|
Response to President Bush on air temperature decree.
- S'Agaro May 07, 2001 -
We learned in the news that the President issued a decree of rising the allowed temperature for cooling of Governmental buildings to 78 degree Fahrenheit. Is this meant to help California in its crises?
For us this is a "deja vu" from the 1973 crises and the reactions from the politicians. It is a very large chance that this decision to rise the set point (operating temperature) could go to the history as an ignorant decision in favor of the energy producer interests. When discovered in the future, the history will not be kind to it, ignorance in these questions is a short term stage and will not last. Besides, 78 degree F is probably the room mean value temperature, but the human body does not feel the room mean value temperature only, but also the radiation from hot window panes. We are talking about the effective temperature which can both be calculated and measured. We don't know what office people will say when their bodies feel like it is 82+ deg F when the usual thermometer says 78. Maybe some experts in the West Wing can tell the President?
It will probably save on the energy bill in short term, but have little chance to help in lowering the peak demand. In fact it even have a chance to make it worse. It might slightly lower the number of "Black Outs", but will not help to eliminate them. It is difficult to judge without proper simulation of the buildings in question. Because the capacity of the cooling equipment are grossly over-dimensioned, the decree will ensure that they work at full capacity only during peak hours. One thing for sure, is that the government employees will suffer during all their working hours.
It is one advantage with the decision from political point of view. Because the governmental usage is such a small part of the consumption, the people might not immediately discover the ignorance in it. In this case it is a fair chance that you would look as having initiative and being forceful. But this is only a "play for the galleries" and not an informed decision. If the rest of the consumers in the private sector, do the same, you will be discovered. They will probably do so, because of the short term financial gains that can be done, with loyalty to you mr. President as an excuse. The result is that you construct an abstract and non-valid argument for continuing to expand production resources for peak demand and ultimately a sure need for a higher price level.
We do not know which experts that advised you on the issue, but our suggestions would be,
- Introduce 24 hour operation policies in the buildings,
with a continued low or lower set point during night
and off peak hours. This will not reduce the over all
energy consumption, but will ensure that you have a cool
building, when you come to the peak periods.
It is important!
- Reduce the coil sizes (cooling capacity) with 50%. This
will ensure that you reduce the peak demand and make energy
savings. In the mean time, turn off or rise the set point
for the equipment during peak hours. This will maybe cause
some inconvenience for a couple of hours in some cases, but
will ensure a good climate during the rest of the time.
- On a little bit longer term, take other and more serious
permanent actions to conserve energy.
If the rest of the consumers in the private sector follow this example, it is a fair chance that you can eliminate the current peak demand crises. You not only have the chance to look forceful, you will also actually do something that effects the peak demand and the need of additional production facilities. Let the dog wag its tail this time. (definition from the movie "Wag The Dog": "Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog.")
The founders of "Energy Saving Now"
http://energysavingnow.com
Supporting documentation:
http://peakdemand.energy.saving.nu/
(description of peak demand crises)
http://1973.energy.saving.nu/
(experiences from Sweden during 1973 crises)
http://abingdon.energy.saving.nu/
(results from simulations of an office)
http://memorabilia.energy.saving.nu/
(excerpts from 1988 funding proposal for California)
http://california.energy.saving.nu/
(earlier open letter to California and Bush
administration)
© Copyright energysavingnow.com 2000.
© Copyrights to Software @ this site
|
|
Energy Savings in
UK
Energy Savings in
USA
"Disturbed children"
and
"Grumpy old men".
|
