Home energy monitoring systems ain't what they used to be—and that's a good thing. Historically, home energy monitoring devices have measured energy use within a dwelling, allowing users to see how much their consumption was reduced when they turned off appliances or adjusted their thermostats.
These monitoring systems have evolved and can now provide one-way communication with utilities, translating information that the utility drops off at the meter about peak energy use and kilowatt costs into a language that helps homeowners understand how they can reduce energy bills through behavioral modification, like washing clothes at night and switching to LED light bulbs. Soon, these systems will be able to talk to electronic devices within the home to turn them on and off to optimize energy and water use.
While most utilities are not yet employing the technology that would allow for a two-way dialog with these resource monitoring systems, they will soon. Before we know it, utilities will be able to communicate with customers through these monitoring devices not only about peak energy usage, but also about the times when renewable energy is most accessible, categorizing the greenness of the energy being used. At this point, a homeowner can make decisions about energy usage not just based on cost, but also on environmental impact.
And, at some point, the applications for these systems will extend well beyond energy or water usage. Their primary function will evolve to become a home concierge device, delivering customized information in real time and on demand. These systems will not only facilitate communication between homes and their utility companies, but also between homes within communities (for example, the devices will tie into central community water monitoring systems that can activate automatic sprinklers when demand for water is at its lowest level).
Homeowners will be able to use a feature-rich, personalized touch-screen to access information about traffic, weather, headline news, conservation tips, and dollar savings. Families will be able to track their carbon footprint and make decisions about things ranging from driving routes to product selections accordingly. These home concierge systems will become residential gateways, allowing people to make choices that simultaneously save money and reduce their environmental impact.
I can think of a host of sustainable applications for these types of systems. Can you? Share your thoughts with us so that we can pass them along to our friends at companies like GE, Advanced Telemetry, and IBM that are actively developing these products, as well as utilities like PG&E that are working to expand their clean energy portfolios.
Posted: 8/24/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments
One of the top news stories this week is the fate of the Car Allowance Rebate System, A.K.A., 'Cash for Clunkers'. The program, which offers $3,500 to $4,500 in rebates to automobile owners who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy, was created to prop up the faltering American auto industry and improve the average fuel efficiency of vehicles across the nation.
Cash for Clunkers has been so popular with consumers that the initial $1 billion allocated to the program was exhausted in a matter of days. While the program provided a tangible financial stimulus for auto makers, dealers, and consumers alike, the future of the program seemed uncertain—that is, until the Senate joined the House yesterday in extending the program, funding it with another $2 billion, which is expected to last through the summer and subsidize the purchase of approximately 500,000 cars.
Critics argue that the Cash for Clunkers program is a give-away to auto makers, creates unnecessary debt, and that it misappropriates taxpayers' money to a band-aid fix that doesn't create a long-term financial solution. Environmentalists contend that the embodied energy and additional waste created by destroying the clunkers negate the benefits of getting the cars off the road. From a short-term perspective, both of these arguments have validity. But, in certain ways, each of them misses the point.
The larger issue here is not the average 61% increase in fuel economy (or 10 M.P.G. increase) that the new cars represent over the clunkers or the average $850 per year that drivers will save in fuel costs.
What we should be focusing on is the need for an arsenal of solutions like this one to adequately address the immense emissions problem caused by our transportation system, which, according to the EPA, accounts for nearly 40% of our national greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve the kind of results that would be needed to satisfy the energy and climate legislation passed by the House (which requires carbon dioxide emissions to drop 83% by 2050), we can't just focus on getting cleaner vehicles on the road, we need to look at larger changes in our transportation system, travel behavior, and regulatory strategies.
Posted: 8/7/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments