Re: When I click sleep - stay asleep!

In article <4d8rplF19ki41U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 20 May 2006 11:34:03 -0400, Geoffrey F. Green
<geoff-usenet2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4d8i4sF18nqf2U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Leave the lightbulbs _on_, in the winter, you're not wasting anything.
In fact, if it's at night around here and you're on time of use, it's
cheaper to use electricity to heat than to use propane, during off-peak
hours.

You're not taking into account the fact that the heat is a byproduct
of the lighting, and the lightbulb certaintly isn't designed to be
giving off the maximum amount of heat for the amount of electricity
it's drawing.

Ah. But, what you're missing, is that the photons, when they hit
surfaces inside your house, warm them. Energy is neither created or
destroyed. Other than thermal losses and photons getting out windows,
that 100W of heat stays in the house.

"Other than thermal losses"? That's somewhat akin to asking Mrs.
Lincoln how the play was otherwise.

And I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the heat generated by the
light bulb is not a function of the number of light photons it's
generating. Otherwise my compact flourescent light bulbs would heat my
apartment as much as my incandescent bulbs.

Plus, the heat that's being generated by the recessed
lights in my kitchen ceiling isn't doing a whole lot to heat the air
down low.

Radiant, conductive, or convective heat transfer?

Thermal losses. Believe me, lots of thermal losses in my building.

Plus, the heat being put off by a TV that's off is largely negligible
for an individual (particularly when the TV is in the living room and
you're asleep at 2 am in the bedroom), but the amount of electricity
being wasted by all the turned-off TVs around the country is, in the
aggregate, a meaningful amount.

And in the winter, all that waste heat is offsetting furnace load.

Not in my apartment (old building, central steam heat system). All
that heat is wasted, because I cannot individually control the heat.
If too much waste heat is generated, I open the window, I don't turn
down the heat.

Not to mention that I certainly don't need the excess heat
June-September where I live, and much longer periods of time in parts
of the country like Florida and Arizona.

You're worrying about incremental steps. Yes, sure, you can spend 10
bucks on a decent power strip that may pay for itself someday. You can
pay 3 bucks for a crap power strip that may burn your house down
someday. Or you can look at the big picture and use the effort you're
exerting to get real change and viable energy solutions.

Imagine the environmental impact studies these days if you wanted to
build a dam around here.

Well, you need to quantify the costs. On the plus, you're generating
cheap, non-polluting electricity. But it can have serious consequences
not only for nature but also for folks who live downstream, sometimes
far downstream. It's important to take these all into account, and not
just to support building a dam because it can provide cheap
electricity.

I think there is a limited number of viable sites for hydro that don't
already _have_ hydro. That was last century's deal.
This is one of those places where
environmentalists (I consider myself to be one) lack the "big picture".
Nuke plants of modern design are fail-safe.

Famous last words.

How much do you understand about pebble bed reactors, please?

Not a whole lot, but don't you think one might first want to come up
with a good method of disposing of the radioactive waste?

It's fine that they don't
understand the physics because they choose not to educate themselves, I
guess, but when they equate it to Chernobyl's reactor they just show
ignorance. If we'd build nuke plants and offset some of this
carbon-based fuel economy we have, think of the improvements.

You paint too broad a brush by saying "environmentalists." I agree
with you, and a growing number of other environmentalists do as well.
But just because you have a fail-safe reactor design doesn't mean
you've solved all the answers.

Did I say I had? If people are concerned about carbon issues, that's a
great way to avoid it. If the people would stop chanting and "feeling"
about nuke power, and instead would _think_ about it and learn what is
and isn't a concern, we wouldn't be giving all the money we are to
people in countries which strongly dislike us. It annoys me to finance
the next attacks on our country, y'know?

I'm not sure what people are doing now to stop these pebble bed
reactors or other new types of nuclear-power generation. From what I
can see, this pebble bed technology hasn't exactly swept the world.
There's not a single operating power plant based on that technology in
the world right now (per Wikipedia). If it works, and is shown to be
safe, then we'll see what happens. But I don't think you can criticize
"environmentalists" for blocking the spread of a technology that
hasn't been proven in production.

Hell of a lot more than worrying about me having some wall warts plugged
in.

Well, but building nuclear plants or hydroelectric dams has serious
costs. Redesigning electrical equipment so it draws little or no
electricity when off costs little and gives measurable (in the
aggregate) advantages. In any event, you're not going to get a nuclear
plant built tomorrow, but you can turn off your electrical equipment
today.

So you go for your incremental changes and enjoy your pennies a month
savings. Go for it, encourage your friends to do the same. When's the
last time you checked the pressure in your tires? Incremental
improvements are great but we need systemic, not incremental, changes.

Few weeks ago, thanks.

According to a 2001 press release that I was reading recently "A
recent study by students and scientists at the University of
California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
shows that the average California home pays between $50 and $70 every
year to keep those little red lights burning, the clocks ticking and
the electronics humming while the appliances go unused. Eliminating
this standby or "leaking" electricity could save households between
six and 26 percent on their average monthly electricity bill, the
study found."
<http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/02/09_energ.html>

I'd say reducing electricity usage by 10% or so, just by taking better
care in producing circuits for electronic devices *when they're turned
off*, is not just a meaningless step but instead makes a real
difference. Combine that with other easy-to-do energy reduction steps
as replacing appliances with more energy efficient versions, using
energy efficient lighting, and you're making a real difference.

- geoff
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: European Union cuts back Biofuel use
    ... energy will resume its normal percentage of a household budget. ... wasted heat going out the cooling system and exhaust to improve mileage. ... average household uses in electricity. ... Increase the size of the system, perhaps by 2, and one can fuel his electric ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Xogen - clean water purficaction, free energy generator and home heating devices [2001]
    ... Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity. ... Although originally designed with energy production as the focus, ... and produces over 140 BTU's of heat in two minutes! ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: electric rate & fees survey
    ... So what's the deal on energy costs up there? ... instance, if you have central heat, would you be better off with a propane unvented ... I'm doing that now, only with electricity. ... How about other alternatives such as waste oil? ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: When I click sleep - stay asleep!
    ... You brought up these pebble bed reactors as the non-polluting ... large parts of the country don't use heat for much of the ... Combine that with other easy-to-do energy reduction steps ... use 30% less electricity because that's not going to do anything. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)
  • Re: When I click sleep - stay asleep!
    ... large parts of the country don't use heat for much of the ... However by dismissing the entire heating ... Combine that with other easy-to-do energy reduction steps ... use 30% less electricity because that's not going to do anything. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)