Shell’s Side of the Story

One thing that I have noted so far about living in the U.K. is that the general attitude toward oil and gas companies seems to be different than in the U.S. Despite the fact that oil and gas is crucial to modern daily life, oil companies are largely reviled in the U.S. The public simply hates us, even though they would have a tough time getting along without us. Perhaps it is because I am in the oil capital of Europe, Aberdeen, that the attitude is more accepting. Or perhaps it is because the government, not the oil companies, reap most of the benefit of high gas prices here (and that the public has lived with high prices for a long time).

Oil and gas companies have done a horrible job of dialoguing with the public to explain what it is we do, why prices go up, etc. In fact, my company regularly has opinion surveys in which employees are allowed to have their voices heard on issues affecting the company and the industry. Three years ago, I suggested that we get more involved in alternative fuels (which we have now begun to do). Last year, I suggested that we needed to go out and have some dialogue with the public, and especially with the critics. We don’t need to ignore them; we need to answer their questions and address their criticisms.

That dialogue has begun to take place. Byron King, whose writings at Whiskey and Gunpowder I enjoy very much, recently reported on Shell president John D. Hofmeister’s recent stop in Pittsburgh:

The Shell Answer Man and Peak Oil Part I

The Shell Answer Man and Peak Oil Part II

Byron opens with:

First of all, Thank you, Shell Oil Co., and thank you, Mr. Hofmeister. No matter what else I say in the following two-part commentary (and frequent readers know that I will have a few things to say), I certainly appreciate that a large company like Shell would make the effort to hold what amounts to a “national energy discussion.” And it says something important that a big, publicly traded company like Shell would send no less than its president out on the road to give the pitch. I suspect that such a senior corporate officer might have a few other things to do, like run Shell Oil. But then again, educating the public about the nation’s energy supply and answering peoples’ questions on the subject might just be more important over the long term than squinting at a few more spreadsheets full of obscure data or buttering up the stock analysts.

Given the importance of energy in our society today, as well as the many misconceptions about this industry, I wish everyone could go to these events and have a chance to ask their questions and vent their frustrations. Sometimes, you just might get your paradigm shifted. I have interacted with enough people to understand that some are going to hate oil companies, regardless. But most people’s minds are at least somewhat open, so there is a chance of them actually listening and coming away with a better understanding of what it is that we do (even if they still hate us).

[As an aside, I do not deny that some companies (like ExxonMobil) have a history of funding global-warming deniers. I find it pretty reprehensible any time science is being funded on the basis of supporting a particular viewpoint. I am not suggesting that Global Warming science should not be challenged. Of course it should. That’s what science is all about. But scientific consensus, which this issue has, should not be taken lightly. The scientific consensus, while spectacularly wrong in some instances, is right the vast majority of the time.]

There was a particularly interesting discussion on Hofmeister’s salary, but here was the story that I thought really drove home what goes on behind the scenes:

In the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, almost all of the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries were down due to flooding and other storm damage. Shell had 300,000 barrels of refined product in storage at its Baytown, Texas, refinery, which was essentially the only supply available to the entire Southeast region, but there was no electricity with which to run the pumps. Whoops!

Shell employees and contractors were working feverishly to rig up electric generators at the Texas facility, but it was a race against time, over a 48-hour period, until the Plantation and Colonial pipelines — the major trunk carriers for refined product between Texas and the Southeastern U.S. — went dry. If word escaped of the predicament, Shell executives believed that many members of the consuming public would have panicked. Then “panic-buying” would have immediately kicked in and rapidly drained whatever fuel was left in the supply system. The entire U.S. Southeast, home to about 60 million souls, could have been caught in a situation in which there would be no fuel available anywhere. It fell to Shell’s Mr. Hofmeister to call the U.S. Secretary of Energy and deliver the bad news.

But like the cavalry arriving near the end of a John Ford Western, Shell’s hardworking people hooked up the Texas facility with electric power, with all of about 12 hours to spare. Shell started pumping gas into the pipeline system. There were, you may recall, spot shortages of fuel in the U.S. Southeast, but no regional lack of product.

There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes to keep the corner gas station supplied with fuel. People are called out to fix equipment in the middle of the night. Weekends are interrupted with emergencies. Many people tragically lose their lives every single year on the job. (We lost one at my location just two weeks ago; he fell off a boat in the North Sea and drowned). So it is particularly bothersome to me that my industry is held in such low regard.

On the subject of oil shale, I could only smirk:

Other areas of interest and investment by Shell include Colorado oil shale, in which Shell has pursued a 20-year research project. But any major investment in oil shale is, according to Mr. Hofmeister, “still many years away” for Shell. Mr. Hofmeister did not say it in so many words, but the tone of his voice seemed to emphasize the quantity of “many.” So don’t hold your breath. Oil shale has been the “fuel of the future” for a long time, and still is.

Don’t say I didn’t tell you so:

“Oil Shale Development Imminent”

I just don’t believe we are ever going to see the trillion barrel reserve of oil shale contribute to our energy needs. The energy return is just too low, and barring a technological miracle, it will remain as out of reach for us as the methane lakes on Titan.

Finally, Mr. Hofmeister commented on Peak Oil:

As I mentioned in Part I of this article, Mr. Hofmeister takes questions as well as gives speeches. And so I asked him straight up about Peak Oil: “Mr. Hofmeister, does Shell Oil have a corporate policy or position on the concept of Peak Oil, which you know was pioneered by former Shell geologist M. King Hubbert?”

And here is exactly what Mr. Hofmeister said: “Among informed Shell executives, there is a rejection of the Peak Oil theory.” Peak Oil is, he stated, “based on flawed assumptions.”

I hate answers like this. Among informed Shell executives? That’s just an example of the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy. Mr. Hofmeister gave 3 reasons for rejecting Peak Oil “theory”:

1. Peak Oil deals with conventional oil and does not take into account sources of unconventional oil, such as tar sand, oil shale, and heavy oil.

2. Peak Oil assumes that technology is static, when, in reality, there have been “huge strides” in the ability to enhance oil recovery from older oil fields.

3. By diversifying energy resources, “People will switch demand to other energy sources” long before conventional oil runs out.

Mr. Hofmeister’s answer here indicates to me that he is misinformed about what Peak Oil actually is. First of all, it isn’t a theory. It is an observation. It doesn’t mean that we are running out of oil. It refers to the point where oil production has peaked and started to fall, just as it has done in the U.S. since the early 70’s. And no amount of unconventional oil, technology, or diversified energy sources has prevented the U.S. from importing increasing amounts of oil year after year, even though we have plenty of incentive to reduce imports. But when the peak is on a worldwide basis, imports can’t make up the shortfall, leaving us with a bit of a problem.

Shell should be familiar with this idea, given that they have been unable to replace their reserves in recent years (the same is true for many other oil companies). And if you can’t replace your reserves, eventually your production is going to start falling.

Furthermore, even if we don’t have a true peak in the next 2 or 3 years, the supply/demand situation is likely to remain tight. In a market with little spare capacity, increasing demand that outpaces supply (even is supply is increasing) behaves much like Peak Oil in the scenario I have dubbed Peak Lite.

Either situation, Peak Oil or Peak Lite, means we are going to have to make do with less. The sooner we implement policies to conserve our remaining supplies and adopt alternatives that make sense, the less likely we are to have a disastrous transition.

Anyway, I encourage you to check out the links to Byron’s essays. There is a lot that I didn’t cover (Shell’s involvement in cellulosic ethanol, for instance), and the essays were very informative (as his essays always are).

9 thoughts on “Shell’s Side of the Story”

  1. Robert – interesting observations. Go to the “Conversation on Energy” site and view the Feb. 13 town hall video. I think you will like the comments of Lew Burke and Dr. Scott Tinker. Tinker’s view on peak oil is that the front side of the curve looks like a bell, but the back side is not as clear. Technology creates bumps in both finding and producing reserves that make the peak last longer. He believes (as do I) that we will have enough time to transition to something else.

    Tinker nails ethanol for what it is, an energy conversion scheme. I believe he thinks the same for shale oil. Both strategies turn natural gas (or coal) into liquid transporation fuels.

    Burke takes on the folly of grain ethanol, the technical difficulty of celluosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewables. We are working on the problem. I’ve talked to Lou about this. He feels it will likely require genetically modifying both the biomass and the enzymes.

    One of our problems as a company is there is a perception that we aren’t doing anything about the problem. When in reality we have thousands of very smart people thinking about and working on new forms of energy every day.

  2. Robert said, One thing that I have noted so far about living in the U.K. is that the general attitude toward oil and gas companies seems to be different than in the U.S. Despite the fact that oil and gas is crucial to modern daily life, oil companies are largely reviled in the U.S. The public simply hates us, even though they would have a tough time getting along without us.

    Ay laddie, all true,

    The one single fact that most oil users and whiners in the U.S. fail to see is that we hold the power to control the price of oil right in our own hands.

    If each one of us just cut our consumption of oil by as little as 10%, the price of auto fuel in the U.S. would go into freefall.

    Cheers,

    Gary Dikkers

  3. I think you will like the comments of Lew Burke and Dr. Scott Tinker.

    I watched this over lunch today. I thought their comments were spot on.

    If each one of us just cut our consumption of oil by as little as 10%, the price of auto fuel in the U.S. would go into freefall.

    Yeah, but that would require the acceptance of personal responsibility, and it might be a bit inconvenient for some. So, society won’t do it willingly.

    Cheers, Robert

  4. Maybe the oil industry should show it’s behind conservation by releasing the patents on NiMH battery technology. Currently, they are using those patents to prevent higher efficiency electric and gas/electric vehicles from hitting the road. For example, look how they sued Toyota and Panasonic for how they built larger than “allowed” NiMH batteries for the Prius/etc. And the limit to larger sized NiMH batteries.

    So the oil companies should put there money where their mouth is AND stop opposing alternate energy technologies.

  5. MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R13

    In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
    “Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
    Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

    The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)

    The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

    In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

    A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

    This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

    “To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”

    Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
    Northridge, CA. 91325
    Feb. 28, 2007

    P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
    I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
    “the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change.”
    The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

    The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.

    Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

    Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2

    4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

    Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).

    Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on “performance based” (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product – that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

    Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.

    Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
    The head of the U.S. government’s renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing “embarrassingly few things” to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation’s energy future. “I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen.” What’s needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,”
    solar energy – the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
    FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
    All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
    “The goverment should serve as an example to its citizens”
    Jay Draiman

    Northridge, CA 91325
    Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com

  6. Maybe the oil industry should show it’s behind conservation by releasing the patents on NiMH battery technology. Currently, they are using those patents to prevent higher efficiency electric and gas/electric vehicles from hitting the road.

    I have heard this before. What is the source of this information? I would like to investigate.

    Thanks, Robert

  7. Robert

    One reason Shell and BP have less of an image problem here, is that they have both explicitly recognised the problem of global warming and their CEOs and advertising have made statements about it.

    They are also both big investors in solar energy, and BP was trying to build a carbon capture and sequestration gas turbine unit at Peterhead in Scotland.

    Contrast that to the direct obstructionism of Exxon on global warming, including funding pseudo-science lobby groups, and their heavy involvement in the Bush Administration and its relaxation of environmental regulations and denial of global warming.

    Other factors:

    – the main factor in the cost of petrol here is the level of taxation on petrol and diesel fuel, not oil company gouging

    – retail petrol pricing is highly competitive, with leading retailers like Tesco and Asda actually having the largest market share

    – Shell got really gored on Brent Spar, the deep sea disposal of a rig. Greenpeace really got their goat here (wrongly, in my view).

    Shell has learned it has to keep a cleaner nose with the public.

    Where Shell has a serious image problem is over Nigeria, and its role in the suppression of local people there.

  8. Energy Independence begins with Energy efficiency – It’s cheaper to save energy than to make energy.

    Updated
    MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R15
    By Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
    In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
    “Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
    Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

    The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects, replacement of appliances, motors, HVAC with the use of energy efficient materials-products, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, insulation, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)

    The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

    In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

    A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

    This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

    “To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”

    Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
    Northridge, CA. 91325
    May 31, 2007

    P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.

    I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.

    “the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change.”
    The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

    The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.

    Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

    Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2

    4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

    Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).

    Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on “performance based” (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product – that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

    Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.

    Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.

    The head of the U.S. government’s renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing “embarrassingly few things” to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation’s energy future. “I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen.” What’s needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,”

    solar energy – the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.

    Disenco Energy of the UK has announced it has reached important
    milestones leading to full commercialization, such as the completion of
    field trials for its home, micro combined heat and power plant (m-CHP).
    The company expects to begin a product roll out in the second quarter of
    2008.
    Operating at over 90 percent efficiency, the m-CHP will be able to
    provide 15 kilowatts of thermal energy (about 50,000 Btu’s) for heat and
    hot water and generate 3 kilowatts of electricity. The m-CHP uses a
    Stirling engine generator and would be a direct replacement for a home’s
    boiler.
    Running on piped-in natural gas the unit would create some independence
    from the power grid, but still remain connected to the gas supply
    network.
    Whereas heat is supplied only when the generator is running (or
    conversely electricity is generated only when heat is needed) a back-up
    battery system and heavily insulated hot water storage tank seem
    eventual options for more complete energy independence.

    FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
    All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
    “The government should serve as an example to its citizens”

    Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
    Northridge, CA 91325
    Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
    Posted on: 06/13/2007

  9. Homeowners can cut energy bills by making their houses more energy-efficient R2
    HOMEOWNERS can practically hear the meters ticking as their air conditioners fight this summer’s sweltering heat.
    But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things they can do to ward off high energy bills now–and once winter sweeps in.
    Just ask THE ENERGY EXPERT, who conducts residential energy audits as National Energy Efficiency Auditor.
    “The most common problem is air infiltration,” he said, “where unconditioned air meets conditioned air.”
    THE ENERGY EXPERT, who uses smoke pencils to detect leaks and infrared scans to check insulation, windows, attics and roofs, said poorly insulated “room additions” over garages top the list of energy wasters.
    “Builders don’t always sheathe the back side of the drywall in insulation, so hot attic air infiltrates the room,” he said. “There’s only one piece of drywall keeping the hot air out.”
    THE ENERGY Experts’ solution is to install energy-efficient foam board with an aluminum-foil backing behind the drywall. A recent job cost about $300 and or insulation and attic fans in the attic – there is also a rebate and tax credits (check with your local utility). (Insulation in the attic and attic fans reduce energy consumption substantially).
    “It pays for itself in one season,” THE ENERGY EXPERT said.
    Homeowners typically spend about $1,600 a year to heat and cool the house, turn lights on and off, and operate appliances, said spokeswoman for the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
    But they can cut those expenses by as much as $600 by switching to more energy-efficient products and taking a variety of other energy-saving steps.
    Those can be as simple as replacing a 15- to 20-year-old refrigerator with a new Energy Star model, which uses about a fourth as much electricity as an older appliance, and/or putting compact florescent bulbs or LED bulbs in at least the five most commonly used light fixtures in the house. You should also replace burned out motors/compressors with energy efficient multi-stage motors.
    “Compact fluorescents cost more up front, but you really make it up because they use somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the energy required for an incandescent and they last 10 times longer,” the Energy Expert said. “Plus, they don’t burn as hot, so they don’t heat up the place during the summer and your air conditioner has to work less hard.”
    A good place for homeowners to start in determining how their energy usage stacks up is to log on to the Home Energy Saver at homeenergysaver.lbl.gov.
    Developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, this site calculates energy use and savings tips based on information that users provide. Type in a ZIP code and up pop the energy costs of an average home and an energy-efficient home for that area.
    The program also includes a questionnaire that asks for more detailed information so it can provide a customized answer. It also has links to sites that provide a wealth of information about its energy-saving recommendations.
    On various utility companies Web sites, shoppers can order a similarly helpful gizmo called Watts Up? Plug in any standard 120-volt appliance or electronic device, and it will analyze such things as current draw, incoming voltage and cost of operation. The Watts Up? Basic model costs $89.95 and the pro version costs $123.95.
    Rather leave audits to professionals?
    Some auditors offer a standard audit for $100 that includes a visual inspection of the house and its heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. An expanded audit, which costs $200, includes tests to check for leaks in air ducts and the house’s air-tightness.
    Your local utility company may do audits, also has a list of providers on its Web site.
    Low-income homeowners can get help for free through the Aging weatherization assistance program.
    “We go into the house and do various tests to find problem areas,” said the Energy Consultant. “What we do in most cases is make minor repairs and blow in insulation.”
    Last fiscal year, many families got help through the federally funded program.
    Sometimes, however, the most effective ways to trim energy usage are the easiest, the Energy Expert said.
    Putting up weather-stripping, for example, is something anyone can do yet many people overlook, he said. The same goes for changing a heating system’s air filters on a regular basis or a set-back thermostat.
    The Energy Expert also recommended installing ceiling fans and programmable electronic thermostats. A fan can make a room feel cooler so the air conditioning can be turned up, and a programmable thermostat automatically lowers the heat setting while homeowners are at work and raises it just before they return.
    The Energy Expert has also learned that putting the screens/shades on the south-facing windows of the house in the summer will help block out some of the sun’s fierce heat. In some states especially the western parts of the United States temperature at night falls to 50-60 degrees – open the windows and shut the air-condition and or utilize a fan to bring in the fresh cooler air – it is also healthier and reduces indoor pollution. In areas of the country that have a high humidity – you can install a dehumidifier in the summer to reduce energy cost and a humidifier in the winter.
    “I take the screens and or shades off in the winter,” The Energy Expert said.
    Increasing a house’s energy efficiency not only lowers the owner’s bills, it also raises the value of the property. According to an EPA-funded study done in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, a house’s value jumps $10 to $25 for every $1 the owner is able to save on annual fuel/energy bills. You can also utilize rainwater and grey water to reduce your water and sewer bill. Some utility companies will allow you to install a sub-meter for the water used for landscaping, swimming pools and ponds – which eliminates the sewer charge from that portion of your water bill.
    “You’ll get a better price because you can show them your heating and cooling bills, which are reasonable and not outrageous,” said The Energy Expert, national energy-management coordinator.
    The Energy Expert oversees many Energy Saver Home programs, which inspects houses as they’re being built to insure they’re properly insulated and sealed. The inspections cost $250 and come with a year-long warranty. For an added service The Energy Expert will perform a site inspection for the installation of Solar/Photovoltaic system for the home and/or business and its benefits, costs, rebates, tax credits, financing and ROI.
    Prospective buyers of energy-efficient houses can get a break, too.
    “Some mortgage companies will allow you a better debt-to-income ratio,” The Energy Expert said. “They know your electric/gas utility bills will be less so you’ll have more income to put toward your mortgage.”
    YJ Draiman – Energy Savers 6/29/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com

Comments are closed.