushing questionable techs like wind power, something T. Boone Pickens dumped billions on before getting out of it last week, through environmental policy where without subsidies it can't make it on its own at the current state of the art. GE needs subsidies too, but instead of drawing back like Pickens until the tech is ready they want to push ahead by suckling at the public teat.

IMO wind won't work until the cost of construction/operation is less than half of what it is now, mainly because they use a huge amount of the power generated just to run their internal electronics. Then there is that their up-time is only about 25 to 30 percent.

Another problem is noise. Billions are spent on noise abatement in this country and all of a sudden they want to put thousands of very noisy windmills up. Ever been near those things? Sounds like a small airport.

I tend to agree with you that wind can never be the answer to all our energy problems for a number of very good reasons. However, I feel you are mistaken when you talk about the noise. It is true that early wind turbines were very noisy. Great efforts have been made by companies like Vestas to reduce noise levels and they have succeeded in cutting them by over 30 dB for their very large turbines (three to 5 MW). I also disagree with you that the electronics reduces their efficiency beyond all measure.

Where I do agree with you is that their conversion efficiency, depending very much on the site, is too low. What is needed are turbines which will work over a wind speed range of, say, 2 to 25 m per second, without danger of the blades breaking up under gale conditions, instead of the current designs where the output is almost negligible under 10 m per second. As far as I know, with current technology, this is not possible.

I have explained some of these points in more detail at http://www.cypenv.info/worldee/files...x#Wind%20power and you may care to have a look at this and comment.

It is interesting to note that the UK is getting less enthusiastic about wind power since the various large windfarms that are already in service are not producing as much juice as was originally foreseen. Quite frankly, I am not surprised.

That having been said, I still believe that wind energy can contribute sufficient kilowatt hours to enable some fossil fuel power stations to be switched off for considerable periods in countries with favourable wind patterns. It is proposed that this country installs a number of wind farms, when serious studies have shown that there is insufficient wind to make them anywhere near efficient. However, this is a stupid political decision to satisfy the EU that we are doing our bit to reduce fossil fuel consumption, even though it will be negligible. I have little doubt that the EU will pay a large part of this project, but we, the inhabitants of Cyprus, will pay dearly when the government is fined for exceeding heart quota of carbon emissions. We have already received one fine of €10 million for just this and guess who pays? Mr taxpayer of course.