April 2015
23 August 2014
The graphic below is referring to Ontario
Link to complete presentation from which the above graphic has been extracted.
24 May 2014
DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT (conservation and efficiency)
- Why is it that Liberty Consulting's (and the PUB's) Interim Reports say virtually nothing about conservation and efficiency?
- Below are excerpts from a presentation by Dr. Laliberte (as part of an Independent Inquiry into Manitoba's plans to build additional hydro generation and transmission systems). These slides show how Demand Side Management (conservation and efficiency) can impact load growth and reduce ratepayer costs.
- 75% of new load in the U.S. is being met by DSM.
- Accordingly, DSM (at that rate) would cut the island's annual load growth rate from Nalcor's forecast of 0.8% to 0.2% annually --- making DSM LEAST-COST (and Muskrat Falls UNECONOMIC)
|
|
|
|
|
Readers can access Dr. Laliberte's full presentation at www.bipoleiiicoalition.ca
______________________________________________________________________
In December 2013, I retrofitted my 33-year old home with a mini-split heat pump for an installed price of $4,633. Compared to the three, one-month periods last year (mid-January to mid-February, mid-February to mid-March, and mid-March to mid-April), my energy usage went down 28%, 19% and 22% respectively.
Given that this year had record cold temperatures, last year had record warm temperatures, and given that I am currently utilizing only about 50% of the heat pumps 24,000 BTU capacity, I would submit that with the system capacity being fully utilized, under normal, weather-adjusted circumstances savings would likely be substantially higher than my recorded 23% average. It should also be noted that my residence has had no insulation upgrades since it was constructed in 1981.
For $120 million dollars, approximately 26,000 Avalon Peninsula homes could be retrofitted with mini-split heat pumps, resulting in substantial energy use reductions, substantial cost savings (in the ballpark of $25-$30 million per year), and given that a heat pump's most efficient operating mode avoids the up and down thermostat fluctuations currently recommended by NL Hydro and NL Power (thereby further helping reduce peak demand levels), then I would submit that while there is some evidence that there are options (other than additional thermal generation) that would meet the island's short term reliability and least-cost criteria, there is no, or at least, insufficient grounds and a lack of evidence in NL Hydro's application to support a decision by the Board granting approval for NL Hydro to purchase a long term solution, a combustion turbine, to solve what has been described as a short term problem.
5. Facts (evidence-based)
My average daily energy use (Kwh)*
Mid-January to Mid-February Mid-February to Mid-March Mid-March to Mid-April
2013 112 100 87 ----- (PRETTY WARM WINTER)
2014 81 81 68 ----- (RECORD COLD WINTER)
Over a 3 month, wintertime period , an average 23% total energy savings (and since heating is around 80% of my total energy use, then the reduction in energy use attributed to heating would likely be SUBSTANTIALLY more than an average of 23%)
In December 2013, I retrofitted my 33-year old home with a mini-split heat pump for an installed price of $4,633. Compared to the three, one-month periods last year (mid-January to mid-February, mid-February to mid-March, and mid-March to mid-April), my energy usage went down 28%, 19% and 22% respectively.
Given that this year had record cold temperatures, last year had record warm temperatures, and given that I am currently utilizing only about 50% of the heat pumps 24,000 BTU capacity, I would submit that with the system capacity being fully utilized, under normal, weather-adjusted circumstances savings would likely be substantially higher than my recorded 23% average. It should also be noted that my residence has had no insulation upgrades since it was constructed in 1981.
For $120 million dollars, approximately 26,000 Avalon Peninsula homes could be retrofitted with mini-split heat pumps, resulting in substantial energy use reductions, substantial cost savings (in the ballpark of $25-$30 million per year), and given that a heat pump's most efficient operating mode avoids the up and down thermostat fluctuations currently recommended by NL Hydro and NL Power (thereby further helping reduce peak demand levels), then I would submit that while there is some evidence that there are options (other than additional thermal generation) that would meet the island's short term reliability and least-cost criteria, there is no, or at least, insufficient grounds and a lack of evidence in NL Hydro's application to support a decision by the Board granting approval for NL Hydro to purchase a long term solution, a combustion turbine, to solve what has been described as a short term problem.
5. Facts (evidence-based)
My average daily energy use (Kwh)*
Mid-January to Mid-February Mid-February to Mid-March Mid-March to Mid-April
2013 112 100 87 ----- (PRETTY WARM WINTER)
2014 81 81 68 ----- (RECORD COLD WINTER)
Over a 3 month, wintertime period , an average 23% total energy savings (and since heating is around 80% of my total energy use, then the reduction in energy use attributed to heating would likely be SUBSTANTIALLY more than an average of 23%)
__________________________________________________
2012
PART I (of three articles published in The Telegram by electrical engineer Winston Adams)
Bringing efficiency to the energy equation (from The Telegram website, 9 October, 2012 article by Winston Adams, an engineer living in Logy Bay, with experience in electrical power generation and distribution and heating systems.)
http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Letters-to-the-editor/2012-10-09/article-3097195/Bringing-efficiency-to-the-energy-equation/1#Comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
Bringing energy efficiency to the equation (Part II, from The Telegram, 31 October, 2012 article by Winston Adams)
BY WINSTON ADAMS
In a piece I wrote that was published in The Telegram on Oct. 7, and posted online Oct. 9, we saw that a key finding of the McKinley study in the United States was that a program offering 50 per cent rebates, funded by an electricity rate increase of only four per cent, gives a 24 per cent “reduction” in customers’ electricity bills.
By spending 10 times more than we do to assist “customers” with energy efficiency, they also reduce system demand by more than two per cent per year, often saving the expense of a new generation source, and at one-third the cost.
For Newfoundland there are important differences. We use electricity for heating, and they use gas. Our residential consumption is high, at 50 per cent of total. Our load is skewed. The high winter demand, at more than twice the summer load, is problematic. The winter peak demand is beyond the capacity of our hydro generation, so 12 per cent is supplied by the Holyrood oil-fired plant.
Nalcor correctly states that our winter electric heat has been the main driver for increased demand. Our residential load is 69 per cent for heat, 11 per cent for hot water, 20 per cent for appliances, lights and other products. Houses use less energy per unit, but more and larger houses and conversions from oil heat is the rationale for a new generation source.
Conservation would pay off
Nevertheless, the size and season of these heating loads is a very fortunate combination. The energy efficiency approach, when specifically applied to electric heating, would give more savings than the McKinley study found for the U.S. The solution offers many benefits:
1. It reduces instead of increases customer electricity bills.
2. It reduces transmission losses, a utility expense.
3. It allows us to reach 98 per cent green energy.
4. It will incrementally reduce Holyrood oil consumption allowing some fuel cost savings to be passed back to consumers.
5. It saves on water resources, important in dry years when rainfall is low.
6. It reduces air pollution.
7. It aids our commitment on the environmental global warming issue.
8. It helps flatten our load curve with less winter demand, which reduces the size and cost of future replacement backup generation systems.
9. It brings synergy savings (where technology works together) and would more than double the savings from efficient compact bulbs, fridges, TVs and hot water tanks.
Such good fortune lies in the fact that our winter heating load is an excellent fit for the heating technology that has matured, is reliable, and suitable for our climate. It’s an opportunity to benefit from these latest advances and high efficiencies. The relatively low equipment cost is due to the mass production by several world class manufacturers.
The familiar way of heating with electricity is to heat direct with a resistance heating element. It is cheap and reliable, but a century old and very wasteful of electricity. The newer way heats indirectly. Powered by electricity, it transfers energy from the adjacent earth, water or air, into the house. It elevates the temperature suitable for residential space heat or for hot water.
This method is not new to Newfoundland, having been used for more than 20 years, and is now mandatory for our large government buildings. Worldwide, smaller residential units are used for heating, cooling and humidity control.
Efficiency is the great advantage. During winter cold snaps these units produce the same heat as regular heaters, but use about one third the power. At milder temperatures, in minimum heat mode, newer models can use as little as one sixth the power.
A hydro source that would normally supply 1,000 houses with heat and hot water could supply 3,000 houses in cold conditions, and 4,000 or more at other times. The equipment cost, in kilowatts of heat supplied, continues to drop, while power generation plant and transmission costs escalate.
Big savings
If efficiency is a viable contribution to avoid new generation, one must first consider the magnitude of this resource. An analysis to quantify the extent of such savings on an island-wide basis is readily done using Nalcor’s data: 50 per cent of the island load is residential, of which 69 per cent is for electric heat and, applying the 65 per cent efficiency factor (7,642 x 0.5 x 0.69 x 0.67) gives the saving of 1,766 gigawatt hours. This is 23 per cent of our yearly total generation.
More importantly, it is 206 per cent of the yearly generation production of Holyrood. Such large savings would, first and foremost, go to offset the expense of oil and reduce pollution.
There are other significant savings from commercial heat, residential and commercial hot water, at about 774 gigawatt hours. Basement insulation and efficient appliances can offer savings of 840 gigawatt hours. And transmission loss savings, another 100, for a total of 3,480 gigawatt hours. A potential savings of 45.5 per cent of all generation is almost twice the 26 per cent saving potential in the U.S.
It should not be surprising that our potential is twice that of the U.S. given that we use so much electricity for heat. What is surprising is that Nalcor proposed to save only nine gigawatt hours per year for the next 20 years. Manitoba Hydro International concurred with this, saying “technology efficiency savings were approaching a saturation point.” They reasoned that most upgrades for the housing sector are already done. But this applies only to the building shell construction. The serious oversight and error in their analysis is in excluding the savings of proven technology to the space heating and hot water for both residential and commercial sectors.
For all potential saving of the domestic plus commercial sectors of 3,480 gigawatt hours, it is four times last year’s 855 gigawatt hour total production from Holyrood.
I will look at achievable saving and costs in a future letter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART III
BRINGING EFFICIENCY TO THE ENERGY EQUATION- PART 3 (By Winston Adams)
In my piece published Oct 9 we saw that a key finding of the McKinley study in the United States was that a program offering 50 percent rebates, funded by an electricity rate increase of only 4 percent, gives a 24 percent 'reduction' in customers electricity bills. Many USA jurisdictions spent 10 times more than we do to help their customers save energy, and thereby avoid expensive new generation expenses, and at only one third the cost. My piece published Oct 31 showed we have more potential here for efficiency savings than in the USA if we use efficient heating plus others sources of efficiency. Potential reductions of 45 percent of our total production were identified, most being the present inefficient heating sector. Potential savings were 4 times the 885 GWH energy production of Holyrood for the year 2011.
It is necessary to quantify the saving and cost effectiveness for the customer and the power companies of the efficient heating systems.
There are 3 types.
TYPE 1( Earth or water source) is the most efficient, using 75 percent less electricity, and is effectively used in large government and commercial buildings. For residential it has limited use. It is expensive with an installed cost about $4000.00 per 1000 watts of heat.
TYPE 2 (air source ducted) generally cannot fully heat during very cold conditions and needs back up electric heaters. They are about 35 percent less efficient than TYPE 1, and provides little offset against the system peak demand reduction. The installed cost is about $2000.00 per 1000 watts of heat, and older houses are problematic to install ducts.
TYPE 3( Air source mini-split variable speed) reduces electricity by 50 to 80 percent, about 67 percent on average for our climate, and can provide full heat under cold conditions, without back up electric heaters. They give excellent peak demand reductions, 50 percent at -15C, 60 percent reduction with modest oversizing. This nearly matches the cold weather performance of TYPE 1, and some models operate down to -25C. At an installed cost about $1500.00 per 1000 watts of heat (at -15C), they are the most cost effective.
Across the country shipments rose 46 percent in 2011 over the year 2010. They also cool and dehumidify in summer. Installations in Nfld often use a central heater to serve 70 percent of the heating load. More complete coverage would have 2 or 3 heaters on the main level and 1 or 2 in the basement. Inverter technology and other advances has increased reliability and life expectancy can be 20 to 25 years, with compressor warranties from 7 to 10 years. Installed cost for a average house would be 8000.00
High efficiency stand alone hot water heaters save about 60 percent on energy use and cost about 1800.00 installed.
DEMAND and ENERGY REDUCTIONS and FUNDING
An average electric heated house consumes 15,000 kwh per year, with heat 69 percent of the total, and each contributes 5.2 kw towards the system peak demand. Type 3 heaters reduces average household demand about 55 percent, 2.86 kw each. For Nfld power's 151,000 residential electric heat customers ( a portion of the total) this gives 432 Megawatt system reduction. Hot water consumes 11 percent of domestic energy, 792 kwh on average. Efficient hot water tanks saves another 30 MW on the system peak demand, for a total of 462MW: almost equal to the full peak 490 MW maximum capacity of Holyrood, and 1.5 times the full 300 MW allocation of Muskrat Falls power for the island.
The energy savings of 5619 kwh for heat and hot water per house (for 151,000 houses) is 848 GWH system saving, 96 percent of the full production (885 GWH) of Holyrood last year. Allowing a 20 percent 'rebound effect', it would be 77 percent of Holyrood production in 2011. Assuming 13,000 residential conversions per year, 40 MW system demand reduction per year would reduce Holyrood to zero production in 12 years, achieving 98 percent green energy. A 8 percent surcharge on rates (0.9 cents per kwh) for residential and commercial would generate about 52 million dollars per year This would allow 40 percent rebate to 13,000 customers, where the installed cost for the heating is 8000.00 and for hot water is 1800.00. The cost for 151,000 units would be 1.5 billion dollars. With conversion for commercial, all residential and other efficiency options, demand reductions well exceeds Holyrood's capability and can give total energy savings well exceeding our forecast needs to the year 2030.
CUSTOMER SAVINGS
Efficient space heating would save 32 percent saving on the overall residential bill, a conservative estimate.
An average power bill of 200.00 per month, with 8 percent surcharge, and 32 percent saving gives net 53 dollars per month reduction. A 300.00 per month present bill would see a reduction of 80 dollars per month. Even with the surcharge, this is a 26 percent saving. Efficient hot water would save another 5 percent (11 to 16 dollars per month), for a total of about 31 percent. This is 29 percent more than the USA typical efficiency saving of 24 percent. These savings would allow the customer payback in 7.5 years not including interest costs, and net savings of over $11,000 over the life of the equipment. For 151,000 residential conversions it represents 120 million dollar annual customer savings, and over 100 million dollars in oil expenses savings to Nfld Hydro.
CONCLUSION
Efficiency savings from heating, hot water and all other efficiency options is massive, very cost effective, and can be staged and ramped up to offset thermal generation. It can achieve the additional energy needs up to the year 2030 and satisfy peak demand requirements. These savings are self financing with a surcharge and consumer savings on power bills.
Wind energy, according to Manitoba Hydro's latest report is reliable, up to 10 percent of our generation. This amount of wind and small hydro costs would cost Nalcor about 1 billion dollars, less than a fifth of Muskrat Falls.
Efficiency would be the major cost effective source, and in combination with small hydro and wind would be the least cost option by far, and carry our power needs to 2041 or longer, and achieving 98 percent green energy.
Any retail electricity price increases would be more than offset by customer energy savings. Staged wind and small hydro additions, concurrent with efficiency savings could reduce Hoyrood production to zero in 7 to 8 years.
Even without an efficiency rebate program, customer conversions to these efficient systems has compelling economics and presents a serious risk to the future load growth forecast. By assuming that efficiency has reached a saturation point, Nalcor and Manitoba Hydro Int's error is a serious risk in forecasting island power needs, and may lead to a serious financial burden for our province.
2012
PART I (of three articles published in The Telegram by electrical engineer Winston Adams)
Bringing efficiency to the energy equation (from The Telegram website, 9 October, 2012 article by Winston Adams, an engineer living in Logy Bay, with experience in electrical power generation and distribution and heating systems.)
http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Letters-to-the-editor/2012-10-09/article-3097195/Bringing-efficiency-to-the-energy-equation/1#Comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART II
Bringing energy efficiency to the equation (Part II, from The Telegram, 31 October, 2012 article by Winston Adams)
BY WINSTON ADAMS
In a piece I wrote that was published in The Telegram on Oct. 7, and posted online Oct. 9, we saw that a key finding of the McKinley study in the United States was that a program offering 50 per cent rebates, funded by an electricity rate increase of only four per cent, gives a 24 per cent “reduction” in customers’ electricity bills.
By spending 10 times more than we do to assist “customers” with energy efficiency, they also reduce system demand by more than two per cent per year, often saving the expense of a new generation source, and at one-third the cost.
For Newfoundland there are important differences. We use electricity for heating, and they use gas. Our residential consumption is high, at 50 per cent of total. Our load is skewed. The high winter demand, at more than twice the summer load, is problematic. The winter peak demand is beyond the capacity of our hydro generation, so 12 per cent is supplied by the Holyrood oil-fired plant.
Nalcor correctly states that our winter electric heat has been the main driver for increased demand. Our residential load is 69 per cent for heat, 11 per cent for hot water, 20 per cent for appliances, lights and other products. Houses use less energy per unit, but more and larger houses and conversions from oil heat is the rationale for a new generation source.
Conservation would pay off
Nevertheless, the size and season of these heating loads is a very fortunate combination. The energy efficiency approach, when specifically applied to electric heating, would give more savings than the McKinley study found for the U.S. The solution offers many benefits:
1. It reduces instead of increases customer electricity bills.
2. It reduces transmission losses, a utility expense.
3. It allows us to reach 98 per cent green energy.
4. It will incrementally reduce Holyrood oil consumption allowing some fuel cost savings to be passed back to consumers.
5. It saves on water resources, important in dry years when rainfall is low.
6. It reduces air pollution.
7. It aids our commitment on the environmental global warming issue.
8. It helps flatten our load curve with less winter demand, which reduces the size and cost of future replacement backup generation systems.
9. It brings synergy savings (where technology works together) and would more than double the savings from efficient compact bulbs, fridges, TVs and hot water tanks.
Such good fortune lies in the fact that our winter heating load is an excellent fit for the heating technology that has matured, is reliable, and suitable for our climate. It’s an opportunity to benefit from these latest advances and high efficiencies. The relatively low equipment cost is due to the mass production by several world class manufacturers.
The familiar way of heating with electricity is to heat direct with a resistance heating element. It is cheap and reliable, but a century old and very wasteful of electricity. The newer way heats indirectly. Powered by electricity, it transfers energy from the adjacent earth, water or air, into the house. It elevates the temperature suitable for residential space heat or for hot water.
This method is not new to Newfoundland, having been used for more than 20 years, and is now mandatory for our large government buildings. Worldwide, smaller residential units are used for heating, cooling and humidity control.
Efficiency is the great advantage. During winter cold snaps these units produce the same heat as regular heaters, but use about one third the power. At milder temperatures, in minimum heat mode, newer models can use as little as one sixth the power.
A hydro source that would normally supply 1,000 houses with heat and hot water could supply 3,000 houses in cold conditions, and 4,000 or more at other times. The equipment cost, in kilowatts of heat supplied, continues to drop, while power generation plant and transmission costs escalate.
Big savings
If efficiency is a viable contribution to avoid new generation, one must first consider the magnitude of this resource. An analysis to quantify the extent of such savings on an island-wide basis is readily done using Nalcor’s data: 50 per cent of the island load is residential, of which 69 per cent is for electric heat and, applying the 65 per cent efficiency factor (7,642 x 0.5 x 0.69 x 0.67) gives the saving of 1,766 gigawatt hours. This is 23 per cent of our yearly total generation.
More importantly, it is 206 per cent of the yearly generation production of Holyrood. Such large savings would, first and foremost, go to offset the expense of oil and reduce pollution.
There are other significant savings from commercial heat, residential and commercial hot water, at about 774 gigawatt hours. Basement insulation and efficient appliances can offer savings of 840 gigawatt hours. And transmission loss savings, another 100, for a total of 3,480 gigawatt hours. A potential savings of 45.5 per cent of all generation is almost twice the 26 per cent saving potential in the U.S.
It should not be surprising that our potential is twice that of the U.S. given that we use so much electricity for heat. What is surprising is that Nalcor proposed to save only nine gigawatt hours per year for the next 20 years. Manitoba Hydro International concurred with this, saying “technology efficiency savings were approaching a saturation point.” They reasoned that most upgrades for the housing sector are already done. But this applies only to the building shell construction. The serious oversight and error in their analysis is in excluding the savings of proven technology to the space heating and hot water for both residential and commercial sectors.
For all potential saving of the domestic plus commercial sectors of 3,480 gigawatt hours, it is four times last year’s 855 gigawatt hour total production from Holyrood.
I will look at achievable saving and costs in a future letter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART III
BRINGING EFFICIENCY TO THE ENERGY EQUATION- PART 3 (By Winston Adams)
In my piece published Oct 9 we saw that a key finding of the McKinley study in the United States was that a program offering 50 percent rebates, funded by an electricity rate increase of only 4 percent, gives a 24 percent 'reduction' in customers electricity bills. Many USA jurisdictions spent 10 times more than we do to help their customers save energy, and thereby avoid expensive new generation expenses, and at only one third the cost. My piece published Oct 31 showed we have more potential here for efficiency savings than in the USA if we use efficient heating plus others sources of efficiency. Potential reductions of 45 percent of our total production were identified, most being the present inefficient heating sector. Potential savings were 4 times the 885 GWH energy production of Holyrood for the year 2011.
It is necessary to quantify the saving and cost effectiveness for the customer and the power companies of the efficient heating systems.
There are 3 types.
TYPE 1( Earth or water source) is the most efficient, using 75 percent less electricity, and is effectively used in large government and commercial buildings. For residential it has limited use. It is expensive with an installed cost about $4000.00 per 1000 watts of heat.
TYPE 2 (air source ducted) generally cannot fully heat during very cold conditions and needs back up electric heaters. They are about 35 percent less efficient than TYPE 1, and provides little offset against the system peak demand reduction. The installed cost is about $2000.00 per 1000 watts of heat, and older houses are problematic to install ducts.
TYPE 3( Air source mini-split variable speed) reduces electricity by 50 to 80 percent, about 67 percent on average for our climate, and can provide full heat under cold conditions, without back up electric heaters. They give excellent peak demand reductions, 50 percent at -15C, 60 percent reduction with modest oversizing. This nearly matches the cold weather performance of TYPE 1, and some models operate down to -25C. At an installed cost about $1500.00 per 1000 watts of heat (at -15C), they are the most cost effective.
Across the country shipments rose 46 percent in 2011 over the year 2010. They also cool and dehumidify in summer. Installations in Nfld often use a central heater to serve 70 percent of the heating load. More complete coverage would have 2 or 3 heaters on the main level and 1 or 2 in the basement. Inverter technology and other advances has increased reliability and life expectancy can be 20 to 25 years, with compressor warranties from 7 to 10 years. Installed cost for a average house would be 8000.00
High efficiency stand alone hot water heaters save about 60 percent on energy use and cost about 1800.00 installed.
DEMAND and ENERGY REDUCTIONS and FUNDING
An average electric heated house consumes 15,000 kwh per year, with heat 69 percent of the total, and each contributes 5.2 kw towards the system peak demand. Type 3 heaters reduces average household demand about 55 percent, 2.86 kw each. For Nfld power's 151,000 residential electric heat customers ( a portion of the total) this gives 432 Megawatt system reduction. Hot water consumes 11 percent of domestic energy, 792 kwh on average. Efficient hot water tanks saves another 30 MW on the system peak demand, for a total of 462MW: almost equal to the full peak 490 MW maximum capacity of Holyrood, and 1.5 times the full 300 MW allocation of Muskrat Falls power for the island.
The energy savings of 5619 kwh for heat and hot water per house (for 151,000 houses) is 848 GWH system saving, 96 percent of the full production (885 GWH) of Holyrood last year. Allowing a 20 percent 'rebound effect', it would be 77 percent of Holyrood production in 2011. Assuming 13,000 residential conversions per year, 40 MW system demand reduction per year would reduce Holyrood to zero production in 12 years, achieving 98 percent green energy. A 8 percent surcharge on rates (0.9 cents per kwh) for residential and commercial would generate about 52 million dollars per year This would allow 40 percent rebate to 13,000 customers, where the installed cost for the heating is 8000.00 and for hot water is 1800.00. The cost for 151,000 units would be 1.5 billion dollars. With conversion for commercial, all residential and other efficiency options, demand reductions well exceeds Holyrood's capability and can give total energy savings well exceeding our forecast needs to the year 2030.
CUSTOMER SAVINGS
Efficient space heating would save 32 percent saving on the overall residential bill, a conservative estimate.
An average power bill of 200.00 per month, with 8 percent surcharge, and 32 percent saving gives net 53 dollars per month reduction. A 300.00 per month present bill would see a reduction of 80 dollars per month. Even with the surcharge, this is a 26 percent saving. Efficient hot water would save another 5 percent (11 to 16 dollars per month), for a total of about 31 percent. This is 29 percent more than the USA typical efficiency saving of 24 percent. These savings would allow the customer payback in 7.5 years not including interest costs, and net savings of over $11,000 over the life of the equipment. For 151,000 residential conversions it represents 120 million dollar annual customer savings, and over 100 million dollars in oil expenses savings to Nfld Hydro.
CONCLUSION
Efficiency savings from heating, hot water and all other efficiency options is massive, very cost effective, and can be staged and ramped up to offset thermal generation. It can achieve the additional energy needs up to the year 2030 and satisfy peak demand requirements. These savings are self financing with a surcharge and consumer savings on power bills.
Wind energy, according to Manitoba Hydro's latest report is reliable, up to 10 percent of our generation. This amount of wind and small hydro costs would cost Nalcor about 1 billion dollars, less than a fifth of Muskrat Falls.
Efficiency would be the major cost effective source, and in combination with small hydro and wind would be the least cost option by far, and carry our power needs to 2041 or longer, and achieving 98 percent green energy.
Any retail electricity price increases would be more than offset by customer energy savings. Staged wind and small hydro additions, concurrent with efficiency savings could reduce Hoyrood production to zero in 7 to 8 years.
Even without an efficiency rebate program, customer conversions to these efficient systems has compelling economics and presents a serious risk to the future load growth forecast. By assuming that efficiency has reached a saturation point, Nalcor and Manitoba Hydro Int's error is a serious risk in forecasting island power needs, and may lead to a serious financial burden for our province.
