I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but most people leading energy management programs drill down on the technical aspects and ignore the substantial gains to be had on the "softer," people side. The New York Times ran a good article about how the Obama campaign won the election.There were some good tips on how to engage people that will help in your energy management effort. Here are six things I took away. But you should read it yourself here.
1. Don't Deny It, Counter It
If someone says, "It makes our work harder," explain how it makes it easier or how it benefits everyone. If it doesn't, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.
2. Get Them to Literally Sign On
A simple voluntary commitment tends to be more persistent if people actually sign something. Meet people one-on-one and ask them to sign an energy awareness pledge card.
3. Reward Their Constancy
A simple statement appreciating past contributions goes a long way to making sure that a person's contribution continues. An opening like, "You've really helped us in the past," shows people you recognize their efforts and it makes them more inclined to continue.
4. Make It A Plan
People who want to help sometimes end up not helping because they don't quite know what to do next. So when you speak with them, make a little plan with them before parting ways. "So what do you think you can do?" Is a good way to make that step. Or, "Can I count on you to keep an eye on that door and make sure it's closed?" People with plans are much more likely to join your effort.
5. Make It a Group
Don't be afraid to mention things that other people are doing. People feel more comfortable and excited when they realize they are part of a group effort.
6. Make It Genuine
Finally, you need to be genuine in your outreach efforts. If you feel at all uncomfortable, it's probably best not to reach out that way. But people respond to authenticity and sincerity. If you're doing this work, it's probably because you have some passion for it. If in doubt, show your passion. People will respond.
mercoledì 27 febbraio 2013
giovedì 14 febbraio 2013
Verso la formazione dei manutentori e installatori FER
La Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province autonome, nella seduta del 24 gennaio, ha approvato un documento sullo standard formativo per l’attività di installazione e manutenzione straordinaria di impianti energetici alimentati da fonti rinnovabili. Saranno adesso le Regioni a fornire le indicazioni operative per predisporre le conseguenti offerte formative.
Parte quindi il cosidetto "patentino delle rinnovabili" che sarà strutturato in un modulo di base e 4 moduli di specilizzazione:
- impianti a biomasse
- pompe di calore
- solare termico
- solare fotovoltaico
Interesserà installatori e manutentori di impienti per la produzione di energia da fonti rinnovabili.
giovedì 24 gennaio 2013
RadiceFertile: sposare efficienza e resilienza
Abbiamo lanciato un abbozzo di portale per dare visibilità a un progetto di sostenibilità che ci sta molto a cuore: www.radicefertile.com.
Che cosa vogliamo fare? Ce lo stiamo domandando anche noi ma cominciamo ad avere le idee un po’ più chiare. Abbiamo creato una brevissima presentazione per illustrare i punti fondamentali.
Che cosa vogliamo fare? Ce lo stiamo domandando anche noi ma cominciamo ad avere le idee un po’ più chiare. Abbiamo creato una brevissima presentazione per illustrare i punti fondamentali.
martedì 8 gennaio 2013
Risorse per gli studi di fattibilità in campo energetico: RETScreen
RETSCreen è un potente software di simulazione energetiche creato dall’Università del Canada. Può essere scaricato gratuitamente all’indirizzo: http://www.retscreen.net/it/download.php.
Al classico RETSCreen 4, ottimo per studi di fattibilità tecnico/finanziaria sia nel campo delle fonti rinnovabili che di quelle tradizione, si è aggiunto ultimamente RETScreen Plus, uno strumento software di gestione delle energie basato su Windows che consente a proprietari dei progetti di verificare facilmente il rendimento energetico dei propri impianti. Molto interessante è anche la possibilità di valorizzare la riduzione di emissione di CO2 connessa a un progetto.
RETScreen Plus premette di correlare consumi e fattori energetici (gradi-giorno, pezzi prodotti, ore lavorate, ecc.), di stabilire consumi di riferimento e di impostare obiettivi. In questo senso è un ottimo strumento per chi voglia iniziare a implementare un sistema di gestione dell’energia secondo la norma ISO 50001.
domenica 16 dicembre 2012
Titoli Efficienza Energetica - nuovo decreto in arrivo
E’ disponibile la bozza del nuovo decreto certificati bianchi (http://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/DM_Certificati-bianchi_4dic2012_bozza.pdf). Poichè è uno strumento rodato e che l’Europa si appresta a copiarci, le novità sono senz’altro interessanti.
Tra le novità si segnale che si allarga molto la platea di colo che potranno presentare progetti, come ad esempio imprese industriali con consumo >= 1000 TEP/anno e soggetti civili con consumo >=100 TEP/anno. Sono specificatamente individuate le associazioni:
…
c) tramite società terze operanti nel settore dei servizi energetici, comprese le imprese artigiane e loro forme consortili;
…
c) tramite società terze operanti nel settore dei servizi energetici, comprese le imprese artigiane e loro forme consortili;
…
C’è quindi una volontà di allargare la platea dei soggetti interessati anche ai piccoli e piccolissimi installatori.
domenica 2 dicembre 2012
Energia rinnovabile: è tutto oro?
Many qualify electricity from solar panels or wind mills, in a poetical mode, as free energy.
There is no such a thing as free energy. It is renewable, but not free. It requires a large energy investment to produce solar panels or wind mills. It is imperative to use the proper tools to analyze any of the so called renewable sources of energy and dispel the notion that they represent free energy.
The objective of those renewable sources is to have a positive future flow of output energy, and that flow of renewable energy should be able to pay the initial investment in non renewable energy in a short period of time, say a maximum of 3 years. This standard indicates that we have a real innovation. Any Government financial support does not change the reality of our objective, fast payback of the energy investment.
This is the only objective we should have for a measure of reasonable sustainability and cut our dependency on foreign oil.
As you can deduct, this definition of sustainability is independent of the price of oil, as it should be.
Let’s check the situation of the three most common projects for renewable sources with the standard mentioned above.
1. Ethanol: The future flow of renewable energy is negative. There is nothing left to pay for the humongous required energy investments-1 Gallon of ethanol, uses 1.85 Gallons of oil- If we do nothing, we will be better off in terms of energy consumption and emissions now and in the future. The government support, with all their financial help, cannot change the negative energy balance and the enormous increase in present emissions. Our goal is not fulfilled.
2. Wind Mills: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. However the very large investments in energy to engineer and build the units, including power lines, have an energy payback beyond 30 years.
This investment does not avoid the investment in carbon, gas, or nuclear power plants to cover the ~70% of the time they are not producing electricity. We are increasing dramatically the power consumption and emissions as we build the units now, for a meager yearly renewable volume of power. . Our goal is not fulfilled
2. Solar panels: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. The pay back for the initial energy consumption is beyond 50 years. Solar panels produce energy in average ~20% of the time.
Any standard technology, let’s say small generators consuming natural gas, cost 1/30 of the energy cost of a solar panel for an equal total output.
We seem to be digging our own grave with gusto. None of those projects comply with the most elementary energy objective we have as a country; on the contrary, they produce a considerable spike of energy usage now, that could be avoided, and I doubt that they will ever have a proper pay back in created energy.
There is no wealth creation in these activities, no energy savings, only an immediate transfer of money from the Taxpayers to somebody else, destroying other Industries in the meantime.
Due to all kind of government money injected into these projects, and the high price of oil, money could be made. But if the price of oil goes below a certain threshold, boom, the project is no longer viable. See T. Boone Pickens suspending his wind mill project because oil went below US$60. Or the several bankruptcies in ethanol due to the higher price of corn in spite of all the subsidies! Millions of barrels of oil that we cannot afford to loose, thrown to the wind.
None of those programs complies with cutting CO2 emissions, a suspected objective anyway.
They make our dependence of foreign oil much worst, not better, using considerable high level engineering resources for naught.
There are enormous opportunities in energy savings and production in many Industries, with a positive balance of energy consumption and paybacks anywhere from 4 months to one year.
There is no such a thing as free energy. It is renewable, but not free. It requires a large energy investment to produce solar panels or wind mills. It is imperative to use the proper tools to analyze any of the so called renewable sources of energy and dispel the notion that they represent free energy.
The objective of those renewable sources is to have a positive future flow of output energy, and that flow of renewable energy should be able to pay the initial investment in non renewable energy in a short period of time, say a maximum of 3 years. This standard indicates that we have a real innovation. Any Government financial support does not change the reality of our objective, fast payback of the energy investment.
This is the only objective we should have for a measure of reasonable sustainability and cut our dependency on foreign oil.
As you can deduct, this definition of sustainability is independent of the price of oil, as it should be.
Let’s check the situation of the three most common projects for renewable sources with the standard mentioned above.
1. Ethanol: The future flow of renewable energy is negative. There is nothing left to pay for the humongous required energy investments-1 Gallon of ethanol, uses 1.85 Gallons of oil- If we do nothing, we will be better off in terms of energy consumption and emissions now and in the future. The government support, with all their financial help, cannot change the negative energy balance and the enormous increase in present emissions. Our goal is not fulfilled.
2. Wind Mills: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. However the very large investments in energy to engineer and build the units, including power lines, have an energy payback beyond 30 years.
This investment does not avoid the investment in carbon, gas, or nuclear power plants to cover the ~70% of the time they are not producing electricity. We are increasing dramatically the power consumption and emissions as we build the units now, for a meager yearly renewable volume of power. . Our goal is not fulfilled
2. Solar panels: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. The pay back for the initial energy consumption is beyond 50 years. Solar panels produce energy in average ~20% of the time.
Any standard technology, let’s say small generators consuming natural gas, cost 1/30 of the energy cost of a solar panel for an equal total output.
We seem to be digging our own grave with gusto. None of those projects comply with the most elementary energy objective we have as a country; on the contrary, they produce a considerable spike of energy usage now, that could be avoided, and I doubt that they will ever have a proper pay back in created energy.
There is no wealth creation in these activities, no energy savings, only an immediate transfer of money from the Taxpayers to somebody else, destroying other Industries in the meantime.
Due to all kind of government money injected into these projects, and the high price of oil, money could be made. But if the price of oil goes below a certain threshold, boom, the project is no longer viable. See T. Boone Pickens suspending his wind mill project because oil went below US$60. Or the several bankruptcies in ethanol due to the higher price of corn in spite of all the subsidies! Millions of barrels of oil that we cannot afford to loose, thrown to the wind.
None of those programs complies with cutting CO2 emissions, a suspected objective anyway.
They make our dependence of foreign oil much worst, not better, using considerable high level engineering resources for naught.
There are enormous opportunities in energy savings and production in many Industries, with a positive balance of energy consumption and paybacks anywhere from 4 months to one year.
nergia rinnovabile: è tutto oro?
Many qualify electricity from solar panels or wind mills, in a poetical mode, as free energy.
There is no such a thing as free energy. It is renewable, but not free. It requires a large energy investment to produce solar panels or wind mills. It is imperative to use the proper tools to analyze any of the so called renewable sources of energy and dispel the notion that they represent free energy.
The objective of those renewable sources is to have a positive future flow of output energy, and that flow of renewable energy should be able to pay the initial investment in non renewable energy in a short period of time, say a maximum of 3 years. This standard indicates that we have a real innovation. Any Government financial support does not change the reality of our objective, fast payback of the energy investment.
This is the only objective we should have for a measure of reasonable sustainability and cut our dependency on foreign oil.
As you can deduct, this definition of sustainability is independent of the price of oil, as it should be.
Let’s check the situation of the three most common projects for renewable sources with the standard mentioned above.
1. Ethanol: The future flow of renewable energy is negative. There is nothing left to pay for the humongous required energy investments-1 Gallon of ethanol, uses 1.85 Gallons of oil- If we do nothing, we will be better off in terms of energy consumption and emissions now and in the future. The government support, with all their financial help, cannot change the negative energy balance and the enormous increase in present emissions. Our goal is not fulfilled.
2. Wind Mills: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. However the very large investments in energy to engineer and build the units, including power lines, have an energy payback beyond 30 years.
This investment does not avoid the investment in carbon, gas, or nuclear power plants to cover the ~70% of the time they are not producing electricity. We are increasing dramatically the power consumption and emissions as we build the units now, for a meager yearly renewable volume of power. . Our goal is not fulfilled
2. Solar panels: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. The pay back for the initial energy consumption is beyond 50 years. Solar panels produce energy in average ~20% of the time.
Any standard technology, let’s say small generators consuming natural gas, cost 1/30 of the energy cost of a solar panel for an equal total output.
We seem to be digging our own grave with gusto. None of those projects comply with the most elementary energy objective we have as a country; on the contrary, they produce a considerable spike of energy usage now, that could be avoided, and I doubt that they will ever have a proper pay back in created energy.
There is no wealth creation in these activities, no energy savings, only an immediate transfer of money from the Taxpayers to somebody else, destroying other Industries in the meantime.
Due to all kind of government money injected into these projects, and the high price of oil, money could be made. But if the price of oil goes below a certain threshold, boom, the project is no longer viable. See T. Boone Pickens suspending his wind mill project because oil went below US$60. Or the several bankruptcies in ethanol due to the higher price of corn in spite of all the subsidies! Millions of barrels of oil that we cannot afford to loose, thrown to the wind.
None of those programs complies with cutting CO2 emissions, a suspected objective anyway.
They make our dependence of foreign oil much worst, not better, using considerable high level engineering resources for naught.
There are enormous opportunities in energy savings and production in many Industries, with a positive balance of energy consumption and paybacks anywhere from 4 months to one year.
There is no such a thing as free energy. It is renewable, but not free. It requires a large energy investment to produce solar panels or wind mills. It is imperative to use the proper tools to analyze any of the so called renewable sources of energy and dispel the notion that they represent free energy.
The objective of those renewable sources is to have a positive future flow of output energy, and that flow of renewable energy should be able to pay the initial investment in non renewable energy in a short period of time, say a maximum of 3 years. This standard indicates that we have a real innovation. Any Government financial support does not change the reality of our objective, fast payback of the energy investment.
This is the only objective we should have for a measure of reasonable sustainability and cut our dependency on foreign oil.
As you can deduct, this definition of sustainability is independent of the price of oil, as it should be.
Let’s check the situation of the three most common projects for renewable sources with the standard mentioned above.
1. Ethanol: The future flow of renewable energy is negative. There is nothing left to pay for the humongous required energy investments-1 Gallon of ethanol, uses 1.85 Gallons of oil- If we do nothing, we will be better off in terms of energy consumption and emissions now and in the future. The government support, with all their financial help, cannot change the negative energy balance and the enormous increase in present emissions. Our goal is not fulfilled.
2. Wind Mills: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. However the very large investments in energy to engineer and build the units, including power lines, have an energy payback beyond 30 years.
This investment does not avoid the investment in carbon, gas, or nuclear power plants to cover the ~70% of the time they are not producing electricity. We are increasing dramatically the power consumption and emissions as we build the units now, for a meager yearly renewable volume of power. . Our goal is not fulfilled
2. Solar panels: The future flow of renewable energy is positive. The pay back for the initial energy consumption is beyond 50 years. Solar panels produce energy in average ~20% of the time.
Any standard technology, let’s say small generators consuming natural gas, cost 1/30 of the energy cost of a solar panel for an equal total output.
We seem to be digging our own grave with gusto. None of those projects comply with the most elementary energy objective we have as a country; on the contrary, they produce a considerable spike of energy usage now, that could be avoided, and I doubt that they will ever have a proper pay back in created energy.
There is no wealth creation in these activities, no energy savings, only an immediate transfer of money from the Taxpayers to somebody else, destroying other Industries in the meantime.
Due to all kind of government money injected into these projects, and the high price of oil, money could be made. But if the price of oil goes below a certain threshold, boom, the project is no longer viable. See T. Boone Pickens suspending his wind mill project because oil went below US$60. Or the several bankruptcies in ethanol due to the higher price of corn in spite of all the subsidies! Millions of barrels of oil that we cannot afford to loose, thrown to the wind.
None of those programs complies with cutting CO2 emissions, a suspected objective anyway.
They make our dependence of foreign oil much worst, not better, using considerable high level engineering resources for naught.
There are enormous opportunities in energy savings and production in many Industries, with a positive balance of energy consumption and paybacks anywhere from 4 months to one year.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)