Tag Archives: energy efficiency

Talking Turkey: Thanksgiving Dinner Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Thanksgiving is one of the most wonderful time of the year, when families gather and spend time together while the smell of turkey seeps in from the other room. You’ve probably never given much thought to the energy use or environmental impact behind that intoxicating turkey smell coming from the kitchen, and in fact the country’s overall energy use drops on Thanksgiving because the increase in kitchen power use is offset by the drop in energy use from office and commercial buildings that are closed for the holiday.

However it’s always interesting to look at the actual energy numbers behind various regular activities and consider if there’s a way to do it better. Especially these days when online cooking forums and the Food Network is constantly making it trendy to cook your Thanksgiving turkey in new and novel ways. Your grandmother’s recipe isn’t the only one in town anymore (though I’m sure it’s still the best). Those cooking the turkey now have deep fryers and smokers, while Turducken is being eaten by NFL players after the Thanksgiving Day games.



With so many new cooking methods for Thanksgiving dinner, it got me to wonder what the energy cost was to cook turkey using these different methods. While there were investigations on the total energy use across the country to cook Thanksgiving dinner (linked later in this article), I could not find anything about the energy cost or associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of an individual turkey cooked using different methods, so I thought I’d run through them myself!

Recipes

After searching across the Internet, I settled on seven different methods to cook your Thanksgiving turkey– the traditional roasting of a turkey and six newer and trendier options that the hip or contrarian chef might utilize. These seven methods are the following:
  • Roasting;
  • Braising;
  • Deep frying;
  • Grilling;
  • Smoking;
  • Spatchcocking; and
  • Sous vide.

For each of these cooking methods, I’ve sought out a recipe either from a well-known chef of repute or directly from the manufacturer of the turkey or the cooking apparatus in question. By using these recipes, ideally these authorities will have an air of authority to them. Because each recipe offers cooking times based on various size turkeys, this analysis will normalize each recipe for a standard 15 pound (lb) turkey as the size recommended for a dinner of 12 people.

If you want to skip the details of the recipes and the calculations, click here to go straight to the results!
 
Note: For all of the below recipes, there are additional energy consuming steps that are not going to be included in the calculations. These steps include removing turkey from the oven to baste, pre-refrigeration, sauteing after the turkey is fully cooked to get crispy skin, etc. The point is the calculations below will focus on the energy needed to fully and safely cook the turkey, and any energy used before or after that process will be ignored for simplicity and uniformity. Of course you will be making side dishes and putting on finishing touches, so your mileage WILL vary compared with what is calculated here. The goal of this exercise is just to get a back-of-the-envelope approximation for how the different cooking methods affect the energy required– they are definitely not going to be exact or completely robust. You’ve been warned! 

Roasted turkey

Since this is the traditional cooking method, it seemed criminal to use a recipe other than the one championed by Julia Childs. Her traditional recipe for a 10 to 13 pound turkey calls for the oven to be preheat to 450oF and then the turkey roasted for 30 minutes before reducing the oven to 350oF and roasting for another 2 to 2 hours 30 minutes.
Normalizing for a 15 lb turkey, we’ll use the higher time estimate and add 15 minutes for the extra weight and say the turkey will be cooked in the oven for 3 hours 15 minutes.

Braised turkey

 Braised turkey is a great segue from the traditional to the more novel turkey-cooking methods, as it doesn’t stray too far from the original whole turkey roasting method. You are still cooking the turkey fully in the oven, but with the main difference that the turkey is sitting in a pan of vegetables and stock to bring in more moisture to your turkey.

For the braised turkey, we’ll stay with household names and use Bobby Flay’s recipe for herb roasted and braised turkey. This recipe calls for an oven preheated to 450oF with the 17 pound turkey and a bed of vegetables cooked for 45 minutes before the temperature is reduced to 350oF and cooked an additional 2 to 2 hours 15 minutes longer (while basting with warm chicken stock). After the whole bird is cooked, the legs are removed and braised in a roasting pan with stock for an additional 1 hour at 350oF.

To normalize to a 15 pound turkey, we’ll say the braised turkey cooks in the oven for a total estimated cook time of 3 hours 30 minutes.

Deep fried turkey

If you can manage to get it done without an explosion or trip to the hospital, deep frying turkey has become one of the more exciting and talked about cooking alternatives. Bobby Flay’s colleague at Food Network, Alton Brown, has one of the most used deep fried turkey recipes for those who love the science and Internet-trends of cooking.

For a 13 to 14 pound turkey, Alton has you heat up a 28 to 30-quart pot of oil to 250oF, add in the turkey and raise the temperature to 350oF, and once at that temperature cooking for 35 minutes.

To account for the weight of a 15 pound turkey, we’ll say this recipe cooks with a propane heater for a total of 40 minutes.

Grilled turkey

The grilled turkey recipe chosen comes straight from Butterball, the turkey supplier that accounts for 20 percent of total turkey production in the United States. Among grilling aficionados, the debate to grill by charcoal or by gas is one of the most heated. In addition to differences in taste, ease, and convenience, the choice of grill type also affects the end energy use to cook. Luckily for us, Butterball provides instructions for both a charcoal and gas grill.

Butterball’s recipe for charcoal grilling says that the 10 to 16 pound turkey will be cooked over 50 to 60 charcoal briquettes (after those initial briquettes have been burned for 30 minutes). At that point, the turkey is to be placed on the grill for 2 to 3 hours, with 12 to 16 briquettes being added every 45 minutes to 1 hour. To normalize at the 15 pound turkey, we’ll estimate that initially 60 charcoal briquettes will be used and, during the cooking process, 50 more briquettes will be added for a total cooking fuel of 110 charcoal briquettes on a charcoal grill over the course of 3 hours.

Butterball’s recipe for gas grilling says the same 10 to 16 pound turkey is cooked over indirect heat (after 10 to 15 minutes of preheating) at 350oF for 2 to 3 hours. For the 15 pound turkey we’ll assume the turkey is cooked on a gas grill at 350oF for the whole 3 hours.

Smoked turkey

Where deep frying or grilling the turkey may have once held the title as the ‘macho’ way to prepare a Thanksgiving turkey (whatever that may mean), smoking the meat might just have taken that crown. Using lower heat over longer periods of time, smoking turkey evokes the expert barbecue pit masters of the country to impart full flavor without drying out the turkey. Butterball once again provides authoritative guidance to smoking your Thanksgiving dinner, again allowing the consideration of two different fuel types.

Butterball’s recipe for preparing a turkey in a water smoker uses 10 pounds of charcoal briquettes (pre-burned for 30 minutes) to start the cooking process, adding in 12 to 14 more charcoal briquettes every 1 hour 30 minutes to ensure the temperature remains at 250oF through a total cooking time of 6 to 10 hours for a 12 to 18 pound turkey. For our 15 pound turkey, we’ll call that cooking fuel of 10 pounds plus 70 briquettes of charcoal over a cooking time of 8 hours in the water smoker.

When using an electric smoker, Butterball’s recipe calls for the smoker to be set at 225oF and the 8 to 18 pound turkey to be cooked for 8 to 12 hours. Normalizing to our 15 pound turkey, we’ll say the final cook time is 11 hours at 225oF in the electric smoker.

Spatchcocked turkey

If Julia Child was the first queen of celebrity chefs, Martha Stewart eventually took her crown, and so we have to include a recipe of Martha’s.  Martha Stewart’s magazine featured a recipe for a spatchcocked turkey, a method of cooking poultry in which bones are removed so the bird can be flattened and cooked more evenly and quickly.
Martha Stewart’s recipe has the oven preheated to 450oF, with a 12 pound and fully spatchcocked turkey roasted for 1 hour 10 minutes. For our 15 pound turkey, we’ll adjust this to be cooked in the oven at 450oF for 85 minutes.

Sous vide turkey

Sous vide cooking, or the process of cooking food that is vacuum-sealed in a plastic pouch by placing it in heated and circulating water bath, has been around for decades. The method has gained traction more recently, however, as home cooks are increasingly getting their hands on the cooking equipment necessary that was previously only available in professional kitchens. The cooking method allows meat to be cooked at lower temperatures and thus cooked more evenly, safely, and while retaining moisture.

If you are in the market for a sous vide immersion circulator, one of the first places you might go is Williams Sonoma. To aid the new owners of this equipment, they also offer up a sous vide turkey recipe by Michael Voltaggio. The water of the sous video immersion circulator is preheated to 150oF and the vacuum sealed turkey pieces then placed in and cooked for 2 hours 30 minutes.

Calculations

These recipes use a wide variety of cooking apparatuses and fuels, so the methodology of calculating the total energy use and associated CO2 emissions will vary. Much like the Halloween-themed post on the most sustainable way to light your Jack-O’-Lantern, this post will thus be calculating very rough estimates using educated choices of data and assumptions. The final numbers should be considered back-of-envelope calculations and not scientifically or rigorously tested. There are also various aspects to the cooking process that would impact the end result that will not be accounted for, as well as variables to your individual cooking efforts that would change the final result (e.g., size of oven or grill, the energy mix of your power supplier, what type of propane or charcoal you buy from the store).

All that said, if you have ideas or suggestions on how to refine any of the numbers calculated here, then please reach out and/or leave a comment! (For one, I’ve assumed an oven is using a uniform amount of power regardless of the temperature at which it is set. While the difference of power use at 350oF and 450oF is not likely that much, it is definitely measurable. However, after much digging I was still unable to find any way to estimate the power difference among different temperatures, so a uniform power consumption was chosen and used for all use of the oven.)

Regardless of fuel type, all final energy numbers are calculated in kilowatt hours (kWh) and all CO2 emissions are calculated in lbs.

If you don’t care about going through the calculations and just want to jump to the final numbers, click here to jump to the results!



Roasted turkey

We are assuming the use of an oven for 3 hours 15 minutes. The oven will also need to preheat the oven, which we’ll assume to take 15 minutes. All together, the energy use and CO2 emissions will be associated with using an oven for a total of 3 hours 30 minutes.

In the United States, ovens are commonly powered by either electricity or by natural gas (though electric stoves are almost twice as common as gas stoves). The fuel type will affect the end energy use and CO2 emissions:
Electric oven:

Electric ovens use about 2.0 kilowatts (kW) of power. Assuming this power usage for the entirety of the recipe, the energy use of roasting the turkey in an electric oven is about 2.0 kW times 3.5 hours, or 7.0 kWh.

The latest data available from the Department of Energy says that for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, 1.096 pounds of CO2 are released. Thus for this recipe in an electric oven, the CO2 emissions are equal to 1.096 lbs/kWh times 7.0 kWh or about 7.7 pounds of CO2.

Electric ovens use about 2.0 kilowatts (kW) of power. Assuming this power usage for the entirety of the recipe, the energy use of roasting the turkey in an electric oven is about 2.0 kW times 3.5 hours, or 7.0 kWh.

The latest data available from the Department of Energy says that for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, 1.096 pounds of CO2 are released. Thus for this recipe in an electric oven, the CO2 emissions are equal to 1.096 lbs/kWh times 7.0 kWh or about 7.7 pounds of CO2.
Gas oven:

Gas ovens use about 0.112 therms of natural gas per hour. Over the course of the 3 hours 30 minutes, this would result in the use of 0.392 therms. In order to convert this amount of natural gas to kWh for comparison’s sake, we use the energy equivalence of one therm being about 29.3 kWh, meaning the energy use of a gas oven for this recipe is 11.5 kWh.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a handy carbon footprint calculator you can use to analyze the CO2 emissions of all sorts of household activities. Included among its assumptions is the emission factor of cooking with natural gas, at 11.7 lbs of CO2 per therm of natural gas (this is another place where your specific situation may vary– some gas stoves use propane or other flammable gases as fuels, but we’ll assume natural gas for the sake of this calculation). Based on this assumption, the roasted turkey recipe in a gas oven would result in CO2 emissions of about 4.6 lbs of CO2.

Braised turkey

The braised turkey recipe also uses a oven, but this time for 15 minutes of preheating and 3 hours 30 minutes of cooking for a total of 3 hours 45 minutes. Again, this process can be done in an electric or a gas oven using the same assumptions as the roasted turkey.

Source

Electric oven:

Using the same assumptions as above for 3 hours 45 minutes of 2.0 kW power usage, the braised turkey recipe uses 7.5 kWh. Using the same assumption of 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh results in the CO2 emissions of the braised turkey in an electric oven being about 8.2 lbs.

Gas oven:

Repeating the assumptions above again gives an approximate energy use of 0.420 therms, or 12.3 kWh, and would result in emissions of about 4.9 lbs of CO2.

Deep fried turkey

The deep frying recipe calls for a propane heater to preheat a pot of oil to 250oF, adding in the turkey and raising the temperature to 350oF, and then cooking for 40 minutes.
 

The assumptions we can make here are that a propane cooker uses 65,000 British thermal units (BTUs) per hour and preheating deep fryers takes about 30 minutes. That means the total energy use would be 65,000 BTU/hour times 1 hour 10 minutes for a total of 75,833 BTU. Converting the propane use in BTU to approximate energy use in kWh gives a final result of approximately 22.2 kWh.

To calculate the CO2 emissions from this cooking process, the EPA’s carbon footprint calculator again gives us the needed information of CO2 emissions for cooking by propane. With the EPA assumption that every million BTU of propane burned emits 136.05 lbs of CO2, the deep fried turkey’s 75,833 BTU emits about 10.3 lbs of CO2.

Grilled turkey

Charcoal grill:

When the grilled turkey recipe for a charcoal grill is used, 110 charcoal briquettes are used over the course of 3 hours (after 30 minutes of pre-burn of charcoal).

Experiment shows that the energy content of charcoal is 7.33 kilojoules (kJ) per gram, while a single briquette of charcoal weighs about 25.7 grams. All together, this means a charcoal grilled turkey takes 20,733 kJ, which is converted to about 5.8 kWh.

For the CO2 emissions of charcoal grilling, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found that the amount of charcoal needed to operate a grill for an hour emits 11 pounds of CO2. For this recipe that uses the grill for a total of 3 hours 30 minutes, that amounts to 38.5 pounds of CO2.
Propane grill:

When prepared on a gas grill, propane is needed to preheat for about 15 minutes and then cook the turkey for 3 hours.

The rate of propane use in propane grills varies, but a standard gas grill is rated at about 36,000 BTU/hour. That means for the full 3 hour 15 minute operation, the Butterball grilled turkey recipe requires 117,000 BTU or approximately 34.3 kWh of energy.
 
As with the recipe for deep fried turkey, we can use EPA’s assumption that every million BTU of propane burned emits 136.05 lbs of CO2, meaning this propane grilled turkey accounts for 15.9 lbs of CO2.

Smoked turkey

For the smoked turkey recipe, we again have two options for cooking fuel– either a charcoal fueled water smoker or an all electric smoker.

Charcoal powered water smoker:
This recipe required the burning of 10 pounds plus 70 briquettes of charcoal for 8 hours (after 15 minutes of preheating).
Using the same assumptions as with the charcoal grilled turkey, we find that at 7.33 kJ/gram of charcoal and 25.7 grams of charcoal per briquette gives a total energy use of the charcoal for a turkey smoked with a water smoker of about 12.9 kWh.
For the CO2 emitted, we again assume that grilling for an hour emits 11 pounds of CO2 per hour, meaning for a total grill time of 8 hours 15 minutes we get 90.8 lbs of CO2.
Electric smoker:
The electric smoker will be set at 225oF and the turkey cooked for 11 hours. Common electric smokers are rated at about 800 Watts, meaning 11 hours of use would use 8.8 kWh.
Since this is all electric, we can reuse our assumptions from cooking in an electric oven. Assuming 1.096 lbs of CO2 are released for every kWh of electricity produced in the United States, the electric smoker would account for about 9.6 lbs of CO2.

Spatchcocked turkey

The recipe for spatchcocked turkey brings us back to the oven, but with the distinct (and intentional) advantage of a greatly reduced cooking time compared with the other methods. The 15 pound turkey will cook in the oven at 450oF for 85 minutes, after 15 minutes of preheating, for a total oven use time of 1 hour 40 minutes.
Electric oven:
Reusing our electric oven assumptions, 1 hour and 40 minutes of 2.0 kW power usage means the spatchcocked turkey will require about 3.3 kWh of energy. At 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh, that means the recipe accounts for about 3.6 lbs of CO2.
Gas oven:
If instead the spatchcocked turkey is cooked in a gas oven, which uses 0.112 therms of gas per hour, the energy use of this recipe would be about 5.5 kWh, while the CO2 emissions associated with this cooking process would be 2.2 lbs.

Sous vide turkey

Last but not least is the sous vide turkey, which requires the use of an immersion sous vide immersion circulator for 2 hours 30 minutes (after a 15 minute preheat time). Given that the power rating of a sous vide from Williams Sonoma (the source of our recipe) is 1,100 W and the total operating time is 2 hours 45 minutes, the electricity use comes out to about 3.0 kWh. At 1.096 lbs of CO2 per kWh, that means the sous vide turkey accounts for about 3.3 lbs of CO2.

Graphical results and conclusions

With all those calculations and assumptions out of the way, we can finally look at all the results in one table:

Click to enlarge

These numbers can also be displayed graphically to show the overall level of ‘green-ness’ of each cooking method:

Click to enlarge

Looking at these results, there are a number of points of interest and interesting conclusions to draw:
  •  In terms of the amount of CO2 emissions, the two options that use charcoal (smoked in a charcoal smoker and grilled on a charcoal grill) are by far the greatest emitters. This result shouldn’t be surprising, as charcoal (with anthracite coal as one of its ingredients) is one of the more carbon intensive fuels you can use in your homes. However it is interesting to note that, despite their higher CO2 emissions, they are in the same ballpark in terms of energy use as the other cooking methods. This result shows how charcoal is an efficient fuel source, it just happens to also be dirty.
  • In terms of the total energy use, the two options that use propane (deep fried and grilled on propane grill) require the greatest energy. The higher energy needed is likely due to the cooking source being less efficient than others, with gas/propane burners typically being only 40% efficient with the remaining 60% of energy output being lost to heating the surrounding air or as visible light.
  • The two best cooking methods in terms of both minimal energy use and CO2 emissions are the sous vide turkey and the spatchcocked turkey (in either a gas or electric oven). The reason these reign supreme is telling, and different for the two of them.
    • For the sous vide turkey, the turkey is vacuum sealed and cooked in heated water the size of a typical pot. The result is that a smaller volume has to be heated up when compared with a larger oven, deep fryer, smoker, or grill that needs to heat up and keep heated the larger surrounding area. By focusing the heat in a smaller area, the total energy use is greatly reduced. In all cooking, the smaller the area you are heating up the more energy efficient the cooking process will be, which is why it is actually advisable to cook using smaller, dedicated appliances (e.g., toaster ovens, panini press, etc.) than to use the oven or stovetop for everything.
    • For the spatchcocked turkey, the reduced energy use and associated CO2 emissions is simply attributed to the largely reduced cooking time. Outside of the deep fried recipe, which uses the aforementioned inefficient propane, the spatchcocked recipe is the only one that takes under two hours of cooking. Obviously, the less time you have to have your appliances working, the less energy you’ll use. So while spatchcocking may have become popular due to the convenience of reduced cooking time, the relative efficiency is also among its virtues.
  • When comparing the recipes that use either the gas oven or the electric oven, the final figures show that the gas ovens use more energy but emit less CO2. What is important to note about the CO2 difference, however, is that the numbers are based on the average U.S. figure for CO2 emitted per kWh. This number can vary greatly depending on your power company and where you live. For example, if you live in Vermont then your power likely comes from a greater proportion of renewable energy than in other states, which would reduce the relative CO2 emissions of your electric oven. Of course the opposite is true if your power company uses more coal in its fuel mix than the national average.
  • One last point is that the relative energy use here does not correlate to the relative cost to the consumer for preparing the turkey. Certain fuel types are much cheaper than others, which is part of the reason they are popular to use in the first place. For example, just because grilling by propane uses almost six times the energy as grilling by charcoal, the relative prices of the fuels actually results in grilling by gas being less costly per hour for a consumer.

According to the National Turkey Federation, 46 million turkeys are roasted each Thanksgiving. Various outlets have attempted to estimate the actual energy use of those turkeys cooked in aggregate, with answers ranging from 48 million kWh to 792 million kWh (quite a wide range, showing just how uncertain the true number is). Using the numbers calculated here, if all 46 million turkeys were cooked sous vide then that would be 138 million kWh, whereas if they were all grilled on a propane grill then that would be over 1.5 billion kWh. Concerning CO2 emissions, the 46 million turkeys could account for 152 million lbs (sous vide) or over 4 billion lbs (grilled on charcoal grill)– for context, a passenger vehicle emits about 10,000 lbs of CO2 per year. That’s all to say, the small decisions everybody makes individually can add up to make a large difference in total energy use or CO2 emitted– even when talking turkey.

In the end, though, there isn’t too much reason for you to stress. There are plenty of methods you can use to cut down on energy use while cooking if you choose to do so(see some examples here and here, or you can even invest in a solar cooker that uses just the sun and reflectors to cook at temperatures up to 400oF!). But again, the overall energy use on Thanksgiving is lower than the average Thursday. It’s a time to relax and be grateful, not necessarily to measure out your exact briquettes to minimize energy spent. But you can come to the Thanksgiving table with some of these fun facts handy to impress your family, just be sure to praise the cooking of the chef first– he or she spent plenty of time making that dinner!

Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Sources and additional reading

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Energy Efficiency in the NFL: Declaring a Champion

The National Football League (NFL) has been making immense strides towards implementing strategies for energy efficiency and sustainability in recent years, recognizing the money that could be saved on stadium power bills as well as the influence of being stewards of environmentally friendly practices (taking a page out of the books of the number of beers brewed with renewable energy that are served in NFL stadiums!). Whether these efforts are marked by using recycled materials or installing solar panels in stadiums, sponsoring events for the recycling of electronic waste, or using interactive digital media guides instead of printed guides, it seems that NFL teams are constantly working to one-up each other for the title of greenest, most energy-efficient team.

So why keep that hypothetical?!

What if the 2017-18 NFL season played out according to the teams who performed best on a (admittedly pretty arbitrary) ‘green scale?’ That’s exactly what I do in this article, playing out the whole 16 game schedule for all NFL teams, making my way through the playoffs, and ultimately declaring a Super-Efficient Bowl Champion!



Methodology and rankings

A note before starting—this analysis is pretty subjective, could go any number of ways depending on types of data chosen to analyze, and is merely meant to be a fun exercise praising teams who have put effort into energy efficiency. Nothing is meant to be taken overly serious, so don’t be offended if your team rates lowly or there are certain energy efficiency efforts of your team I was unaware of and thus didn’t account for. That said, if there’s additional interesting information I haven’t captured, please do let me know in the comments!

To play out the season, several pieces of data were gathered and then quantified for each team to determine which team was the most efficient. A team’s efficiency score comprised the following:

  1. The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score of each team’s home city, as determined by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE);
  2. The level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification achieved by a team’s home stadium, as determined by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), or, when LEED certification was not reached, the presence (or lack thereof) of significant sustainability practices at the stadium;
  3. The total round trip distance traveled by the team during the 2017-18 season to all eight of its away games; and
  4. The distance to a team’s stadium from the geographic center of the home city.

These various factors are normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 to determine a team’s efficiency score.

To make things more interesting than just having a single list of teams ranked from 1 to 32 of most-efficient scoring to least efficient-efficient scoring (and thus making the ultimate champion obvious before the games are even played out), each team is awarded a ‘Home-Efficiency Score’ (HES) and an ‘Away-Efficiency Score’ (AES). The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score and the LEED certification factor into both the HES and AES, however the round trip distance traveled (which pertains to teams traveling to their away games) only factors in to the AES, while the distance to a team’s stadium from the city’s geographic center  (which pertains to the average distance home-team fans are likely to travel to watch a home game) only factors into the HES.

As such, the HES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 4, while the AES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 3.

1. 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score

Again, these scores are on a scale of 0 to 100 and are awarded by ACEEE. In determining the City Energy Efficiency Score, ACEEE takes into account local government operations, community-wide initiatives, buildings policies, energy and water utilities, and transportation policies.

Most NFL teams either play in or clearly represent one of the cities that is scored by ACEEE in this annual list. However, there were a few notable exceptions that had to be addressed separately:

  • The Packers play and represent Green Bay, Wisconsin. Green Bay is an extremely small city compared with typical cities with professional sports teams,and wasn’t on the list. The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was used from the ACEEE score card due to it being the closest major metropolitan area to Green Bay and the high concentration of Packers fans throughout the state of Wisconsin.
  • The Raiders play and represent Oakland, California (though they are soon moving to Las Vegas, Nevada—but that is for another season so it won’t affect their 2017 score). With Oakland not in the ACEEE list, the next best city to use was San Francisco, California due to the proximity of these metropolitan areas.
  • The Bills play and represent Buffalo, New York. There were no representative cities in the ACEEE scorecard in the Upstate New York region. This analysis used ended up using the average of all NFL cities since it seemed fair to avoid rewarding or punishing Buffalo for the lack of data on its performance and instead award it a middle of the pack rating.

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the ACEEE score of their designated cities:

Click to enlarge.

2. Stadium LEED certification or other initiatives

While an NFL team might not have much it can do to influence its city’s ACEEE City Energy Efficiency Score, one thing they can control is how energy efficient their stadium is. Each team will typically play eight games in their home stadium during the course of an NFL season (more if you count preseason and playoffs). Football teams sometimes fall under more scrutiny for the sustainability (or lack thereof) of their stadiums compared with other sports that have dozens of home games per year, because so much land and so many resources are being used for the bigger football stadiums that get used a fraction of the time.

Such factors make the energy efficiency and general sustainability of football stadiums more crucial, and in recent years there have been a handful of stadiums that have pursued LEED certification for their stadiums. LEED is a program from the USGBC that certifies all sorts of buildings, including stadiums, based on their design, construction, operation, and maintenance. New buildings often strive to be LEED certified before blueprints are even drawn up, though existing buildings can also be retrofitted to comply and be certified as a LEED building.

Based on the points awarded (out of a possible 100), buildings can be classified as:

  • 40-49 points is LEED Certified;
  • 50-59 points is LEED Silver;
  • 60-79 points is LEED Gold; and
  • 80-100 points is LEED Platinum.

These 100 possible points are awarded based on the categories of Location & Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation in Design. There are an additional 10 points that can be earned based on Regional Priority and Innovation.

As such, the points awarded in this analysis to NFL stadiums that are LEED certified will correlate with the minimum points necessary to reach that level of certification (e.g, a team with a LEED Silver stadium will be awarded 50 points). Additionally, many stadiums do have significant sustainability efforts in their stadiums but they have not yet pursued or achieved LEED status. To give due credit to these initial steps, stadiums who are found to have other efficiency and sustainability initiatives at their stadiums will be awarded 10 points (representing the additional 10 points LEED makes awardable outside of the base 100 points).

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the LEED certification or sustainability initiatives found for their stadiums*:

Click to enlarge.

*The sources for all of these stadium initiatives can be found in the ‘Sources and additional reading’ section at the end of the article. One stadium worth noting is the AT&T Stadium of the Dallas Cowboys. It is possible to find literature citing that they are aiming to reduce energy use by 20% per year, they were still counted without any major initiatives. The reason for this is because any concrete completed projects towards this goal could not be identified, in addition to the fact that at peak draw the energy-use starting point was using three times the amount of energy the whole nation of Liberia can produce—this idea makes it hard to award points just yet until the stated goals are realized.

3. Total round trip distance traveled to away games

Another large energy expense of every NFL team is that amount of travel required for each team to go to each of its away games. Some teams are centrally located compared with their common opponents and thus able to take buses or trains, while other teams find themselves in cross country trips several times a year that require the use of a privately chartered airplane. The traveling process varies team-by-team, but the total number of people traveling to each game ranges from 135 to 200, bringing with them up to 16,000 pounds of equipment (which will travel by 18-wheeler truck for all but the longest of trips). Most traveling is done by privately chartered planes, at a costs high enough that the Patriots found it cost-effective to become the first team to own their own team planes.

All of these factors use up a massive amount of transportation fuel, and the best proxy available for how much energy each team’s travel will account for in the 2017 season is to look at who is traveling the furthest distance to games away from their home stadium (accounting for traditional away games in other teams’ stadiums as well as any games taking place at a third location, such as a number of games taking place in England during the 2017 season).

The following table summarizes the total travel miles for each of the 32 NFL teams during the 2017 season, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles traveled by the team with the most road miles and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

4. Distance from city center to stadium

The last factor considered in this analysis examines how far fans would have to travel to get to a home game of their favorite NFL team. While the ideal data for this would be to find the average distance that fans who bought tickets, or even just season ticket holders, lived from the stadium of their team. Unfortunately, this type of data set does not seem readily available. Instead, a proxy for this distance traveled that was used in a 2014 analysis I came across was the distance from the city center of each team’s implied/representative city and its stadium. This data (which I have updated for stadiums or teams that have moved since that analysis) would give a rough idea how much (and what type of) game day travel is needed by an average fan in that city—whether they would have to use a lot of fuel drive a long distance (because their beloved San Francisco 49ers are actually 43 miles away in Santa Clara) or if they could walk or use more efficient public transportation to get to their local team (such as the New Orleans Saints who are positioned a mere half mile from city center and the typical pre-game restaurants and bars of their avid fans).

The following table summarizes the distance from city center to stadium for each of the 32 NFL teams, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles of the stadium that’s furthest from its implied city center and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

 

Putting together these four factors as described earlier the following final scores for each team’s efficiency at home (HES) and away (AES):

Click to enlarge.

Notes on methodology

Before playing out the 2017 NFL season using these Home and Away Efficiency Scores to determine the winner of all 256 regular season matchups, a couple of notes about the methodology used:

  • The average HES is 50.5 while the average AES is 37.6. This setup clearly favors the average home team in each matchup, due to the fact that the ‘city center to stadium distance’ scores are significantly higher than the ‘road miles traveled’ scores.’ This fact is seen as realistic, since in any given NFL game the home team is more likely to win (an average 3 point swing is given to the home team in an NFL game by sports odds makers).
  • There are some clear favorites heading into the season, as the HES of the several of the teams with LEED stadiums have a HES higher than the AES of every team, while a number of teams at the bottom of the AES ranking have scores so low they can’t beat the HES of any team.
  • Through it all, this is an inherently silly but fun exercise. We could instead just assign point values for all the sorts of factors an NFL team can control and declare the top 10 teams in those rankings—but isn’t it more fun to be a bit arbitrary and go through to declare a champion? Read on if you think so!

Regular season results

I used the NFL Playoff Predictor tool to plug in the results of all of the regular season matchups of the 2017 NFL schedule. This tool then uses the NFL’s rules to determine what teams make the playoffs and in what seeds.

You can see a saved version of what this played regular season would look like on a game-by-game process by following this link, but the final standings for the playoffs come out as follows:

Source

It is worth noting that after the first 7 weeks of the NFL season, the results based on this scoring system were already incorrect 52% of the time. But nonetheless, we have our twelve playoff teams in the Baltimore Ravens, New York Jets, Denver Broncos, Tennessee Titans, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New England Patriots representing the AFC, while the Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings, and New York Giants represent the NFC.

By highlighting the playoff teams in the below table, we can find out what carried teams to the playoffs and what caused teams to miss the playoffs:

Click to enlarge.

A few things stick out:

  • The Tennessee Titans and Atlanta Falcons were the only team that overcame a below average ACEEE score to make the playoffs, with the Titans seeming to rely on their extremely high city center to stadium distance score and the Falcons were carried by their new stadium being the only one certified as LEED Platinum while also being so close to city center.
  • Every team that has some sort of LEED certification on their stadium had enough of a leg up to make the playoffs. Further, no teams that had zero points from the lack of any significant energy initiative ended up making the playoffs.
  • Half of the playoff teams that scored below average on the road miles traveled, while one third of the playoff teams scored below average on city center to stadium distance (including the San Francisco 49ers who’s stadium is the furthest from city center, but luckily for them was certified as LEED Gold).

Playoffs

Playing through the first three rounds of the playoffs, we’ll continue to use the NFL Playoff Predictor tool and our HES and AES figures, as teams with a higher playoff seed still host the games.

Wildcard Round

Source

The Wildcard Round finds the Broncos, Steelers, Vikings, and Eagles moving on to meet the top four seeds from the regular season.

Divisional Round

Source

The Divisional Round finds all four home teams, bolstered by their LEED certified stadiums that aren’t too far from city center, advancing to the Conference Championships.

Conference Championship

Source

The pre-season favorites in the Baltimore Ravens and the Atlanta Falcons advance to the Super-Efficient Bowl. Both of these teams are carried by the energy efficiency and the central location of their stadiums, as the ACEEE score for both Baltimore and Atlanta are average while they also have significant road miles traveled as they are both on the East Coast and find themselves traveling to the Midwest and the West Coast.

Super-Efficient Bowl

Again, the two teams left standing at this point are the ones with the highest level of LEED certification on their stadiums, and they both come into this game with compelling story lines.

For the Atlanta Falcons, this marks a return to the Super Bowl after being victims of the largest comeback in Super Bowl history last year. However, last year they had not yet opened the Mercedes-Benz Stadium—the LEED Platinum certification of which propelled them back to the big game. Is this bump in sustainability enough to overcome the ghosts of last year’s devastating loss? Was the missing ingredient to last year’s team a stadium that set the bar as far as energy-efficient stadiums go?

For the Baltimore Ravens, the last time they were in the Super Bowl was five years ago—and this was a notable game in the energy world. It was this Super Bowl where the a power outage caused a half hour stoppage in play, the cause of which was later discovered to be a recently installed relay that was actually supposed to prevent just such a blackout. This lack of energy did not derail the Ravens, as they won the game with a goal line stand towards the end of the fourth quarter. Perhaps this caused a realization that they could win it all even without energy pumping into the stadium, as it was the following season that M&T Bank Stadium, home of the Ravens, earned LEED Gold certification. But that LEED Gold Certification is no longer the gold standard in the NFL, with their opponents only this year achieving LEED Platinum.

How will this play out?!

For the Super-Efficient Bowl, since neither team is playing at its home stadium, we should determine an efficiency score without the home or away components. That means the score of the Super-Efficient Bowl will be determined by the average of ACEEE City Score and LEED Points awarded. Using that as a basis we find a champion and final score to the inaugural Super-Efficient Bowl to be….

Source

 

 

The Atlanta Falcons have received redemption and won the Super-Efficient Bowl! Despite Baltimore jumping out to an early lead with a higher ACEEE City Energy Efficiency score, but it wasn’t enough to hold back Atlanta with their state-of-the-art LEED Platinum stadium. Let the confetti rain down (but make sure it’s made of recycled paper)!

Conclusion

Because of the year-to-year volatility of several of the metrics used to determine the energy-efficient winners, anyone could come out of the pack to take the title of Super-Efficient Bowl Champion next year. As shown by Atlanta and Baltimore’s success in this inaugural season, though, the key is to get a LEED certified stadium and to locate it as close as possible to the center of your city. The number of LEED stadiums has grown to account for almost 20% of stadiums in the NFL, and that’s after the first one was certified only six years ago. More and more teams seem to be finding the value of a LEED stadium, and now maybe the Super-Efficient Bowl will prompt more to join the trend.

And best of luck to the Dallas Cowboys, who finished last in the league. Worry not, they’ll be awarded the first draft pick in next year’s draft—which maybe they can spend on the top prospect in energy-efficiency!

Sources and additional reading

Can Stadium Sports Really Be Green? Mother Jones

Chiefs Focus on Solar Energy Solution: Chiefs

Cleveland Browns Begin Initiative to Convert Food Waste Into Energy: Waste Today

Does Cowboys Stadium Use More Energy on Gameday Than Liberia? Sports Grid

Eagles & Ravens Receive LEED Certification Just in Time for Greenbuild Conference: Green Sports Alliance

Going Long and Going Green: How the NFL is Embracing Sustainability: Georgetown

Guide to LEED Certification: United States Green Building Council

How AEG Is Bringing Energy Storage To LA’s StubHub Center With Tesla Powerpacks: SportTechie

LEDs Take Over Tampa Bay’s NFL Stadium: Facilitiesnet

LEED Certified Green Building: Soldier Field

LG Electronics and Nissan Stadium Win Big in LED Lighting Overhaul: PR Newswire

Levi’s Stadium Achieves LEED Gold Certification for Operations and Maintenance of an Existing Building: Levi’s Stadium

Los Angeles Coliseum “Modernizes” With Zero Waste: Green Sports Alliance

Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Falcons’ new home, to sport state-of-the-art sustainability: USA Today

NFL Stadiums Attempt to Lower Energy Costs: 24 of the Most Energy Efficient Stadiums in the League: Electric Choice

Patriots Become 1st NFL Franchise to Buy a Team Plane: Bleacher Report

Planes, Trains and Automobiles: Truths About Traveling in the NFL: Bleacher Report

Playoff Predictors

Seahawks To Travel Sixth-Most Road Miles in NFL In 2017: Seahawks

Some NFL Teams Are Going Green: Wall Street Journal

Super Bowl LII E-Waste Recycling Rally: MN Superbowl

Team travel directors preparing as if there will be a 2011 season: NFL

The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

“Timing is everything”: Behind the scenes of an NFL team’s travel day: CBS News

U.S. Bank Stadium goes for the green: Finance & Commerce

Which NFL Stadiums Are The Most Convenient To Drive To: Deadspin

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Brewed with Renewable Energy- Best Beers for the Green Consumer

As microbreweries and craft beers have really blown up in recent years, it’s easy to forget that the beer brewing process goes back millennia.  Archaeologists have noted that nomads may have made beer before making bread, ancient Babylonian’s kept beer recipes on clay tablets, and European monasteries in the Middle Ages took beer brewing out of the home and into centralized production.

All of this ancient brewing was fairly unstandardized, relying on fermentation and chemical reactions and, when needed, cooking by fire.  It wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that the production of beer scaled up massively, inventions came along to ensure the consistency of brewing, and the energy required to brew beer became substantial, powered by the revolutionary steam engine. Since that time, the energy intensity of brewing beer became substantial– today’s breweries typically use 50-66 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per barrel of beer. With a barrel of beer containing 2 kegs of beer and an average U.S. home using 10,812 kWh  per year in 2015, that means that it takes  less than 400 kegs of beer production to account for an entire household’s annual energy use– while places like Boardy Barn in Hamptons Bay, Long Island can sell up to 600 kegs in a single day!



All this lead up is to get to the question– why do you care? Well at the time that craft brewing has come out of the niche to become mainstream, so has personal responsibility to be energy and environmentally conscious. So at the intersection of these two pushes is the trend of breweries to utilize renewable energy in their production process. This post is meant to not only call out and give props to all the breweries that are incorporating green practices into their fuel mix, but to show you the best tasting beers you can buy that are ALSO incorporating the most renewable energy production.

In short– green beer appears to be a brewery cultural movement (and not just with food coloring you put in one day a year)!

Methodology

As stated in the introduction, the goal of this fun exercise is to cross-list breweries who have publicly available their power generation from renewable energy or their total renewable energy generation capacity with a rating of the most popular beer brewed at that brewery. As such, the methodology can be broken out by energy and by beer:

Energy

Many breweries today are installing renewable energy generation, and luckily for this exercise they also love to talk about it. And why shouldn’t they? Making publicly available your renewable energy generation is not only great PR for a brand, but it can also lead to other breweries making the energy conscious decisions as they follow the leaders in the industry. As such, you can usually count on breweries to advertise their use of renewable energy:

Source

With this in mind, the data collected all came from publicly available sources– a section on a brewery’s website about sustainability, a news article announcing a new solar system install, etc. Based on what data was and was not available, it made the most sense to collect and rate based on total capacity of renewable energy used at the brewery. As a result, the following factors were not considered:

  • The percentage of energy use at a brewery that is accounted for by renewable energy (apologies to the smaller breweries that have a large percentage, or even all, of their energy use come from renewable energy– obviously the larger breweries have more energy use overall and thus have a higher ceiling for total installed capacity, but this analysis is only counting the raw total capacity);
  • Commitments to switch to renewable energy in the future (though there will be a list of ‘honorable mention’ breweries with such initiatives at the end);
  • The installation of renewable energy sources without the listing of capacity or energy generated (sorry to these breweries, you’ll be in the honorable mentions as well); and
  • Energy savings, energy efficiency initiates, and sustainable practices that don’t include installation of renewable energy (these will also be included in ‘honorable mentions’ to give credit where credit is due).

Beer

After assembling the list of breweries with renewable energy capacity, it sounded fun to cross-list those capacities with the rating of the most popular beer at that brewery to find the ultimate beer to reach for at the bar or grocery story that tastes great and contributes to the world’s renewable energy supply. BeerAdvocate.com was used as the repository for information on beer ratings, as it had the most extensive and widely available information for this process.

For each brewery identified on the below list, the beer with the most ratings on BeerAdvocate.com was identified as the most popular beer. The most popular beer was chosen to ensure a high sample size of ratings and to best represent the beer made at that brewery. So while there may be beers more highly regarded at the breweries identified, the chosen most popular beer is more likely to be that brewery’s flagship beer and accounts for the highest portion of the brewery’s production energy compared with any other beer.

Results

Below is a table of the 57 breweries found with advertised renewable energy capacity, with the greatest capacity at the top.  After a quick glance at this table, a few tidbits jump out:

  • Renewable capacities found on this list starts at 10 kilowatts (kW) and goes all the way up to 3,733 kW (or 3.7 megawatts). This wide range shows how varied the efforts are to incorporate renewable energy, from a small solar system that only has minor contributions to overall operations to a massive renewable energy installation that contributes most (if not all) of a brewery’s power needs.
  • Solar power is by far the most prevalent form of renewable energy found at breweries. This may seem striking, but it actually makes sense because solar systems are the easiest and most feasible system to install on a building basis. Other forms of renewable energy (wind power, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass) are not as well suited for individual building complexes to harness.
  • Heineken, as a parent company, appears several times towards the top of the list. Many of these breweries existed for many years before Heineken bought them, but it does appear to be a trend that breweries have become more likely to install renewable energy capacity after being brought under the Heineken umbrella.
  • There is also a clear spread of locations where these renewable energy breweries are located, on both coasts of the United States as well as three other continents. We’ll look into this more in a later graphic.

The next step is to plot these renewable capacities against the rating of the most popular beer. See the below graphs for this visual. When shown this way, a couple more conclusions can be made:

  • It turns out that the beer from the brewery with the highest renewable energy capacity (The Abyss from Deschutes Brewery) is actually the one with the highest rating on this list, making the decision at the bar that much easier!
  • However, dedication to renewable energy does not necessarily correlate with a well-received beer, as Birra Moretti (Heineken) and MillerCoors have discovered.
  • While a smattering of breweries have made the commitment to exceed a megawatt of renewable energy capacity, the majority of breweries have started smaller in the 500 kW range.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The last graphic put together is a map to represent where these breweries are spread across the country and the world. These maps show the top 20 breweries by capacity, with the size of the beer mug icon representing the relative size of that capacity (though note that between the U.S. map and the world map, scale of the maps are accounted for. For example, the Anheuser-Busch brewery has about half the capacity as the Namibia Breweries Limited. However because the U.S. map is about twice as big, both of these beer mug icons appear the same size).

The conclusions to be drawn from these maps include the following:

  • Within the United States, the most breweries with the most renewable energy capacity are mostly focused on the coastal regions. Specifically, the largest capacities are found on the West Coast in California and Oregon. These are two states that are known to have among the most progressive energy policies, so it’s no surprise that breweries in these states have jumped in feet first to the renewable energy revolution.
  • The United States does not have a monopoly at all when it comes to beer brewed with renewable energy. Not only are there a number of prominent breweries with renewable energy in Europe, but both the African and Asian continents are represented as well.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Honorable Mentions

As mentioned in the methodology section, there were a number of breweries that have initiatives in energy efficiency, sustainability, or other ‘green’ practices that were unable to be captured in this exercise that purely focused on renewable energy capacity. However, it only seems appropriate to still give these breweries a shout out for the positive efforts being put forth as well.

(Updated Honorable Mentions after originally posted– please keep these suggestions coming!)

  • Yards Brewing Co. in Philadelphia became Pennsylvania’s first 100% wind-powered brewery in 2011 (though figures on the total capacity were not available, which is the only reason they’re in the honorable mentions and not the main results).
  • Sawdust City Brewing in Ontario, Canada treats their wastewater on site.
  • Cowbell Brewing Co. is North America’s first 100% carbon neutral brewery.
  • Beau’s Brewery was the first Canadian brewery to be powered by 100% ‘green electricity.’
  • Sleeping Giant Brewing Company uses a host of sustainable practices, including the increasing use of renewable energy.
  • Steam Whistle Brewing in Toronto sources its energy from 100% renewable sources (also no mention of total use/capacity, so can’t add to the main results).
  • Rock Art Brewery became Vermont’s first 100% solar powered brewery in 2017.
  • The Alchemist in Vermont also sources nearly 100% of its energy from a local solar farm.
  • Moonraker Brewing Company boasts 1,100 solar panels on site.
If you know any other breweries that should be included in either the main results or these honorable mentions, please reach out to me by commenting here or heading to the contact page to let me know. Hopefully all breweries who deserve their pat on the back can get them!

Sources and Additional Reading

Beer giant Anheuser-Busch InBev commits to 100 percent renewable energy: CNBC

Beer History Timeline: BeerHistory.com

BeerAdvocate.com

Carlsberg aims to produce beer with renewable energy: Justmeans

Deschutes Brewery 2015 Sustainability Story: Deschutes Brewery

Early History of Brewing: Michigan State University

Green Beer Not Just for St. Patrick’s Day: Power Finance & Risk

Prost! 5 Breweries Embracing Renewable Energy: Renewable Energy World

Renewable Heating and Cooling for Breweries: Environmental Protection Agency

Renewables roadshow: how the people of Newtown got behind solar-powered beer

Top 50 Solar Beer Breweries: Solar Plaza (and all sources cited therein)

What is the Combined Heat and Power System (CHP)?: Yuengling Brewery

Wind Powered Brewery: Great Lakes Brewing Co. 

 

Updated on 10/6/17 to fix units

Updated on 10/8 to include additional breweries (Yard Brewing Co., Sawdust City Brewing, Cowbell Brewing Co., Beau’s Brewery, Sleeping Giant Brewing Company, Steam Whistle Brewing, Rock Art Brewery, The Alchemist, and Moonraker Brewing Company). 

 

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

 

Best from “Today in Energy” in 2017

Among the wide array of regular articles the Energy Information Administration (EIA) releases, as detailed in this post on navigating EIA’s data sets , one of the most varied and interesting is the Today in Energy (TIE) series of articles released every weekday. According to EIA, TIE articles “provide topical, timely, short articles with energy news and information you can understand and use.”   

What makes TIE particularly compelling to read each day is that the topics it covers range across the spectrum of energy-related topics. Where most of the other reports released by the EIA are restricted to a specific fuel type or survey of consumers, TIE articles bring all of these topics from across EIA into relevant, digestible, and fascinating briefs to give a broad spectrum of information to its readers.



Further, TIE articles feature both stories that are relevant and important to current events (e.g., Hurricane Irma may cause problems for East Coast energy infrastructure) and stories that provide useful background information that can be referenced for years to come (e.g., Crude oil distillation and the definition of refinery). Not only that, but keeping up with TIE articles is a great way to keep up with other EIA publications as well, such as when articles such as the Annual Energy Outlook, International Energy Outlook, or Short-Term Energy Outlook are posted, TIE often includes an overview of some of the relevant conclusions of those articles and a link to read the full version.

To prove how valuable TIE articles can be for all these reasons, I’ve picked a sampling of 13 of my favorite TIE articles thus far in 2017 that are particularly interesting and demonstrate the cross-cutting topics offered by TIE. The ones I’ve chosen are based on the topics I find the most engaging, as well as the graphics that are the most clever and elegant.

1. EIA’s AEO2017 projects the United States to be a net energy exporter in most cases

January 5, 2017

Released the same morning as the Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO2017), this article demonstrates the tendency of TIE to alert the readers of the latest EIA publications, while also providing a good overview to new readers as to what AEO2017 is and what the main takeaways from the report were.

2. Canada is the United States’ largest partner for energy trade

March 1, 2017

Utilizing the latest data from the U.S. census bureau, this article details the energy imports/exports between the United States and Canada broken out by U.S. region and fuel type and demonstrates TIE articles on the topic of trade. Most interesting is the graph showing the difference in electricity trade over the years from each of four U.S. regions.

Source: Energy Information Administration

3. U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell 1.7% in 2016

April 10, 2017

This TIE article from April breaks down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions data, from the Monthly Energy Review, from 2005 to 2016 by both emitting fuel and industry, while also introducing carbon intensity as a metric and shows the progress made in reducing energy-related carbon intensity over the previous decade. As climate change heats up as an issue in domestic politics, industry, and foreign affairs, this type of window into U.S. CO2 emission data can prove invaluable.

4. Most U.S. nuclear power plants were built between 1970 and 1990

April 27, 2017

I chose this article because it provides a fascinating chart that shows the initial operating year of utility-scale generation capacity across the United States, broken out by fuel type, to demonstrate the relative age of each source of electricity generation and, in particular, the relative old age of the U.S. nuclear generating capacity, while also showing the explosion of non-hydroelectric renewable generation since the turn of the century.

Source: Energy Information Administration

5. American households use a variety of lightbulbs as CFL and LED consumption increases

May 8, 2017

An example of a TIE article getting into the use of energy inside of U.S. homes, this piece takes information from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) to show how residential lighting choices have been trending in the face of increased regulation and availability of energy-efficient lighting technologies, highlighting the differences depending on renter vs. owner occupied, household income, and whether or not an energy audit has been performed.

6. More than half of small-scale photovoltaic generation comes from residential rooftops

June 1, 2017

Utilizing data from the Electric Power Monthly, this article breaks out the use of small-scale solar power systems based on the geographic location and type of building, highlighting the rapid rise these systems have experienced in the residential sector, as a great example of renewable energy in the residential sector.

7. Dishwashers are among the least-used appliances in American homes

June 19, 2017

Again taking data from RECS, this TIE article provides insights on the frequency that certain appliances are in American homes, how often they go unused in those homes, pervasiveness of ENERGY STAR compliant appliances, and other data regarding residential energy use of appliances. This article also includes a plug for the 2017 EIA Energy Conference that was to be held a week after its publication, again showing how good of a job reading TIE articles daily can do of making sure you know the latest happenings at EIA.

8. Earthquake trends in Oklahoma and other states likely related to wastewater injection

June 22, 2017

A reason I find this TIE article particularly interesting is that it goes beyond just the energy data collected by EIA and synchs with outside data from the Earthquake Catalog to show additional effects of energy production in the environment. This kind of interplay of data sources demonstrates how powerful EIA data collection can be when analyzed in proper context.

9. Monthly renewable electricity generation surpasses nuclear for the first time since 1984

July 6, 2017

I highlight this TIE article for two reasons. First, the graphic below showing the monthly generation of nuclear compared with the cumulative generation of renewable energies—and the highlighting of 2016-17 particular—is really illuminating. This graph is a great demonstration of the power of data visualizations to convey the data and the message of that data. Second, the reason behind that graphic—that monthly renewable generation surpassed nuclear generation for the first time in over three decades—is a remarkable achievement of the renewable energy sector, showing the trending direction of the U.S. fuel mix going forward.

Source: Energy Information Administration

10. California wholesale electricity prices are higher at the beginning and end of the day

July 24, 2017

This TIE article was identified because of how interesting the topic of wholesale electricity prices varying throughout the day can be. As net metering and residential production of electricity increases across the United States, this will be a topic those in the energy fields will want to keep a keen eye on.

11. Among states, Texas consumes the most energy, Vermont the least

August 2, 2017

Grabbing data from the State Energy Data System, this TIE article presents a graphic displaying the most and least overall energy use as well as the most and least energy use per capita among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Using color to demonstrate the relative consumption and consumption per capita creates a pair of really elegant visuals.

Source: Energy Information Administration

 

12. Solar eclipse on August 21 will affect photovoltaic generators across the country

August 7, 2017

As everyone was scrambling to find their last minute eclipse glasses, this TIE article detailed where, and how much, the total solar eclipse of August 2017 was to diminish solar photovoltaic capacity and an assessment of how local utilities will be able to handle their peak loads during this time (a nice follow up TIE article on this also looked at how California dealt with these issues on the day of the eclipse, increasing electricity imports and natural gas generation).

Source: Energy Information Administration

13. U.S. average retail gasoline prices increase in wake of Hurricane Harvey

September 6, 2017

Another example of TIE addressing energy-related current events, this article not only provides the information and analysis of the effect that Hurricane Harvey had on retail gasoline prices, but it also provides the context of why the effect was being felt, how it compared to previous hurricanes, and what could be expected moving forward.

 

 

If you’ve been sufficiently convinced that Today in Energy articles would be an engaging read to start the day, you can sign up for an email subscription by following this link.

 

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Federal Register Notice: Test Procedure for Distribution Transformers: Request for Information

The Department of Energy (DOE) published a Notice of Request for Information (RFI) in the September 22, 2017 issue of the Federal Register (82 FR 44347) on the test procedure for distribution transformers. This article intended to break down what exactly is being requested by the DOE, the steps that have come before and will come after this, and what it might mean for you.

What is this notice?

I’ve covered what an RFI entails my article on the DOE’s RFI for its net metering analysis, as well as the overall federal rulemaking process in the Policy Rulemaking Process for Dummies article—so click on those links to get the background information on those aspects of this process. However I have not had a chance to detail the DOE’s dealing with test procedures.



As detailed in the ‘Authority and Background’ section of the RFI, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a wide array of covered consumer products and industrial equipment. Among that list of equipment is distribution transformers. As such, DOE first established regulatory standards for distribution transformers in 2007, and most recently completed full rulemaking process to update to the energy conservation standards for distribution transformers in 2013, which took effect in 2016. These standards set minimum energy efficiency standards for the equipment based on the type of distribution transformer, the applicable kVA rating, and BIL rating, and those final standards can be found here.

The authority of EPCA calls on DOE to not just set the minimum energy efficiency standards for distribution transformers (and other equipment), though. DOE is also responsible for setting the testing requirements, which manufacturers must use as a basis to 1) certify to DOE that their equipment complies with standards, and 2) make representations of the efficiency of their equipment to the public (e.g., through in manufacturer catalogs). In other words, the official DOE test procedure dictates the testing setup and methods in which the efficiency of the equipment is measured.

DOE currently has test procedures for distribution transformers, which can be found here. These test procedures were published in 2006 when the first efficiency standards for the equipment were published as well. As noted in this RFI, “EPCA requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including distribution transformers, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle.” In fact, during the 2013 update to the energy conservation standards for distribution transformers, DOE did just that and determined that the current test procedures were satisfactory and did not require an amendment. However during that rulemaking process, certain stakeholders took advantage of the opportunity to make a public comment and noted that the requirements for ‘percent of nameplate-rated load’, or PUL, of the test procedure might not be appropriate and should be addressed in a future test procedure rulemaking. This RFI published by DOE is the beginning of that promised future test procedure rulemaking on distribution transformers, set to give consideration to the test PUL requirements.

Background of Distribution Transformers

As detailed in the RFI, a transformer is “a device consisting of 2 or more coils of insulated wire that transfers alternating current by electromagnetic induction from 1 coil to another to change the original voltage or current value.” 10 CFR 431.192  Distribution transformers, according to the DOE definition, are specifically identified based on their input and output voltage and other electrical characteristics. Put simply, distribution transformers are the pieces of equipment that take the high-voltage power from transmission lines and step that power down to its safe, final voltage before it is sent to the customers (in their homes, commercial buildings, etc.). These distribution transformers can be found either on a utility pole or in a locked box on the ground. Depending on the area, a single distribution transformer might serve one customer (in a remote rural area) or it might serve many customers (in a dense urban area). Further, a single large industrial facility might require multiple distribution transformers of its own.

On the left is a utility-pole distribution transformer, while the right is a pad-mount distribution transformer. I can’t be the only one who has nostalgia looking at the one on the right and of using it as a base in kickball or as home base in capture the flag until my mom yelled at us to stop playing on it, right?

The full current test procedure for distribution transformers can be found here, which specifies the test system accuracy required; the methods for measuring resistance, losses, and efficiency value of the transformer; and the test equipment calibration and certification.

What is being requested

This RFI is the beginning of a full rulemaking cycle on the test procedures for distributed transformers, so this is the opportunity for stakeholders to make an early and strong impact on the direction of the rulemaking.

The main issue that was brought up during the 2013 energy conservation standards rulemaking with regard to the test procedure was the appropriateness of the PUL specification. The discussion of this issue centered on the idea that the PUL on which the transformers were tested, and thus the PUL on which the resultant declared efficiencies were based, are potentially not representative of the PUL at which the transformers would operate during actual use. If this is the case, then customers seeking out the transformer that would use the least energy might be misled, and transformers that actually save more energy than others in use might be found non-compliant with regulations. To address this issue, DOE is requesting comment on the following:

  • Issue 1: Any data or information on the PUL used during the first year of service for distributed transformers;
  • Issue 2: Typical PUL values used in the population of distributed transformers;
  • Issue 3: Whether data provided by manufacturers represents first year of service or full lifetime;
  • Issue 4: Whether transformer loads increase over time; and
  • Issue 5: How much the efficiency of a transformer effects the purchasing decision of customers.

DOE is also going to investigate the issue of temperature correction and if the current practice of calculating losses by assuming the temperature inside the transformer is equal to an outside ‘reference’ temperature. The concern is that the temperature inside the transformer is surely higher than an outside temperature, meaning the energy losses in practice would be higher than what is being calculated. To address this, DOE is requesting comment on the following:

  • Issue 6: Any data or information about whether calculating losses at ambient temperature or internal temperature is more representative of real transformer performance; and
  • Issue 7: Whether temperature varies with PUL.

The current test procedure specifies efficiency by a single tested PUL. DOE has engaged in some discussion on whether this is appropriate, if a different reference PUL should be used, or if transformers should be tested at multiple PULs. To this end, DOE is requesting comment on:

  • Issue 8: Any data or information on the continued use of a single PUL test requirement compared with the alternatives;
  • Issue 9: How accurate would testing at multiple PULs be to the distribution of real-use transformer operations and how much would that increase testing costs;
  • Issue 10: How many PULs would be appropriate at which to test in a scenario of testing multiple PULs; and
  • Issue 11: Whether there are alternative metrics that should be considered to determine transformer efficiency.

Lastly, DOE also seeks comment on the sampling process and calculation methods used in the test procedure. The specific types of comments DOE seeks are the following:

  • Issue 12: Whether the sampling requirements of units to be tested should be adjusted;
  • Issue 13: Whether the efficiencies advertised by manufacturers typically represent the minimum efficiency standard, the maximum represented efficiency they are allowed to use, or some other metric;
  • Issue 14: Comment on DOE’s requirements related to alternative methods for determining energy efficiency (AEDMs); and
  • Issue 15: Whether the AEDM provisions are useful and if manufacturers use them.

Again this RFI is just the beginning of the rulemaking process for the distributed transformer test procedure, but it also represents the best time to get involved if these test procedures affect you. The above issues are just the ones that DOE specifically is looking to hear about, but stakeholders are more than welcome to address any other topics they find important. As mentioned in the Policy Rulemaking Process for Dummies article, comment periods such as this one represent the best opportunities to directly impact potential regulations that could have real impacts on you or your business.

Note: I have in the works a post on how to submit the most effective public comments, so if there appears to be interest on this post regarding the net metering RFI then I’ll make sure to move up publication of that subsequent post to be helpful for commenting on this Notice in advance of the comment submission deadline. Update: See here for my post on how to make the most effective public comment on a public rulemaking.

Summary of RFI details

  • DOE published RFI asking for comments on development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether the existing test procedures for distributed transformers should be amended (82 FR 44347).
  • Some key specific topics DOE is interested in receiving comments on include:
    • Ways to streamline and simplify testing requirements;
    • Measures DOE could take to lower the cost of testing requirements;
    • The relation between PUL being tested and PUL actually used in the field for distribution transformers;
    • Whether current temperature correction in the test procedure is flawed;
    • How testing based on a single PUL affects the final posted efficiency of equipment; and
    • The appropriateness of the sampling and calculation methods currently used.
  • Comments are to be submitted by October 23, 2017.
  • Further information is available at the Notice’s online docket, and questions can be directed to Jeremy Dommu at the DOE Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis or Mary Green at the DOE Office of the General Counsel.
  • As always, feel free to contact me through the Contact page or commenting below if you have any questions you think I could answer as well.

 

Updated on October 10, 2017

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.