Re: X-10 friendly switchmode PS

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> The 20 year savings represent about 165kWh which, even if all of the costs
>> are attributed to the cost of oil alone, is less than 8 gals of crude at
>> today's prices.
>
>And across a million or so users it'd add up to quite a lot.

Only by ignoring the real costs. First, the costs are not all related to
energy - I was presenting the best case scenario for your view - the real
energy costs are much smaller. Where and how will you dispose of the million
or so obsoleted linear supplies? How much will that cost?

When new LED lamps that are far more efficient than CFLs hit the market,
will you propose that eveyone replace their CFLs with LEDs? Where and how
will you dispose of the CFLs? (They are classified as hazardous waste in
most states.)

For that matter you can buy LED lamps today that are 2-4 times as efficient
as CFLs and are projected to last 10 times as long. They just cost and arm
and a leg. Why aren't you proposing that everyone switch to them? Have you
switched to them? If millions of CFLs are replaced, think of the energy
savings.

     http://www.toolbase.org/techinv/techDetails.aspx?technologyID=210

>I'm puzzled why you're so opposed to efforts that save energy.  Sure, at
>their current delivery levels there's a potential price penalty.  But if
>they're going to drive down the costs using economies of scale, it has to
>start somewhere.

I'm not at all opposed to efforts that save energy. If you ever propose one
that will actually save significant energy instead of proposing empty
gestures that save little to no energy I'll be all for it.

I'm sure the companies that manufacture small switchmode power supplies have
already realized all the economies of scale. Most of the retail price
represents transportation costs from Asia.

     http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_switching_vs_linear/

Very few larger scale technologies like solar are even close to being
competitive even with substantial government subsidies. Unless there are
significant technological breakthroughs (see below), solar cells will never
likely be sufficiently efficient to compete with other sources except in far
off the grid applications.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic_2.html

I find most tree-hugger proposals specious, naive and counter productive
because they do next to nothing to address the problem. They do things like
ignoring the amount of energy needed to manufacture and transport solar
cells and other recommended replacement technology or assuming that supposed
long-lived replacements will actually last as long as projected. I suspect
that many such "feel good" proposals actually originate with energy
companies hoping to distract  us so we will "ignore the man behind the
curtain".

There are plenty of fat targets like coal-fired generating plants and
gas-guzzling SUVs (the purchase of which is subsidized by tax law) where the
payback is several orders of magnitude greater. We get more than half our
electricity from coal and that is projected to grow at a far faster rate
than any other energy source. Some companies (e.g. Cinergy, AEP) are doing a
pretty good job of bringing new plants online that use cleaner burning
technologies and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Others should be required
to do the same.