Don’t Mess with the Stapler

5 04 2011

We, as an industry, have our work cut out for us in coming years.

Months ago an industrial energy efficiency consortium that puts on training events held a two-day workshop on motors.  Motors!  Talking about the common Swingline stapler for two days would be more interesting.  The efficient motor uses less energy in the amount of the difference in the reciprocals of old minus new.  I.e., (1/eff – 1/eff).  Multiply by nameplate horsepower then by 0.5 (don’t ask, just do it) then by annual hours of use.  Bingo!  There are your savings.  Two days!

There are more complex issues that may not be addressed.  One of these issues is, what is it that makes a motor more efficient?  Tighter windings and closer tolerances – I think.  I don’t care because the impacts are infinitesimally small compared to what end users ought to be doing.  This results in less slip, which means the efficient motor actually runs faster.  Here is the dirty secret:  An efficient motor may be three percent more efficient but as it runs faster on a constant speed fan or pump it would increase shaft power – power transferred to the impeller / fan wheel by 9%.  Increasing the load by 9% but doing it more efficiently by 3% does not save energy.  Quite the opposite, actually.  If one changed sheaves, which isn’t going to happen, or if the equipment is properly controlled by a variable speed drive, it may actually save energy.

On the whole, it is highly possible that efficient motors result in greater energy consumption.

Recently, we were meeting with regulatory staff and the topics of lighting and motors surfaced.  Apparently, the investor owned utilities are clinging to, and concocting ways to hold onto savings for efficient motors and lighting; minimum efficiencies for which thanks to the benevolent federal government are being ratcheted up by fiat.  Clinging like Milton and his beloved stapler.

Give me a break.  If programs are still relying on savings from motors, there is a major problem in Denmark.  How about considering what the motor is turning?  The load on the motor could probably be reduced by 50%, while they are going to “save” 3% with a stupid new motor that runs faster and uses more energy.

I can see what is going to happen.  Some utilities are going to whine to the regulators that all their savings opportunities are going away because the feds have ratcheted up standards.  Regulators should respond with the equivalent of “Gee, that’s really unfortunate.  Since you’ve installed all these motors that use more energy over the years, I think we will raise your savings target by one additional percentage point.”  Ironically, I learned that negotiating tactic from a utility.  “You think the penalty is too harsh?  I’ll add 50%.  Would you like to counter that again?”

Ironically, on the same day as the meeting with the regulatory staffer, I received information I had asked for purposes of evaluating the potential for retro-commissioning of a mid-size high school just over 250,000 square feet.  I had asked for the energy records.  The facility is using at least 50% more electricity than it should and 50% more natural gas than it should – easy.  It is using as much energy off peak as on peak.  The power factor is lousy.  With these symptoms, I bet I can call three top, major energy saving opportunities given the types of systems they have.  I’ll just leave it at that because it’s intellectual property available for a price.

I’ll bet my house that we can reduce their energy consumption by at least 30% with well under a five year payback.  It could be one year or three years, depending on what needs to happen to fix the causes of the waste.

Trust me when I tell you, efficient motors and new lighting will not be part of the 30% solution.


On the nearly useless EE front, see which internet browsers are most efficient.   However, the impact on battery life is worth noting.  If you don’t use the overpriced internet during air travel, kill the browser.

The president says federal vehicles will all use “clean” fuel by 2015.  What does that mean?  One percent of the fuel will come from reconstituted plastic grocery bags recovered from a landfill?   Meanwhile, the federal vehicles excluding military, guzzled 7% more gasoline than the previous year, using 322 million gallons of gasoline.  Congratulations.  I’m always pleased to be told how to live by hypocrites to whom no rules apply.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP

Pregnant Snake Armpits

1 03 2011

Although I don’t appreciate talking about it, we have a black list of companies and organizations for which we will not again partner with, work with, or bid their request for proposals.  What type of activities land somebody on this list?

Companies or organizations that take our business development efforts and give it to someone else.

We are working on retro-commissioning for a major player in the Midwest grocery market.  As with most of our investment-grade studies for energy retrofit or retro-commissioning, we like to use contractors to provide us with pricing because we expect they will get the work and therefore, the pricing is going to be more accurate in addition to having accountability for the prices at implementation time.  The contractor was very reluctant to help because he was afraid he would help develop pricing and concepts and then somebody else would get the work.  I laughed out of familiarity with such shenanigans.

Unfortunately, while working on the grocer project, we were victims of just what the contractor was talking about, on a different project.  We had completed an energy study for a quasi non-profit, quasi-government outfit (Jeff, how many times do you have to get burned before you learn?) and we were moving into developing the design and provided a proposal.  We had already pretty well nailed down the scope of the project.

Inject another righteous government agency to “help” this end user.  Well, they took our developed scope of work and put out a competitive request for proposals with OUR work on it.  So now we’re faced with throwing away all the development we had already done just to be competitive with the other bidders who were handed this on a silver platter.  As I wrote last week, it’s a rainy day in hell when a government outfit takes anything but the low bid, otherwise known as the cheapest, crappiest system imaginable; one that meets only the major recognizable features, like equipment efficiency.    There are plenty of places to cut cost on the design and on the project itself.

That agency is blacklisted.

Companies that use our credentials to win a job and then dump us like a cheap date.

Last year we had “teamed” with a local architect on a LEED project for a new nearby federal facility.  I must digress for a moment.  This project was in progress when the “stimulus” was passed – you know the one that was supposed to break loose the shovel-ready projects.  If this wasn’t shovel-ready, I don’t know what was.  The plans and specifications had been lying about for year or two waiting for approval to proceed.  It drug on for months once the stimulus passed.

Come to think of it, this one too was in our hip pocket and they bid the work out again.  I’m not sure why because the design was 90% completed but I suppose some milestone had passed and federal statutes required a rebid or something.

So now that it’s competitive, once again after doing a bunch of development and front end work, we have to cut cost to beneath the cheap and crappy level.  So our client, the architect asked us to chop our down our price.  We provided a counter offer and waited.   And waited, and waited.

We already had 20 or so LEED projects under our belt compared to near zilch for the architect.  Finally, we get a hold of the scumbag, er, I mean client, and he says, oh yeah, “The good news is, we won the project.  The bad news is, you aren’t on the team.”  This is lower than a pregnant snake’s armpit.  (stolen from the aussies and modified by me).


Companies or organizations that use our proposal in attempt to beat “their” firm down in price.

This one is more difficult to nail down but let’s just say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…  A large organization pursued by a bunch of consultants / contractors has been working with a provider for years and maybe they want a new or modified service, or maybe it’s just the same stuff they’ve been provided with many times.  Now they suddenly want a proposal from us.  This is either a Sarbanes Oxley corporate requirement (ok), process to actually evaluate invited bidders (ok), charade to fake a bureaucrat into thinking the chosen one was competitively selected (not ok), or a hammer to beat down the firm they know they are going to hire (not ok).  Essentially, we are wasting a bunch of our time to benefit only the buyer.  The other bidder(s) gets screwed too.

Blacklisted after a few of these – typically takes a few rounds of abuse to have this scam come into clear focus.

Wolves in sheep clothing.

Over the years we’ve been pursued by numerous companies that would like to partner with us.  It would be a marriage made in heaven.  Next step: an initial public offering on the NASDAQ!  Uh huh.  Sure.  These dirt bags just want access to our clients and for some reason, controls companies and performance contractors make up a substantial portion of this bunch.

Show me the money before I lift a finger or you are blacklisted.

A better way.

Recently a business partner stated it well, “What do we have in business and life but our reputations?”  And I always say to our company’s people, you best treat well everyone you work with in the company, our clients, and even the competition.  You never know who will one day be your client or supervisor, employee, or maybe someone you want to partner with, or get help from.

Everyone involved in business transactions should benefit – consultant, owner, utility, shareholders, and contractor.  Clearly and unfortunately, some entities think they can get ahead while screwing others and thinking they are getting a good deal or making extra profit.  Sooner or later these outfits run out of victims to exploit.  It shouldn’t be a fixed pie that everyone fights over.  It should be a pie from which everyone’s slice grows.


It appears Sacramento is contemplating the same fateful robbery of EE program dollars by hocking the stream of energy efficiency money.   In WI, this grab actually happened and crippled programs.  Ironically, or maybe not so, they would be both carried out under Democrat governors.

Outrage of the Week

Maybe I should start an outrage of the week?  Well here is the inaugural.  The DOE is calling it “Market-Driven Solutions” to work with behemoths like Target and Wal-Mart to develop new efficient rooftop heating and cooling units.  Is this the same Wal-Mart with $420 billion worldwide sales and $14.4 billion in annual earnings?  Chu, you have got to be kidding me.

Like General Electric, why doesn’t Wal-Mart get back to what they used to do well; innovate, rather than going to Washington with its hand out.  Time to put a “strong sell” on Wal-Mart stock.  They’re washed up.

This is a free market solution: an RFP for manufacturers of rooftop units to develop units that meet Wal-Mart’s specifications, reliably, and supply them with heating and cooling equipment for the next 100 stores.  After 100 stores, the incumbent has a huge advantage for (hopefully) proven success.

A portion of the $1.6 trillion, or as I like to say $1.6 million million, deficit is funding this kind of crap.  This wouldn’t be funny even if it weren’t true.

Oxymoron of the week: “DOE facilitates market-driven solutions”.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP

Need Not Miracles

23 02 2010

Thousands, make that millions of people, including some smart people and congress people, when talking solutions for our energy efficiency low-carbon future are continuously babbling about “technology” that will save us all.  Bill Gates says we need Miracles.  Whadahyou talking about man?  The White House announces $130 million for a new building energy efficiency effort – “a multi-agency initiative to spur regional economic growth while making buildings more energy efficient.”  It will be “an Energy Innovation Hub focused on developing new technologies to improve the design of energy-efficient building systems”.  Get ready for cold fusion to reemerge.

Let me tell you somethin’, we don’t need to throw bazillions of dollars into developing these new magic elixirs – not now anyway.  We need the public and organizations to take action with the “miracles” that are already on the shelf at your local home improvement center or mechanical and electrical contractors’ warehouse.  You saw last week’s rant on people at Boulder lead to the energy efficiency trough but refusing to drink.  This is the problem.  Why develop a bunch of other junk that people won’t buy?

I’ve been in the energy efficiency market for 14 years and there has really been very little progress in energy efficient products or technologies for commercial buildings during this period.  Why?  In large part because there are physical and scientific barriers.  Boilers and furnaces were available in the 90% plus efficiency then as they are now.  Electric motors run in the mid 90% efficiency range.  There is this theoretical barrier of 100% efficiency that Mr. Gates may think is just a nuisance.  Maybe it’s just that nobody has thought about it hard enough.  Chillers, lighting, variable frequency drives, compact fluorescent lighting, energy recovery – there have been no major breakthroughs with this stuff in 14 years.  Prices for some things have come down a lot and quality has improved.  The thing is, these technologies have become very cost effective as prices have dropped and energy costs risen.  Just use them already!

Other innovative system designs such as displacement ventilation and chilled beam cooling systems have been refined but I don’t think they were born in the past 14 years.  But even an “efficient” system can waste energy like congress can.  See previous posts “Dermal Beauty, Ugly to the Bone”, “The More You Spend, The More You Save”, and “LEED and the Not Happenin’ Energy Savings”.

Rather than developing miracles that many think are just sitting there waiting to be discovered, let’s use cost-effective technologies we have right now.  Compact fluorescent bulbs use 70% less electricity than incandescent, but they still only take up 30% of unit sales with the rest being incandescent in the screw-in category.  And this is in CA where programs have been running forever.  Beyond that, you would be amazed at how many variable frequency drives are spinning away at or near 60 Hz (that’s full speed) because of some bonehead control setpoint; heating and cooling systems fighting one another like a car traveling down the road with the brakes applied; many pieces of large “efficient” equipment like huge air compressors online blowing off compressed air (wasting it) or otherwise running at full capacity when only a tiny fraction is needed; it’s dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!

McKinsey  determined that the U.S. can cost effectively reduce energy consumption by 23% compared to BAU (business as usual – I like that one).  To become zero carbon, the first thing that needs to happen is minimize consumption through energy efficiency with existing technologies, system design, and controls optimization.  Once this happens, money that used to fly out the window to pay energy bills piles up so fast that renewable sources can be purchased, even though it may not be cost effective.  I’ve been through the exercise using a college campus as an example.  The perverse thing is that the more money an entity is wasting on energy, the easier it is to become carbon neutral.  How can this be?  There is a huge cash flow going to pay energy bills.  Much of that can first be cost effectively captured through energy savings.  Since more waste is eliminated, more cash piles up and renewable sources can be purchased sooner as the last leg to carbon neutral.  Of course you don’t want to be wasting energy in the first place, but if you are….

Why isn’t this happening?  There are enough barriers and discussion to fill a rack of encyclopedias but I’ve had enough for this week.

written by Jeffrey L. Ihnen, P.E., LEED AP