Buzzword: Power Factor

What it means. Power factor, a characteristic of alternating-current, or AC, circuits, is defined as the ratio of real power (what the end user consumes, measured in watts) to apparent power (what the utility company supplies, measured in volt-amperes).

Power factor is expressed as a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The higher the number, the better the power factor, with 0.85 and above being considered optimal.

An analogy might be helpful here: Let's say you're at your favorite watering hole and order a $4 pint of beer. To serve you a proper, full pint, the barkeep might end up dispensing a few extra ounces. You're not charged for that spillage—you pay for only the beer in the glass. (Yes, the bar accounts for waste.)

That's basically how things operate between you and your utility: You pay for real power (beer) and not apparent power (spillage). It's a different story at the commercial level, since utility companies may impose a penalty on industrial customers whose facilities have a low power factor. Many utilities will levy a surcharge if a company's power factor is less than 0.95, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Your utility company would prefer that your home have a 1.0 power factor, since it charges you only for real power

Why the buzz? Power factor is still mainly a concern for industrial clients, but it might creep into the residential sector. One reason for this is the low power factor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

For a 60-watt incandescent lightbulb with a 1.0 power factor, for instance, the utility generates 60 volt-amperes and the customer pays for 60 watts of power, according to lighting company Osram Sylvania. But for a 15-watt CFL with a 0.60 power factor, the utility must generate 25 volt-amperes, while the customer pays for 15 watts. (To get volt-amperes, divide watts by power factor.)

So when that 0.60-power-factor CFL over the course of time uses 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity, the utility would have to generate 1,667 volt-amperes to power it. (It costs American utility companies an average of 4 cents to produce a cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity, according to the Edison Electric Institute.) Note that the average home has an overall power factor of about 0.90.

When you factor in the hundreds of billions of kilowatt-hours used by U.S. households each year, you can see why power companies would love to pass on some or all of the additional costs associated with power factor on to their customers.—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Check out these easy ways to cut energy use at home and learn about watt meters, which are marketed as energy-saving devices.

By the Numbers: Unused TV sets piling up in American homes

99.1 million

Number of unused television sets Americans have stashed away in their homes, according to the "Electronics Waste Management In the United States" report (PDF) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

With all those old TVs piling up, states and municipalities have required manufacturers to take on the recycling of electronics, according to this recent article in The New York Times.

Nearly 27 million televisions were disposed of in this country in 2007, with only 18 percent of those televisions by weight recycled, according to Take Back My TV, a campaign of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which promotes responsible recycling in the electronics industry (PDF). The 2007 figures were no better for computers and cell phones, says the organization: 205.5 million computers were trashed, with 18 percent recycled; 140.3 million cell phones were disposed of, with 10 percent recycled.

When you need to get rid of an old TV or other piece of electronic equipment, including cell phones and computers, read "Where to Recycle Electronics, Free" and refer to our Electronics Reuse & Recycling Center. e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Find out how to dispose or other household products, including leftover paints.

By the Numbers: White House touts new lighting-efficiency standards

$1 billion to $4 billion

Annual savings U.S. consumers will reap from 2012 through 2042 as a result of new energy-efficiency rules for incandescent reflector lamps and general-service fluorescent lights introduced yesterday, according to the White House. The efficiency standards were announced just days after the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act; the standards were last updated in 1992.

President Barack Obama and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu unveiled the rules, which will cut energy use for the affected bulbs by 15 to 25 percent and, from 2012 through 2042, are also designed to eliminate the emission of up to 594 million tons of greenhouse-gas emissions, about the same as taking 166 million cars off the road for a year; save enough electricity to power every home in the U.S. for up to 10 months; and eliminate the need for up to 7.3 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity. Read more details on the updated standards.

"The first step we're taking sets new efficiency standards on fluorescent and incandescent lighting. Now I know lightbulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses," said President Obama.

The news was well received by groups advocating for energy efficiency. "We believe this will be the biggest efficiency savings from any appliance standard ever," Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, told The New York Times.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are not affected by the new rules. e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Look for our testing update on CFLs in the October 2009 issue of Consumer Reports, online and on newsstands in September.

House nears final vote on American Clean Energy and Security Act

UPDATED, 7:45 P.M. ET ON 6/26/09: The House has passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a vote of 219-212. Read the details.

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday afternoon won a narrow test vote to advance the American Clean Energy and Security Act to a full vote by the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 recess.

Speaking yesterday from the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama predicted a close vote for the bill, saying, "I know this is going to be a close vote, in part because of the misinformation that's out there that suggests there's somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and our economic growth. But my call to those members of Congress who are still on the fence, as well as to the American people, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future, and we can't be prisoners of the past. We've been talking about this issue for decades, and now is the time to finally act."

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, was cosponsored by two Democratic representatives, California's Henry Waxman and Massachusetts' Edward Markey. One of its main elements is the cap-and-trade provision, which supporters say will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 83 percent by 2050. Opponents of the bill, largely Republican, have called it a "cap and tax" bill that will cost American consumers.

The cap-and-trade provision will cost the average household $175 annually by 2020, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. However, because of direct rebates included in the provision, low-income households could see a net benefit of $40 per year.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy analyzed the bill's energy-efficiency provisions, including those aimed at smart-grid appliances and a best-in-class deployment program, and found an average saving of $1,050 per household by 2020.

"This sweeping legislation represents a significant first step in our nation's ability to address global climate change. And importantly, it moves us forward on the path toward creating clean energy jobs of the future," says Ellen Bloom, director of federal policy for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of this blog and Consumer Reports magazine. "As the bill works its way through Congress, we look forward to working to ensure that, as policymakers continue their efforts to achieve the important goals of capping greenhouse gas emissions and creating new clean energy jobs, they do so in a way that does not unfairly burden American consumers."—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Q&A: Have CFLs been improved in any ways?

I've been disappointed by some of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs I installed a few years back. Have manufacturers made any improvements to CFLs, or are LEDs the way to go?

LED lighting is definitely gaining in prominence, but compact fluorescent lightbulbs continue to dominate the market for energy-efficient lighting. Today's Energy Star-qualified CFLs don't have the problems that some earlier models did, such as the flickering they generated and the harsh lighting they provided. These energy-saving bulbs continue to evolve, and much of the focus seems to be on making high-performance, long-lasting CFLs with less mercury.

A decade ago some CFLs had as much as 20 milligrams of mercury. The federal government has now capped the amount of mercury Energy Star-qualified bulbs can contain. As of December 2, 2008, CFLs that use less than 25 watts of electricity must have no more than 5 milligrams of mercury; the limit is 6 milligrams for 25- to 40-watt CFLs. A 13- or 14-watt is equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent bulb.

"Several manufacturers are producing bulbs that only contain 2 to 3 mg per bulb," says Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group. "We are hopeful that these levels can be reduced even further. We need to reduce these levels in a thoughtful, stepwise way to make sure we don't go so low that we've compromised the performance of the bulb and it stops working prematurely."

Mercury is traditionally put into CFLs as a liquid, but in recent years, manufacturers have increasingly used solid forms, or amalgam. It maintains the light output of a lamp much better over a range of temperatures, and dosing is much easier to control during manufacturing, according to Christina Kiehlich, an Energy Star spokeswoman. The downside is that using amalgam mercury results in CFLs with slightly longer run-up times.

Manufacturer BlueMax claims the amalgam fill prevents mercury from releasing when a CFL breaks. The experts at Energy Star say when a CFL breaks, the amount of mercury released wouldn't be significantly different whether it's liquid or amalgam.

Some CFLs are now marketed as shatterproof, which if true, would alleviate concerns over mercury being emitted when a CFL breaks. We haven't tested these yet.—Kimberly Janeway | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Find out which CFLs lasted longest (available to subscribers) and look for our new report on CFLs in the October 2009 issue of Consumer Reports, online and on newsstands in September.

Buzzword: Cool Roof

What it means. Never heard of a "cool roof"? Abandon your visions of an overhyped hipster-filled rooftop bar or eatery in an edgy, funky neighborhood. A cool roof, simply put, is a roof designed to reflect sunlight. Since the roof stays cooler, less heat is transferred to the building below, resulting in a cooler building and energy and money savings.

Why the buzz? U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu recently made headlines when he was in London to attend a symposium on climate change. He said that painting all roofs white or light colors could help significantly reduce the amount of energy used to cool buildings.

But this idea is about not only the color of a roof but also its solar reflectance (SR) and thermal emittance (TE), which are rated on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being the most reflective or emissive. The Cool Roof Rating Council trade group says it rates products based on their initial values and after three years of weather exposure. The cool-roof concept is to use reflective coatings or materials. So a cool roof could be made of clay or concrete tiles or other materials suitable for a climate along with coatings in a range of colors that are designed to reflect the rays of the sun. The photo shows a home with MCA clay roof tiles in Riverside, California.

Cool roofs lower the surface temperature of a roof by up to 100*F, according to the California Energy Commission, which estimates that cool roofs can trim cooling costs by 20 percent on average in California. The CRRC estimates the average energy savings are 7 to 15 percent of cooling costs.

But the U.S. Department of Energy says that reflective roofs don't work in all situations, and the biggest benefits are reaped in hot, sunny climates where air conditioning is used frequently. Homes in shady spots or those with well-insulated attics might not see significant benefits. Cool roofs can also increase heating costs in the winter. To figure out how much energy you'll save, use the DOE's cool-roof calculator.

If you are considering a cool roof, find out whether the materials qualify for a federal tax credit and request a manufacturer's certification statement. You could receive a 30 percent tax credit (up to $1,500) for the material costs if the roof is installed this year or next. Also look online for rebates from utility companies.—Kimberly Janeway | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Check out our June 2009 report on roofing and July 2009 report on air conditioning (available to subscribers), stay cool without sky-high energy bills, and read about ceiling fans.

In new policy statement, American Academy of Pediatrics recommends not giving well water to infants

If you get your household water from a private well, you probably know that you should check the well annually for potential impurities like Giardia intestinalis, Shigella spp., E. coli 0157:H7 and coliform bacteria, Campylobacter jejuni, nitrate from sewage or fertilizer, radon, and arsenic. Groups like the National Ground Water Association, NSF International, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advocate for an annual assessment of water for the 15 to 20 percent of U.S. households that rely on wells.

But if you have infants or young children at home, you should be aware of a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Since infants in particular cannot metabolize nitrate, the AAP recommends that you not use water with a nitrate concentration of more than 10 milligrams per liter to prepare infant formula or give well water to a child younger than one year old. The statement suggests using bottled water for infants when nitrate contamination is detected or when the source of drinking water is unknown.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which worked with the AAP on its recommendations involving children's safety, goes further in its own warnings. If you think your well has suffered structural damage, you're at risk of drinking tainted water and should have the water tested in case contamination occurred, says the NIEHS. The illustration (above) shows the suggested distances between a well and a number of possible sources of contamination; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that farther is better.

Private wells aren't subject to federal regulations and are only minimally regulated by states, according to the NIEHS. Because potential water problems differ by region, pay particular attention to alerts from state and local health experts.—Ed Perratore | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Call the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) to see whether your municipality provides free or inexpensive testing or to find a certified testing lab in your area. And read our review of various types of water filters (ratings available to subscribers) and learn how to decipher your water report.

Product Preview: Behr Premium Plus Ultra interior paints

A self-priming paint can save you time and money, especially when you're painting surfaces that require a primer coat for optimal coverage and adhesion, including drywall and glossy cabinets. Behr recently debuted the self-priming Premium Plus Ultra line of interior paints, which should be in Home Depot stores by mid-July. Available in low-luster (satin/eggshell), flat (interior/exterior), and semigloss finishes, the paints will sell for $31 to $34 per gallon.

We haven't tested the Premium Plus Ultra products, but in our latest report on interior paints (ratings available to subscribers) Behr's Premium Plus Enamel was the top-rated low-luster and flat finish and the number four semigloss.

Behr claims the Premium Plus Ultra paints are all low in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), with fewer than 50 grams per liter. Our tests have shown that some paints with lower claimed levels of VOCs don't perform as well, which is why Behr took longer than other manufacturers to roll out a low-VOC product. "We wanted to make sure the technology was there," says Tom Lee, vice president of marketing for Behr.

Behr says the Premium Plus Ultra paints provide superior hiding thanks to advanced colorant technology. The finishes are also supposed to resist moisture, stains, dirt, and mildew. We'll test those claims as part of our next report on interior paints.

We have tested the self-priming Benjamin Moore Aura in a low-luster finish. This claimed-low-VOC product scored very good to excellent in most test categories. At $57 per gallon, it also has a top-tier price to go with its strong performance in our tests.—Daniel DiClerico | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: No paint, no matter how good, can make up for poor prep work or sloppy application. Ensure a smooth finish by avoiding these common painting mistakes.

Ban plastic bags, says head of United Nations Environment Program

The executive director of the United Nations Environment Program has called for the ban of plastic bags, part of the UNEP's efforts to stem the growing problem of marine litter.

"Marine litter is symptomatic of a wider malaise: namely the wasteful use and persistent poor management of natural resources. The plastic bags, bottles, and other debris piling up in the oceans and seas could be dramatically reduced by improved waste reduction, waste management and recycling initiatives," said Achim Steiner, United Nations undersecretary general and executive director of the UNEP Executive Director on the occasion of World Oceans Day. "Some of the litter, like thin film single-use plastic bags, which choke marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly everywhere—there is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere."

"Recycling is what we see as the best approach for the U.S. Plastic is just too valuable to waste," said Keith Christman, senior director of the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council, in this article in McClatchy Newspapers.

Many reusable shopping bags are a viable alternative to plastic and paper bags, as we found in a recent report. Get the details on which reusable sold bags by national chains and regional stores are the best to use in "By the Numbers: Can America Give Up Its Addiction to Paper and Plastic Shopping Bags?" e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

By the Numbers: Hot-climate states reaping stimulus money for weatherizing

$176 million

Amount of money Florida will receive to weatherize homes over the next couple of years, a $171 million increase over the $5 million the state will get this year. That money is part of the $5 billion in federal stimulus money dedicated to heating and cooling homes more efficiently, as reported by The New York Times in "Stimulus Funds Spent to Keep Sun Belt Cool." (The photo shows ductwork for a heating/cooling system being caulked.)

All states are receiving significant increases in weatherizing funds from Uncle Sam, and cold-climate states get a majority of the money. But in the past, those states received two-thirds of weatherization money and now it's about half, according to the Times. (Read our latest report on air conditioning, which includes coverage of portable air conditioners and split-ductless systems; reports available to subscribers.)

The increased spending in hot-climate states, which is based on an old, rarely used Congressional formula, is dubious considering Americans use a lot more energy heating homes than they do cooling them. As the Times' article states, "Repeated questions have been raised about the effectiveness of weatherization in hot-climate states. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which evaluates the program for the Energy Department, released a study last year questioning the program's results in Texas, which will get $327 million in weatherization money from the stimulus law. The laboratory found that insulating homes did not save a significant amount of money on cooling, a finding it said was consistent with previous studies."—Kimberly Janeway | e-mail | Twitter | Forums | Facebook

Essential information: Learn how to stay cool without sky-high energy bills and read about ceiling fans.