Slashdot Mirror


Leased LEDs and Energy Service Contracts can Cut Electric Bills (Video)

I first heard of Consumer Energy Solutions from a non-profit's IT guy who was boasting about how he got them to lease him LED bulbs for their parking lot and the security lights at their equipment lot -- pretty much all their outdoor lighting -- for a lot less than their monthly savings on electricity from replacing most of their Halogen, fluorescent, and other less-efficient lights with LEDs. What made this a big deal to my friend was that no front money was required. It's one thing to tell a town council or non-profit board, "If we spend $180,000 on LEDs we'll save it all back in five years" (or whatever). It's another thing to say, "We can lease LEDs for all our outdoor lighting for $4,000 per month and save $8,000 on electricity right away." That gets officials to prick up their ears in a hurry.Then there are energy service contracts, essentially buying electricity one, two or three years in advance. This business got a bad name from Enron and their energy wholesaling business, but despite that single big blast of negative publicity, it grows a little each year. And the LED lease business? In many areas, governments and utility companies actually subsidize purchases of anything that cuts electricity use. Totally worth checking out.

But why, you might ask, is this on Slashdot? Because some of our readers own stacks of servers (or work for companies that own stacks of servers) and need to know they don't have to pay whatever their local electric utility demands, but can shop for better electricity prices in today's deregulated electricity market. And while this conversation was with one person in this business, we are not pushing his company. As interviewee Patrick Clouden says at the end of the interview, it's a competitive business. So if you want the best deal, you'd better shop around. One more thing: the deregulated utility market, with its multitude of suppliers, peak and off-peak pricing, and (often) minute-by-minute price changes, takes excellent software (possibly written by someone like you) to negotiate, so this business niche might be one an entrepreneurial software developer should explore.

10 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. So paying more in the long run is better? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Was this some sort of lease to own scheme? Municipalities tend to pay very little for cash less than a leasing company. Are we surrounded by idiots with no impulse control or long term thinking to think leasing is cheaper?

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
    1. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by countach44 · · Score: 2

      I think the argument here is that it's cheaper than keeping the legacy power hungry stuff. Cheaper in the long run than owning the LEDs? Definitely not, because the lessor is making a profit somewhere.
      If you don't have the capital to invest in purchasing your own stuff and switching over, however, it seems like this is a reasonable option.

    2. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Was this some sort of lease to own scheme?

      It would be pretty stupid if it was not. About 20 years ago, most office buildings changed up the ballasts on their fluorescent lights from magnetic to active which gave huge electricity savings. It was pretty common to see deals like this back then. The company that I was consulting at did this. They had a company come in and replace the ballasts. The deal was ten years of half of the savings on the electricity and then the leasing company walked away. So from the POV of the customer, they had no up front cost, for 10 years the customer got half the electricity savings, and for the remainder of the life of the product the customer got 100% of the savings. If purchased outright, the ballasts would have paid for themselves in just a couple of years so it was a really sweet deal for the leasing company.

    3. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by geoskd · · Score: 2

      Are we surrounded by idiots with no impulse control or long term thinking to think leasing is cheaper? Yes.

      And we keep electing them to run things. How stupid does that make us?

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    4. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by geoskd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      installation costs might be a big factor purposely not discussed. It may be easy to lease the lights, but the costs of installation (and maybe even maintenance) drive the real cost up and potential benefit down.

      There are no additional installation costs. These LED lights are designed to be drop in replacements for the older halogen and sulfur types. These elected officials are just that stupid.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    5. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by geoskd · · Score: 2

      It still cost money to send guys out on bucket trucks to replace lights.

      It was money you would have to spend on replacing them when they burn out anyways. When one burns out, you replace the two closest to it as well, that way you cut your replacement labor costs in roughly 1/3, and you don't have the huge up front expense of replacing them all at once. You just begin to reduce your monthly costs gradually. After a year or so, you're saving so much that the program pays for its own continuation. After 3 years you have a significant reduction in monthly maintenance costs as well as significant savings in energy costs...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    6. Re:So paying more in the long run is better? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

      "but PEPCO insisted that they didn't have enough data"

      This situation sounds like a serious conflict of interest where the utility has at the very least no incentive to work towards LED street lights and could very well actively attempt to prevent such a switchover. Street lights by their very nature operate at night, a time where the system load has for the most part has dropped below the utilities baseload capacity. In simplistic terms they are generating power that isn't being used, so they aren't being paid for it. There is a significant impetus for them to WANT "someone" to use power in the midnight to 6 AM period and they're probably hoping that municipalities with power hungry street lights and homeowners with "security" lights will take up at least part of the slack.

  2. I'm confused... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Is this a legitimate article, or are we taking Slashvertisements to a new level?

    1. Re:I'm confused... by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Slashvertisement - a fiction spawned in the brains of basement-dwellers who think that anyone who says anything nice about anything or anyone is getting paid to be positive."

      Nope. All ads or "sponsored content" pieces on Slashdot are clearly identified. This piece is legit, and I clearly stated that this is just one of many companies in the energy-saving businesses. Clouden's company is close to me and I first heard about it from a satisfied customer, but at no point did I (or he) say his company was better than others in the same business. In fact, let me repeat: If you're going to buy any kind of energy-saving services, you'd better shop around -- just like Smokey Robinson's momma told him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
       

  3. Better methodology? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

    A better methodology might be to simply stop buying standard bulbs and start buying LEDs. As standard bulbs go out swap them out. Sure you won't see the savings immediately but you also won't throw away a boatload of perfectly good bulbs and you won't have quite such a sticker shock. I can definitely see the use of this leasing service, but only in cases with especially pigheaded bureaucrats, kind of like those ones who claim the world is 7,000 years old or those who think we can convert 100% to renewable electricity and organic food and not have rolling blackouts and half the population starving to death.