My Good Old Refrigerator

My good old refrigerator is not silent. It isn't pretty. It's a Kenmore/ Sears, manufactured 5/89, Model 2538618011. It doesn't look much different from a currently-available model: 
Kenmore 60412 18 cu. ft. Top Freezer Refrigerator w/ Wire Shelves - White, $480. 

Am I doing anything wasteful just getting more service from this old fellow? Can't I just wait until I completely overhaul my kitchen? Do we have to worry about waste, in everything? An online assessment , where my home is already well-weatherized, flags refrigerator concern, and not much else.

Here is what I have learned with a Kill-A-Watt meter:
2516 elapsed hours
144 kwh used
Draws 11 watts when idle, and 210 watts when running.
Electricity cost at $0.15 per KWH is $21.60.
Scale up to a year, by *24*365/2516, to  $75 per year.

I think I may stop thinking about my refrigerator.  I will trust that a 27-year-old refrigerator has acceptable efficiency and reliability. Maybe I may wait until I'm off-grid with a Sunfrost .

The $0.15 per KWH cost of my electricity, and a precedent to this post is presented in a recent update of post More Tracking Of Electricity Usage , of November 2014, updated February 2016. My rate is unfairly high as noted, as a disincentive of my reduced usage of electricity.



My current electricity usage is about 8 KWH Per Day. The refrigerator usage is about 144/2516*24 = 1.4 KWH per day.

Can Light Replacement Math

I challenge low ambitions for saving of energy in residential lighting, in current rules, 2015 International Energy Conservation Code, IECC, Chapter 4 :

R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory).
Not less than 75% of the lamps in permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or not less than 75% of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only high-efficacy lamps.
Exception: Low voltage lighting.

Point source CFLs and other line-source fluorescent lamps are offered as these "high-efficacy lamps," as seen another 2015 IECC statement, Chapter 2, General Definitions :

R202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS
HIGH-EFFICACY LAMPS Compact fluorescent lamps, T-8 or smaller diameter linear fluorescent lamps, or lamps with a minimum efficacy of:

60 lumens per watt for lamps over 40 watts;
50 lumens per watt for lamps over 15 watts to 40 watts; and
40 lumens per watt for lamps 15 watts or less.

These limits mean nothing for residential LED lights, usually less than 15 watts, and efficacy better than 50 lumens per watt. Limits are in ignorance about usefulness of silly point-source LEDs that fill our stores. About half of the lumens of point source and linear lamps are wasted, not at all contributing to task illumination, but perhaps coloring walls and ceilings. The lumens per watt of point and line sources must be reduced by half, roughly, for comparison with directional light broadly aimed at a task, as with large beam angle downlighting. A point-source LED bulb at 50 lumens per watt is useless for task illumination, and is not high-efficacy.

The US Department of Energy seems to be the author of these rules, and does offer improvement for 2018. Here are seven residential energy submittals by US DOE, for 2018 IECC:
https://www.energycodes.gov/doe-proposals-2018-iecc#background 
This is claimed for R-5, High-Efficacy Lighting (R202)
Redefine "high-efficacy" to acknowledge the marketplace penetration of LED lamp technologies. The availability of LED lamps is growing rapidly and prices are falling just as quickly. This proposed change attempts to increase the lighting efficiency in homes by encouraging higher efficiency Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps while still permitting many CFL technologies. LEDs have been steadily gaining popularity over the last few years due to their higher efficiencies, better light quality (relative to Compact Fluorescent Lamps), and remarkably long lifetimes compared to traditional CFLs or incandescent lamps.
Proposal as PDF
R202 GENERAL DEFINITIONS
HIGH-EFFICACY LAMPS Lamps with a minimum efficacy of 75 lumens per watt.
Analysis as PDF

This DOE proposal is progress, but lacks recognition that efficacy is not simply lumens per watt. It also pushes the envelope on achievable directional-LED efficacy at a number of 75, where in 2015, I am not aware of any compliant luminaire on-offer in our stores. I admit that 50 lumens per watt might be just fine until one is trying to pull needed light from a limited-capacity on-home photovoltaic array.

Here is one resource describing an alternative measure of efficacy, a Brightness Number.
Looking For A Reading Light (a printable pdf)
A Brightness Number rates delivered task illumination independent of light form. It assesses this number in side-by-side comparisons of a candidate with a known reference. The judgement is by human eye and by digital camera calibrated to record scenes in keeping with human vision. A 100 watt incandescent bulb is assigned Brightness Number B4. A directional light perhaps called "wide flood," of beam angle greater than 90°, say 120°, is a practical offering, B4 at 450 lumens. If the color temperature of the 100 watt incandescent reference is 3000°K, as I observe, choose a 3000°K LED as human-preferred, at reference B4. A world-accepted measure comparable to this Brightness Number might be at other color temperature, where some people like yellowing "warmth" of 2700°K better. Perhaps the standard and the wish for our home lighting, should be with broader spectrum, where in an LED with a large number of diodes, blue-LED coloring phosphors are a mix of yellow colors. Color-tunable OLED ,  with variable relationship to now-ancient light forms, will demand some flexibility in a Brightness definition.

The goal in our advance of efficiency in residential lighting shall be that a number of lumens delivered upon a task, shall be achieved at ever-less consumed power and overall measure of operating cost and environmental harm. Point-source lights will never measure up to this goal, and must now fall away from our high-efficacy future. A point source light will always be half as efficient as that beaming from a plate. It is simple physics understandable by anyone. LED and OLED elements are inherently least cost where flat, and that is a blessing. Let us then deploy these elements fully-revealed, a least amount of light blocked by decorative or practical aperture and by obscuring lenses. Let us place them flexibly and artistically, with least holder cost and with ease and safety of change-out. (Handling as to paint a ceiling, or from whim of rearrangement, never failure.) Let them generally be downlights, aimed downward from the ceiling or a lower-elevation pendant. Where LEDs might work essentially forever, let safety include absence of fragile elements that can not tolerate expected dropping, through lens breakage or failure of electronics. Let electronics durability match that of served diodes.

Most-efficient luminaires will not include the needless added expense and generally-awful compromise of a home's shell integrity, of a holder can. The best opportunity is to deploy luminaires in new low-voltage DC circuits, 24 vdc the apparent standard. Advocacy in this is expressed in a Google + Community , and in a Pinterest page .

I have offered this, as one suggested better statement in 2018, submitted to IECC:
Specific new rules of Referenced Standards shall support transition toward distributed local electric power generation and shall promote most-efficient lighting and appliances. At 2016 revision, special attention is given to most-efficient LED downlighting. Mention of passing forms of light is not helpful. In the process of evolution, less-efficient light forms, including all point-source bulbs, will be tolerated and not regulated, only as less-used decor. Market forces including evolving absence of Energy Star recognition will give natural drive toward best luminaire efficiency. Delivery of better luminaires is very important, as inspiration for all other efficiency gains. Lighting used abundantly at little or no cost, is important to productivity and quality of life. We do not develop purpose and hope, in cold darkness.

In reasoning that supports this submitted text, I expressed my understanding of math, to address cost impact of encouraging light forms that do not include can lights. I wish to develop that math, here. Illustration will include real examples from my experimental work as a weatherization contractor. My work is carefully documented and reported, to ensure a process of constant learning of better practices.

First, consider work done in a Southwest Portland Oregon attic, February- March 2014. The home, as usual, is notable as one where other contractors, following the guidance of regional policymakers Bonneville Power Administration , and Energy Trust of Oregon , would have found no work to be offered. The job was first an example in challenge of policies. I have needed to do more with my records, in challenge of existing policies and practices in lighting installation.

Prior posts for this Southwest Portland home are:
Daring To Collapse and Rebuild Crummy Loose-Fill Fiberglass Insulation 
and 

Math Of Under-R12 Attic Floor Insulation Rule, For Incentives 


Photos for this post are in a captioned Picasa web album, Graphics for a can light replacement math study .


The Lighting Innovation:
It's routine. I do this wherever I fix attic insulation, by my own initiative.

I eliminated six Lightolier non-IC can lights. All had large annular gaps unobstructed at topside. If cans had been IC and covered, the insulation would have been fully blackened. The cans themselves were beautifully metal-spun and nearly airtight, high end for 1988 construction. What a waste. 


The can annulus diametral clearance was 7” - 6.25 = 0.75”, quite large. The frame was not pushed against the ceiling, and probably did not further constrict the passage of leaking air. Each can light had a gap of up to 7.8 sq in.  Apply Insulation Math for a Portland, Oregon home with a common 88%-efficiency furnace. The annual cost of heating lost air is $0.555*Path Area, $4.30 per year. At four places I replaced a 65 watt incandescent downlight with a 750 lumens 14.5 watt LED. Another can that had a long-dead 65 watt incandescent was patched out. At the sixth can, over-sink, I installed a 450 lumens 9.5 watt LED in place of a 150 watt incandescent downlight. 

Apply Insulation Math . Completing insulation in the floor should save, at each light:
$2.4 * Baffled Area, sf* (1/3 - 1/50)  = $0.75 * Baffled Area, sf
= $1.30 per year for an 18” baffled circle (1.8 sf).
= $3 per year for 4 sf uninsulated over the kitchen sink.


There is about $6 per year typical savings from air sealing and insulating each very leaky non-IC can light. 

Here is a sampling of the job photos:

The found conditions are typical, an uneven bed of loose-fill fiberglass originally thought R19, trampled. Non-IC can lights are shrouded against insulation, by floppy R11 batt cylinders.

In thirty minutes, and for cost of about $25,  I replace the 7" can hole with a sealed-in drywall patch and RACO 175 junction box, texture matched.

This is the appearance of a can light patch, from the attic, now readily accessible by a wonderful drop-down fire-rated attic ladder.

The loose-fill always misses a band of at least 12" at attic eaves. Here there was no insulation under the batt shroud of a far-out non-IC can, over the kitchen sink.

Mud wasps will hate me.












Conserve electricity, in addition to $6 per year savings through air sealing and completion of insulation at each can light.

Vs. a 150 watt incandescent flood, a 4” Glimpse saves $368 + 1  = $369, over 32 years. Vs. a 65 watt incandescent downlight, a 6” Glimpse saves $380 - 136 = $244 over 32 years. Total savings operating four 6” Glimpse and one 4” Glimpse vs. six found lights, are: $369 + 5*244 = $1589. Divide by 32, for first-year savings: $50.  Call this $8 per light. Include the savings from sealing and completing insulation over the light, in the payback study. Those savings, with very-leaky non-IC can lights are about $6 per year. Total savings are $14 per year. It is right that the savings for a light eliminated are included, where new LEDs are much brighter. Five LEDs will give much more light than six old incandescents, and the LED lights might be dimmed most of the time. There might be even more savings, where old lights might have been brighter than needed, much of the time, and were not dimmable.

A savings of $14 in the first year is presented as typical of the opportunity in any can light replacement with a disk LED giving better illumination. The savings will persist indefinitely.This is an energy conservation savings subject to growth with rising cost of electricity. Perpetual energy savings are far more valuable than simple savings of money, as presented in post Perpetuity Math For Energy Conservation .

If the cost of electricity goes up with cost of scarce fossil fuels, a geometric rise of 10% per year , the future savings become far more important than those of an initial period where an investment is simply repaid. If you will use a new light where first-year savings are $14, Present value through twenty years is times-44, or $616. Present Value through thirty years is times-110, or $1548. Please seek a constructive understanding of such reality-based large numbers. First see that a payment of much more than $60 could be offered in exchange for the wealth now-yours, however large you perceive it. Be very happy if someone would do the work right, for $120. My work at $60 will be in short supply. Next, imagine that vs. doing nothing now, you might get your lighting forever after, at no cost, from your off-grid disaster-preparedness rooftop photovoltaic array and battery interface. You will want as much result from your investment as possible, not just some or all of your lighting, but maybe the charging of an electric vehicle off-grid! You will want lights of best-available efficiency, but know that fifty lumens per watt technology , durable and inexpensive since 2011, already gives nearly all of the achievable savings. Don't expect to save more than fifty cents per year for each luminaire, in a doubling of efficacy, from 50 lumens/ watt, to 100 lument/ watt. That's another $22 of present value through twenty years; not nothing, but little enough that one will only lose, waiting to act when better products arrive.

A basis presentation is done, I hope. Get back then to challenge of US Department Of Energy actions toward the 2018-2021 International Energy Conservation Code. The need in better building codes is about equally to save electricity, and to save thermal energy by eliminating awful bulb holders. It is about delivering needed task illumination, with ever-decreasing cost, within a power budget. How about this as High Efficacy definition? Where arrays of luminaires deliver a set amount of task illumination, the lifetime operating cost of high-efficacy luminaires is less than 10% that of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. A decent LED as A19 in a crummy can, will not measure up, since can energy losses must be counted. No point source light will measure up.

Look for that 90% savings vs. 100 watt incandescent, in this table. See that it is achieved now with very inexpensive LED disk lights, including GreenCreative 40834 with AC LED fitting even on a fully loaded ceiling box. No can lights, please. Where LED disk lights might serve for 100,000 hours or more, we already are well beyond 90% reduction, still with "efficacy" around 67 lumens per watt.

As a single parameter defining "high efficacy," Brightness/ Watts > 0.5 works. And maybe Brightness/watts = 1 is an achievable goal of inexpensive luminaires, 450 directional lumens from a 4 watt LED, 125 lumens per watt in useful directions. Brightness Number = Watts? Why not?

> 75 Lumens/watt does not promise efficiency, and seems a mean effort to continue sale of point-source CFLs, that often are ugly and not dimmable. Can CFLs get that efficiency? Why would we try?

Still Looking For An LED Work Light

Desperate one day on a job, I reluctantly bought this LED work light currently sold by Cooper Industries, called LED 110. There are no promises on the packaging, but it looked like it might have ample LEDs.

Here is my photo of the package I bought:

Here is my illumination comparison test stand setup, with the Cooper LED 110 at Stage Right, and a GreenCreative Click 4" LED downlight , 3000°K, 625 lumens, 105° beam angle, at Stage Left. I find the light is too-blue, and is very directional, inconsistent with negligible aimability of a coat-hanger mount.

And, here is my brightness comparison, as recorded with a Canon Digital Rebel and matching my own observation:

The Cooper LED 110 work light gives very blue illumination, matching or exceeding that of the 625 lumens GreenCreative Click only in a narrow arc of perhaps 30°. With the poor aimability, I found the Cooper work light useless. An LED work light should have broad beam angle, with at least 1500 lumens. It is unfair that the Cooper 110 packaging makes no claims of offered task illumination. I would credit this with not more than 500 lumens, unhappy with color and directionality.

This light is no longer mentioned at the Cooper/ Eaton web site , and is no longer in Home Depot stores.

Look then for a better offering. I own mainly Milwaukee portable tools, and find they now offer this, Milwaukie M18 Rover , introduced 10/9/2015 . I am not delinquent in the discovery.

I ordered this at CPO Outlets, with a 2-Pack of Milwaukee RedLithium Extended Capacity batteries, total cost $348. A contractor will pay for needed revenue-producing tools, but perhaps I expect too much of consumer willingness for such investment. I will learn much from my investment, and will share here. 

Here is an overview of claims for Milwaukee Product # 2360-20 :
2X Brighter, Maximum Versatility – The New TRUEVIEW™ M18™ LED HP Flood Light is designed to give professionals a portable area lighting solution that replaces 500W Halogen Flood Lights and adapts, performs, and survives industrial use.  The 2360-20 is the industry’s brightest 18V LED flood light, and it is up to 20% brighter than 500W Halogen Flood Lights.  Capable of filling large areas with light, it provides 3,000 lumens of high definition light output for in its high mode, 1,500 in medium and 650 in low, and it can run for up to 2, 4, or 9 hours with an M18™ REDLITHIUM™ XC 5.0 Battery Pack.  In addition to running off of M18™ batteries, it can run off of an AC cord for all day applications.  It uses high quality LEDs with a neutral white color and a high color rendering index paired with a Milwaukee® designed reflector to produce an even beam pattern.    Its head rotates 240° to direct light where it is needed, and there are 3 keyholes in its base for hanging in multiple orientations.  Its compact footprint and integrated carry handles allow for easy transport or storage in bags, on carts, or in job boxes. This light stands up to the toughest working conditions, through its durable roll cage design and impact-resistant lens and bezel.  It offers significant advantages over halogen work lights with superior impact durability and temperature management, and its LEDs never need to be replaced, and are backed by a limited lifetime warranty.

I choose here to address functionality of a "work" light, as it might serve me as a weatherization contractor. I received my Milwaukee 2360-20 while working in this truss attic, placing plywood flooring over R42 batt insulation, in my usual quest to protect insulation for an indefinite, very long service life. Two elevations of flooring must notch into truss elements at edges. I do this neatly with a strong Milwaukee angle drill propelling hole saws, and with a very sharp hand saw. I need good light, and here am cutting in the best-lit spot, with a 900 lumens Sylvania 75094 LED up six feet, and with an array of surrounding 75094 up about eight feet, spaced eight feet apart. The attic is very bright and cheerful. The above photo is taken with iPhone 6 Plus no-flash auto exposure.

In the above photo, I have placed the Milwaukee 2360-20 on the nearest secure flooring, about eight feet from my work area, set at full power 3000 lumens, and with overhead lights turned off. Despite sending at least doubled lumen output, the Milwaukee 2360-20 is an inferior work light.

Here is a big-picture view of the work lighting with overhead fixed LED lights. It is so productive and cheerful.

Here is a test stand comparison of the Milwaukee 2360-20  at 3000 lumens, Stage Left, vs. Sylvania 75094 at full power, Stage Right. The Milwaukee 2360-20 seems to give correct wall color, and surely is brighter times three.

Here is my comparison stand setup for task illumination, Milwaukee 2360-20  at 3000 lumens, Stage Left.

Here is a test stand comparison of the Milwaukee 2360-20  at 1500 lumens, Stage Left, vs. Sylvania 75094 at full power, Stage Right. The Milwaukee 2360-20 again seems to give correct wall color, and seems is brighter times two.

Here is a test stand comparison of the Milwaukee 2360-20 at 650 lumens, Stage Left, vs. Sylvania 75094 at full power, Stage Right. The Milwaukee 2360-20 again seems to give correct wall color, better than the 3000°K Sylvania LED, and is a near match in brightness.

Here are conclusions, more observations,and suggestions for LED work light product improvement, from study of the Milwaukee 2360-20:

• Wonder: Is there magic in Milwaukee 2360-20 color rendering, vs luminaire construction with phosphors all 3000°K. 

• The Milwaukee 2360-20 will not serve me as a work light, and I should then think to return it for refund after this sharing. I don't work in one spot, that might be served with one beam. I have more needs to hang a light overhead, than to rest something on a table or floor. The Milwaukee 2360-20 three keyholes in its base for hanging in multiple orientations seem insecure.

• I imagine a better portable light that does not have a fixed luminaire. Let lights be strung as DC from plugin terminals upon a power pack. Let that power pack have DC input for charging, from a portable photovoltaic array. Let any grid power input be dual voltage, usable anywhere on Earth.

• The DC luminaires strung from the power pack may have clip and nail-up options.

• All of this becomes part of a disaster preparedness kit, of interest to many more than construction workers. The plug-in DC lights satisfy my vision .

We progressively surrender most of our point-source bulbs. Those that remain are for decor, not for illumination. Big LED plate lights occupy recessed-light locations. In time lights get smaller, distributed and remote-controlled with DC wiring. Light elements are with standard-everywhere low-voltage connectors like audio jacks. New luminaires are forward-compatible with OLED elements.

And - - seeing that PV arrays fail to serve in a disaster if grid-tied, let most lighting and crucial electronics be off-grid. Silly us, to want to generate income with a PV array, in the grid. In this, lights wired as low-voltage DC, auto and marine as the active example, will prevail over now-competitive chip-on-board AC LEDs. Why might we need AC LEDs? Strip boards down to only diodes and wires: that's what lasts forever. All fragile electronics clustered, serviceable, elsewhere.

At July, 2016 I am still working with various clip-up CFL bulb holders, wanting to come apart and crash. Unhappily, I tried these from EarthLED , informed by pop-up advertising:

2x Thinklux LED High Output BR40 - 30 Watt - 250 Watt Equal - Dimmable Flood - $72.62 with shipping.

2650 lumens sounded good.

Not a good idea. Each weighs an incredible 344 grams, vs. a 76 gram CFL bulb.

Perhaps brighter than the CFL, but not usable.

EVs For All?

I'm really liking my following of Energy Central . Today I tuned in to this article:

Two utility CEOs on importance of electric vehicles, potential impact on reaching climate goals

The following is commentary added to the article, made more readable with explicit hyperlinks, and some edits.

EVs are fine in our transition from fossil fuels for power generation. The lucky few who are able to take this path are blessed with a present fortune drawn from the commons, in the enabling subsidies. It isn't fair, and we all know it. These affluent people in an instant add millions to their present worth. Here's the math, in this blog:

 Perpetuity Math For Energy Conservation 

Mulling over the unfairness, I seek to confirm my alternative proposal, that PV power must be available to to us all. It is time that I update the proposal, but here it is in this blog, dated 1/17/2015:

 Distributed Power Generation As Disaster Preparedness 

Every household that gets a bite of energy independence, where it is offered to anyone at public expense, will want more, and can use its monthly savings to grow the public and then personal, investment. We all become PV (present value) millionaires. This is not absurdity.

Here is one technical confirmation, that the grid defection we all are allowed charges your EV, or only your personal electronics, better than a grid-tied PV array.

 Google Search, "charging batteries with PV direct current."  

Any battery is charged more efficiently without the losses of DC/AC/DC conversion.

It will help if readers know I am grinding two axes here:

1. We are off-course in our adoption of LED lighting. LED lights are DC-powered plate-form integrated circuits that are unbreakable and can serve for hundreds of thousands of hours. Candles and their electrical knock-offs are wasteful as practical lighting, and are excused now, only as for decoration. The disaster-preparedness campaign would promote most-efficient LED and OLED lighting as plate or sheet forms. Where these lights may serve maintenance-free essentially forever, they should not be packaged with fragile lenses (never glass bulbs), and with fragile AC/DC converters. We may, and should, require in-USA manufacturing of light engines under subsidy.

2. We have not found out how to inspire weatherization of our homes. More than 80% are untouched toward finding the pots of gold in Present Value of easy durable improvements. The answer is up-front financing for all, then with no longer an incentive to defer action, pushing our problems onto others. Greed is not really an element of human nature. We succeed where we cooperate, wanting equal opportunity for all. A photovoltaic campaign for all will surely lead to accelerated weatherization of our houses, apartments and small-business workplaces. We of the USA will then cease to be laughingstocks in our wastefulness.

Energy Central

I have recently discovered Energy Central as a collector of news that might concern me for innovation in residential energy conservation. I have had free access to their Professional writings for thirty days, ending today. I must choose whether to spend $297 per year for this access. And, I choose, no. As a veteran of the commercial nuclear power industry, I am strongly opposed to all operation of commercial nuclear power plants, and was dismayed to find Energy Central uncritical of nuclear. That is enough reason to walk.

I did find something interesting today, for my quest of solar for all , off-grid, serving disaster preparedness, a small DC system for DC LED lighting and charging of personal electronics. Attribution is to investing.com:

Follow the Energy Central link, and subscribe if you will. If not already a Energy Central Professional subscriber, I believe you, too, will be offered a free trial. Know that Sunverge innovation is in Australia.
Sunverge Is On A Mission To Marry Solar Power And Energy Storage
At the Energy Storage North America conference in San Diego last month, the floor was packed with vendors.

Nov. 12 - Investing.com

At the Energy Storage North America conference in San Diego last month, the floor was packed with vendors. One of them was Sunverge, and they were interesting because they were focused not only on the issue of on-premise storage, but specifically how to combine solar power and storage together. Sunverge currently manages 5.3 megawatt-hours (MWh) of distributed storage, combined with 1.9 MW of solar. This solar/storage hybrid is a theme that is getting a lot more play around the world these days, as regulatory environments change for solar while the costs of both solar and storage continue to decline (having entered later in the game, storage costs have a lot further to go, but they are following a similar trajectory to that of solar). That regulatory environment will likely be a critical driver of storage adoption rates. As solar penetration rates increase, rules related to solar feed-in tariffs or net metering will continue to change. Countries such as Germany are reducing feed-in tariffs that once paid individuals a handsome price for all of the power produced on a rooftop. Now, with the delta between the price paid for electricity from the grid and the price received for exporting surplus solar power to the grid, it starts to make more sense to store energy on site, for deferred consumption at a later time when the solar panels are not producing. In Australia, for example, it is estimated that buying power from the grid can be three to times more expensive than the value of locally generated solar power exported to the grid. With those kind of economics, storage and self-consumption (what Rocky Mountain Institute refers to as 'load defection') makes economic sense. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Hawaii's Public Utility Commission recently enacted an order eliminating the net metering option (under which the solar producer is credited the retail rate for each kilowatt-hour of surplus exported to the grid). With the new ruling, the exported solar is valued at approximately half the retail rate. This change hurts the economics of solar energy, but boosts the potential value of storage, since one can effectively double the value of every kilowatt-hour of solar power stored and consumed on site (compared with selling it back into the grid). Of course the economics ultimately depend upon a variety of factors, including costs of installed systems, retail rates, and the amount of energy that can be stored. But the trends are moving in favor of ever more solar and storage combinations, especially at the residential and SME ( Small and Medium Enterprises) level, which is where Sunverge has staked its claim.

Distributed Power Generation As Disaster Preparedness

Please consider the vision I share via Google Community, Residential LED Lighting :

About this community

We progressively surrender most of our point-source bulbs. Those that remain are for decor, not for illumination. Big LED plate lights occupy recessed-light locations. In time lights get smaller, distributed and remote-controlled with DC wiring. Light elements are with standard-everywhere low-voltage connectors like audio jacks. New luminaires are forward-compatible with OLED elements. 


And - - seeing that PV arrays fail to serve in a disaster if grid-tied, let most lighting and crucial electronics be off-grid. Silly us, to want to generate income with a PV array, in the grid. In this, lights wired as low-voltage DC, auto and marine as the active example, will prevail over now-competitive chip-on-board AC LEDs. Why might we need AC LEDs? Strip boards down to only diodes and wires: that's what lasts forever. All fragile electronics clustered, serviceable, elsewhere.

I find no help yet in the participation at this community.

Searching the internet for vision and progress, try this as a Google search:
"distributed power generation for lighting and crucial electronics ."

Find commercial buildings progress in this Carnegie Mellon report , in LEDs Magazine. From this, discover the Emerge Alliance , "an open industry association leading the rapid adoption of safe DC power distribution in commercial buildings through the development of EMerge Alliance standards."

At the Emerge Alliance home page, find this link to Mother Nature Network:

The home of tomorrow will run on direct current 

See that advanced thought is coming from Lloyd Alter, blogging from Toronto:
http://www.treehugger.com/


The vision of collection on each home may sound extreme, and in fact is not absolute. Many means of local cooperation can evolve. Here is one vision of rather large collectives for distributed generation, in India:
http://electronicsb2b.com/?p=18586# 

In the USA, a campaign open to every individual home might be necessary. Any urban divorce from the grid would be disruptive. A little alienation, voluntarily in every home, can not be stopped. Each participant finds the best-yet way to cooperate in guarding life on Earth against consumptive waste.With that beginning, find other means of expression. A typical path will be separation from the grid in the overhead lights chosen (eventually all). Where ceiling junction boxes are stupidly packed with power distribution to outlets, much rewiring will be afforded by the sure savings. Homes will become safer. With all other prep as in closure of attic floor pits, now add overhead insulation. And, never, never add insulation that gets in the way of needed repairs and largest savings opportunities. Repairs shall include fixing ventilation problems at bad noise-maker fans, badly ducted, and promotion of good attic ventilation by correcting deficient soffit vents. 

I am committed that I will do a trial installation in my own home. I invite development of other projects through inspiration at community Build It Solar:

• 
  BuildItSolar: Solar energy projects for Do It Yourselfers to save money and reduce pollution
• Let's see who gets a project done first. My first room will employ Nicor DLS lights minus the AC to DC converter assembly in each luminaire. The AC is separable with twist connectors. I want to build little lights with minimal additions to inexpensive light engine boards, where the biggest challenge is in cobbling up connector jacks, using audio components to start. In time, push-pluck connectors will be universal and will cost almost nothing, enabling very wonderful light as art, always low voltage and outside costly regulation.