Power plan: Conserving energy will create jobs
Council says efficiency measures will boost 4 Western states over 20 years
Service technicians Travis Harrison, left, and Cris Birch of Miller’s One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning prepare to run a test on the air ducts inside a northeast Vancouver home to check for leakage on Thursday.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Getting green will put more green in the wallets of 47,000 workers in four Western states over the next 20 years, according to a plan approved by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
The council said up to 3,500 direct jobs will be created in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana in the next two decades as energy management companies and utilities hire technicians to meet demand for energy efficiency services. The council predicted that another 43,500 jobs will be created indirectly over that period as businesses take advantage of energy cost savings to boost their payrolls.
Demand for power in those four Western states is expected to increase by 7,000 megawatts by 2030, about the amount of electricity consumed by more than five cities the size of Seattle over the course of a year. Up to 85 percent of that demand can be met through conservation efforts, according to the council’s plan. Revised every five years, the plan serves as a guide for utilities to meet future energy needs at the lowest possible cost.
Energy-efficiency measures are the cheapest option by far, representing about half the cost of building new coal or natural-gas-fired power plants instead. Upgrades to homes and appliances have the most potential for savings at 2,600 megawatts, or 42 percent of the estimated total savings of 6,100 megawatts.
“A lot of this conservation doesn’t come from your utility over the next 20 years, it comes from decisions consumers make,” said John Harrison, a spokesman for the power council.
Harrison said demand for energy efficiency services should increase as consumers replace outdated furnaces and remodel their homes with energy-efficient windows and insulation, possibly with added incentives from their utilities.
Additional savings will come from upgrades to lighting and control systems in commercial buildings, more efficient consumer electronics, equipment and system optimization in industrial operations, upgrades to utility distribution systems and improved agricultural systems.
Not all of the potential energy-saving measures are cost-effective, however. In all, the council estimates about 5,800 megawatts of savings can be met, out of the 6,100 megawatts of energy efficiency measures identified.
Local impact
Northwest Natural Gas and Clark Public Utilities have already started stepping up energy efficiency programs in anticipation of the council’s new plan. The conservation budget is likely to increase at Clark utilities so it can meet new goals set by the power council.
“State Initiative 937 mandates that we achieve all the practical conservation we can achieve as identified by the (power) council,” said Mick Shutt, spokesman for Clark utilities. “We’ll evaluate the final plan, and at some time it will go to our commission to get approval of what else we might do.”
The new programs, in combination with stricter building codes related to saving energy, increased business somewhat last year for Miller’s One Hour Heating and Air-Conditioning in Vancouver.
“The state of Washington will start requiring duct sealing as part of the building code,” said Sharon Brouillette, a spokeswoman for Miller’s. “It’s extra hours for the workers … and it does cost the customer upfront, but in the long run it saves them money because they’re not heating under their house.”
Clark College is also preparing to help meet work force needs in the growing energy efficiency industry with a host-of new programs in the sector, including training in weatherization, smart-grid technology and control systems. The power council’s plan reinforces the school’s mission to prepare students for jobs of the future.
“There will be jobs for our graduates,” said Rassoul Dastmozd, vice president of academic affairs at Clark College. But, he cautioned, “we have to be very careful (about predictions). When the tire hits the road, we don’t know how many jobs will actually be created.”
Rate this
You must be logged in to rate this.
Current Rating : Nobody has rated this article yet.
Comments
View all 22 comments »
OK, I'll do the math. Forty-seven thousand jobs over 20 years in four western states. That's 587.5 jobs per state per year. With over 300,000 people unemployed in Washington state pardon me if I don't get to excited about the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's job program.
BeezerGeezer — February 12, 2010 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hmm... and that math doesn't even account for population growth over 20 years!
You know, our government spends money on all kinds of crappy things all the time. Why couldn't they issue a large cash prize to the first company who mass produces an 60W equivalent LED lighbulb for home use at a price point of say, under $3 a bulb?
There's a way energy use could be slashed.
LB — February 12, 2010 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
You two wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Hey, a jobs a job and those jobs create more jobs.
wdkeisala — February 12, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Keep drinking Obamas Kool Aid while the ship sinks. And in the mean time, read this. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
jollie — February 12, 2010 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wdkeisala,
The "extra" jobs are already figured in the 47,000 total. Actually only 3,500 direct jobs are created over the 20 years or 43.75 jobs per state per year.
BeezerGeezer — February 12, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
We pay taxes, Obama and Green For All create intitlement 'green' UNION jobs.
Green UNION employees are paid by tax dollars minus UNION dues.
Who making a profit, and how is that sustainable?
Ray_Menlo — February 12, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It's electricity and it ain't going away any time soon. Whats wrong with finding new and inventive ways at producing and conserving it? And if that leads to more jobs, all the better.
If a new nuke plant was built that led to jobs required to build, operate and maintain it would you poo poo that too?
wdkeisala — February 12, 2010 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wdkesala,
Not as long as the owners of the plant took all the nuclear waste home with them and kept it for the thousands of years of its half-life.
BeezerGeezer — February 12, 2010 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"Are there stable geological locations that could safely isolate nuclear waste from the biosphere? If you doubt this, remember that trillions and trillions of litres of natural gas have remained underground - in the same place - for many millions of years. In comparison, the quantity of nuclear waste requiring permanent storage is minuscule. And far from being a volatile gas or liquid, it is a solid and stable ceramic."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/wastecontainment.html
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nuclear reactor using 1960s technology or nuclear reactor using modern technology? USA is way behind here. Yet another technology we've ceded to other nations.
LB — February 12, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LB - I think we'd need to license technology from abroad. Most likely France. We could catch up though if given a chance.
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yes, France, perhaps Japan or India. Maybe someday Iran if they keep on like they are. I think USA is once bitten. We were kind of pioneers with the concepts, and it was messy and rough and had some notable failures, and so we're all collectively petrified of the idea.
I've seen references to smaller reactors in reading that seems a promising concept.
http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/
LB — February 12, 2010 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Craig,
Nuclear waste produces large amounts of heat as it decays. This requires cooling and monitoring. You can't just bury it and forget it. The time frame is from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years before it is all safe.
BeezerGeezer — February 12, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Uranium isn't the only fuel, unless you're still reading your old Sierra Club books.
Jalek — February 12, 2010 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BeezerGeezer — February 12, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.
Yes, that is correct. That's why they encase the waste products in concrete. If you're worried about potential for seepage, consider this:
"About two billion years ago, in what is now Gabon in Africa, a rich natural uranium deposit produced a spontaneous series of large nuclear reactions. Since then, despite thousands of centuries of tropical rain and subsurface water, the long-lived 'waste' from those 'reactors' has migrated less than 10 metres."
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
We figured out how to build a nuclear bomb in the 40's, I'm sure we could figure out how to build a safe, modern reactor now.
wdkeisala — February 12, 2010 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
From the Detroit Free Press:
Why they come here
Canadians seek health care in the United States for:
• Heart care.
• Imaging tests.
• Bariatric surgery.
• Multiple injuries from an accident.
• Cancer.
My guess is that Canada cannot afford to support an adequate healthcare infrastructure. As an advanced nation, why else wouldn't they have enough facilities to take care of their people?
They spend very little on defense, so that's not the problem. They do have a generous unemployment and welfare system - I'm sure that's a contributor.
Could it be that because Canadians can go to the hospital or clinic virtually free of charge, they are over-taxing the system and robbing it of infrastructure dollars?
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nuclear power is absolutely the best option. Coal is putting more mercury and thorium waste into our atmosphere than all nuclear power plants combined have forever. People refuse to look at rational scientific fact. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Good links, Jollie and Craig_Sayre. I don't believe these job estimate numbers for a second. And as for conservation making up 85% of the new 7 megawatts of new demand? This is plain BS.
I want more power, not less. And while I have switched to CFL's and done many other things to reduce power, there is PLENTY of power to go around for EVERYBODY. We do need to modernize and expand the grid to meet the demand though.
Nukes are the answer to clean, cheap power.
fauxnoise_netjerk — February 12, 2010 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oops! posted on the wrong page. Sorry!
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Well fauxnoise_netjerk, I agree with you, and supposedly so does the President. He did say that we need to build more nuclear power plants.
Craig_Sayre — February 12, 2010 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
In December 1992, documents were leaked from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission showing that staff scientists believed that Trojan might be unsafe to operate. In 2005, the Trojan reactor vessel and other radioactive equipment were removed from the Trojan plant, encased in concrete foam, shrink-wrapped, and transported intact by barge along the Columbia River to Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington where it was buried in a 45-foot-deep pit and covered in six inches of gravel, which made it the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried whole. The spent fuel is stored onsite in 34 dry casks, awaiting transport to the Yucca Mountain Repository. The iconic 499-foot tall cooling tower, visible from Interstate 5 in Washington, was demolished via dynamite implosion at 7:00 a.m. on May 21, 2006.
jollie — February 12, 2010 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Unrelated to anything regulated, there is some new business in the area coming out of some of these regulation. www.swiftsureenergy.com is newly formed to help save Clark PUD and NW Natural customers a bunch of money. These utilities charge extra on every bill for rebates and incentives. Then when you put in insulation, do duct sealing, or other weather proofing, they pay you back. It can be up to 50% of the cost.
So... I'm not sure if the push towards energy savings is doing it all, the incentives by the energy companies, or a jobs push by programs out of D.C. No matter what you call it, if you want some of this money back, come visit our website.
swiftsure — February 12, 2010 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Or login with: