Latest Version of WG4 Chapter Just Uploaded

[Bruce Karney]

Hi, I've just uploaded a revised version of the Working Group 4
chapter. It includes updated material I've been sent by the WG and re-
orders the recommendations into priority order.

It's in our FILES area at this url:
http://mv-sust-task-force-energy.googlegroups.com/web/WG4ChapterDraft2.doc?gsc=Rs84NgsAAABsC3mpfjaQT6JHEomHDGEr

Feedback is welcome. The best format is if you specify page # and
paragraph # and send comments in plain text rather than using Word's
Markup features.

Cheers,
Bruce Karney

[Scott Peterson]

I'm proud of our document!  Nice work, everyone.  I have some comments to try to help some sections.  I haven't finished reading the whole document, but I wanted to send out my initial notes now.

In the photovoltaic recommendation and in the introduction of the document, PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) is mentioned about six times.  It repeats so often that it drowns out some of the other important points.  I recommend removing one or two occurances of the phrase.

In the solar hot water heating section, I recommend the following:

• to decrease risk of defensive response, remove "for as long as the sun shines on Mountain View."
• please reference source for "in 2005 we learned that "the carbon dioxide saved by using a solar water..."
  

• Remove idea that isn't relevant to Mountain View. "...This type of program appears much less suitable for Mountain View, which does not have its own utility; as mentioned above, the housing application would be very complex because of mixed incentives..."

• Ironically, I have had trouble finding resources that help me understand this "this mature, very beneficial technology for home or business."  This topic would be more compelling if it provided two or more sources (web pages?) that demonstrate the effectiveness of solar water heating.
  

• In commercial example, use the same CO2 conversion as mentioned in theWG4 introduction: 1 therm = 11.7 lb CO2

• Didn't understand concluding sentence of commercial example: "With a cost of $5,000 of savings of $129,123, this approach will save $776/metric ton." I think you've got gold here, just make sure it's clear.  Rather than conclude with dollars/metric ton (I don't understand what that tells me), just conclude with dollars saved, or dollars saved/year.
  

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Bruce Karney <bka...@aol.com> wrote:

It's in our FILES area at this url:
http://mv-sust-task-force-energy.googlegroups.com/web/WG4ChapterDraft2.doc?gsc=Rs84NgsAAABsC3mpfjaQT6JHEomHDGEr

--
Scott

[James Kempf]

Here's a link discussing exactly the problem you mention in the fourth bullet:

 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reworld/story?id=52695

 

         jak

[Scott Peterson]

To pick up where I left off:

In "free energy audits":

1. I had trouble understanding this sentence:

   "We recommend that the city offer free energy audits to a high opportunity small business and residences contracting with energy services companies or non profits"

2. "For residential energy audits, Acterra has documented 5 ton per year of CO2 reduced permanently through energy conservation measures."  How many residences did Acterra process to achieve this?  How does that compare to the potential in Mountain View?

3. I've noticed that our various computations use "tons" and "metric tons".  Using both can be confusing.  Fortunately, the differences are small, so ultimately either one we choose won't make a big difference in our numbers (1 ton(US) = 0.907184 metric tons).

In "demand response":

1. The statement "From 2005 base line data: Commercial and Industrial sectors together account for 80% of annual CO2(e) emissions from electricity use." appears wildly different than the statement from "free energy audits": "From 2005 base line data: Commercial and Industrial sectors together account for 24% of annual CO2(e) emissions in Mountain View."
2. I don't know what IOU stands for or what an Aggregator does.  Considering our audience aren't experts in the field, having definitions and reading reference on the subject would be useful.  The biggest reason that I didn't vote this up higher is because it is difficult to understand.  Anything you can do to make it easier to understand will help.  Mentioning that PG&E already supports this model is compelling. 
   

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Bruce Karney <bka...@aol.com> wrote:

It's in our FILES area at this url:
http://mv-sust-task-force-energy.googlegroups.com/web/WG4ChapterDraft2.doc?gsc=Rs84NgsAAABsC3mpfjaQT6JHEomHDGEr

--
Scott

--
Scott