Reading Tomorrow’s Newspaper

By Joe Salimando                  www.eleblog.com

A secret of handicapping horse races is seeing the future. There are, let’s say, eight horses in the next race; tomorrow, they’ll print the results of the race you’re about to bet on. How will that read? Which horse(s) were ahead at the quarter-mile pole? Which contended up to the half, only to fall apart? Which rallied near the end of the race? Who was the first to cross the finish line?

As a veteran horse enthusiast, I’ve pursued thousands of these expensive future predictions. Were I successful, you wouldn’t see my name here! However, I have done a bit of winning. More interesting (to me), I’ve had my track companions say – “you know, that race went exactly the way you said it would go.”

While I’m not (unfortunately) consistent at that kind of handicapping, seeing the future clearly – even on rare occasions – is one heck of a thrill.

Once, at Monticello Raceway (in upstate New York), I looked over a rather mediocre field of harness horses. They all looked terrible, on the program and even by eye, out there on the track; all clearly were not going to be involving in racing for many more months (or weeks).

As I stared at the program, and the tote board, I couldn’t figure out why the betting public had decided that one of these nags was so much worse than the others. By my estimate, each of the eight should have been 8-to-1. Yet the one the public judged the worst of the bunch was 100-to-1.

I saw the future; eight horses in a “blanket finish” (in the world’s slowest 1-mile time!). This longest-shot-on-the-board animal would be there.

So I bet $5 to win on that extreme-long-shot horse; I had brought $20 to bet for the day, so this was a big bet for me. The horse went off at 95-to-1 . . . and won by a couple of lengths. Yes, I was excited; my friends were astonished. But the thing I remember most clearly was the look of disgust on the face of the guy who cashed my ticket; how stupid do you have to be to bet $5 on a 95-to-1 horse?

How does this translate to electrical contractors?

When it comes to the intersections of green, energy solutions, and the EC business, you have to be able to read tomorrow’s newspaper. Here’s some help.

Future hints, today

First, take the time to read a piece I wrote for tedmag.com on the future of green construction. It’s nearly 2,000 words. It’s one of the better recent ideas that came into my head.

Next, think about the fact that – according to all the data – if global warming really does exist, buildings are responsible for about 40% of it. That’s why California’s Public Utility Commission has mandated that new residential buildings be built to Net Zero Energy standards by 2020 . . . and all commercial buildings built new after 2030 also be NZE. More here; California’s NZE action plan can be downloaded here.

Then take a gander at this: Pike Research claims that Planet Earth’s total of residential and commercial space under roof will grow from 1.5 trillion sq. ft. in 2010 to 1.9 trillion sq. ft. in 2020. Isn’t that astounding?

Now put it all together.

Will green construction grow, as indicated in the McGraw-Hill Construction document (which comes with a cost) and presentation (posted for free download on the BCTD site)? Will California actually pursue its crazy plans?

AND: Is global warming actually happening? Do buildings actually cause global warming? If so, won’t adding 400 billion sq. ft. of new space under roof in a decade accelerate global warming . . . perhaps to the point that all of us can actually see it happening (and, if it is, stop debating it!) . .  . ?

We know the answers to none of the above. However, we can say: If global warming exists; if buildings are causing a lot of it; and if we’re going to increase square footage by better than 25% in the next 10 years . . . those on-the-bleeding-edge Californians and their NZE concept might be pointing the way for the rest of us.

There’s more to think about, and it’s doesn’t make my head hurt as much as what’s above.  Here’s just a bit more.

LEDs.

Here’s what Philips Lighting has said: LEDs will grab 50% of the residential lighting market by 2015. That’s not a typo.

Like Philips, Cree has just come out with a 60W-light-bulb equivalent.

One year ago, there was a big noise when Bridgelux came out with an LED for $20. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop; I’ve heard folks predict the LED retail price point is ultimately headed for $10 (which would mean $9.99, of course).

At $10 to replace an Edison-type incandescent bulb, we’re still talking about real money. You can still buy incandescent light bulbs (outside of California); in my home state of VA, I still see them at roughly 2-for-a-buck. That means I can buy 40 60W lamps for the cost of one $20 LED and take zero “new technology risk.”

However, pretty soon incandescent sales will be banned by government fiat (60W units go down in 2014, 100W in 2012, under the EISA 2007 bill signed into law by George W. Bush).

Clearly, LEDs are the future. But it’s not going to be a smooth journey from here to there.

First, hundreds of companies will, right now, sell you an LED fixture. According to testing conducted by the U.S. DoE, the quality you (and your customer) will obtain ranges all over the lot; some claims seem to be totally bogus. Note that DoE recently completed the 11^th round of its CALiPER testing.

Therefore, Mr/Ms Contractor, it’s in your direct interest to get out ahead of the field on LEDs. Now. Get up to speed quickly; spread that information and education through your workforce.

Learn about how LEDs work . . . how to tell the awful stuff from the better stuff . . . what the potential is for your customers (and what it isn’t).

Rules will change

Folks in the green movement are upset. While there’s been a lot of action on the energy-efficiency front, plenty of energy is still being used (and wasted).

It’s become apparent to some that the key is not design (the D in LEED), but performance! [Note that I first wrote about this after hearing Kevin Kamphshroer of the U.S. GSA speak back in December 2008, so this isn’t big news]

What’s new – to me, anyway – is something I picked up at Greenbuild: There will soon be regulatory efforts to get at how much energy a given building actually uses. SO: Instead of worrying to death over the design watts-per-square-foot (which is in both the ASHRAE 90.1 standard and the EISA 2007 rebate mathematics), the law will change to require a certain maximum level of building energy use per square foot per year (or something similar).

I question the end-game. Will a municipality really revoke a building’s occupancy permit if its energy use exceeds a certain specified level? I can’t imagine that happening. But then, a lot of stuff is already going on that I could not imagine, both good and bad.

Now, ask yourself a question: If a given municipality imposes rules on commercial building energy performance, isn’t there a new kind of role for the electrical contractor to play?

Building owners in such cities will look – perhaps in despair – for someone they trust who can help them keep their occupancy permit (or, alternatively, to help keep their building from being publicly flagged – and flogged! – as an energy hog).

Will they find NECA contractors when they begin to look . . . waiting for them . . . with the equivalent of tomorrow’s horse-race results firmly in hand?