Re: Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

["John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1969 Olds Cutlass, 350 wide V block, 4 barrel, 13.2:1 compression
ratio. Needed a turret and a gun on the front, nice car.


"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:M4WdnR_T5oTk0hbanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:c6idnTw_P7bWPBfanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > I still firmly believe that if the problem is coming OUT of power
>> > plant
>> > smokestacks, that's where it should be controlled.
>>
>> I agree, better efforts put into controlling pollution from power
>> plants
> is
>> certainly VERY important.
>
> I am wary of carbon credits and "greenwash"
>
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/six-sins-of-greenwashing-a-prim
> er/
>
> and fighting mercury at the stack with mercury in consumer products.
> I
> think we can do better with either enhanced incandescents or LEDs.
> That's
> why I favor the "at the stack" solution, although the power
> companies
> certainly don't.  No matter what light source emerges as the
> conservation
> champion, we MUST clean the stack exhaust, no matter what the cost.
> I just
> want to make sure all the contenders in the consumer lighting
> contest get a
> fair shot, especially the ones that don't have the mercury problem
> of CFLs.
>
>> But it's no replacement for putting effort into consumer-side
>> energy
> savings
>> too.  Neither is worth doing alone.  And please, let's not have
>> this
> devolve
>> into another STUPID thread complaining about CFLs.
>
> Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid CFLs in an energy-saving thread,
> but it
> doesn't have be a devolved one.  I just bought 8 N:Vision 14W bulbs
> on
> special sale for $4.  That means that my objection on price has lost
> a lot
> of merit.  Things change, opinions can change, too.  That comes from
> a
> meaningful dialog, something I know that virtually everyone here in
> CHA is
> capable of if they exercise just a tiny bit of self-control.  I
> learned
> about N:Vision here in CHA and it was a positive discovery.
>
> The major problem facing CHA, as I see it, is that it devolves into
> personal
> attacks far too readily.  It's fair to question someone's statement
> but it
> should be done by posting controverting information, not calling
> someone
> else the equivalent of a pathological liar or fool.
>
> I still don't get the life I expect from CFLs, and I don't like the
> slow
> warm-up or the X-10 issues, but I do like saving money and the CFL
> bulbs do
> that.  Plus, I no longer burn my arm on the stinking bedside lamp!
> The
> savings make it worthwhile, to me, to spend money on XTB boosters
> and X-10
> filters to mitigate the X-10 problems.
>
> I'm glad that most (but sadly not all) X-10/CFL problems have
> solutions.   I
> would love to solve the "flashes after shutdown" and "needs a
> neutral"
> problems that still vex me.  I just hope that they'll solve the
> temperature/slow warm up problem eventually.
>
> I'm also not worried about my recycling the bulbs, but my frequent
> trips
> along the 200 mile garbage dump that is the Amtrak RR DC to NYC
> right-of-way
> makes me worry about where the bulbs will end up.  I think they need
> to have
> a deposit of about a quarter to make sure they find their way to a
> recycling
> center *intact* (no $ for busted bulbs).  I hope that's not a
> devolution -
> just a part of the overall problem.  When the number of bulbs
> appearing at
> recycling centers approaches 75% of the bulbs sold, I'll be more
> sanguine
> about CFLs.
>
>> I'd much rather see better power plant pollution controls, better
> electrical
>> distribution and more use of electricty (or hydrogen) in the cars
>> themselves.  It only seems logical to concentrate pollution
>> reduction at
> the
>> source instead of trying to graft it onto the vehicles.    Better
> electrical
>> distribution from cleaner sources used to create hydrogen locally
>> would
>> certainly go a long way to put a dent in hydrocarbon use in
>> vehicles.
>
> You sound old enough to remember what it was like to stand near a
> circa 1960
> V-8 car exhaust.  You would pass out from the fumes in very short
> order.
> Now you can stand next to some cars and not even know they are
> running
> except for the radiated heat.  We need to accomplish that same
> process with
> electrical power plants.  US Big Auto complained bitterly that car
> exhaust
> was inherently dirty and was impossible to clean economically.  And
> then
> Japan's automakers, especially Honda, turned that belief on its
> head.  This
> is a doable problem.  It just needs doing.
>
>> Meanwhile I'd certainly like to have a more convenient way to plan
>> my
> major
>> appliance use of electric in ways that'd a) save me money and b)
>> cut down
> on
>> peak loads.  Give me a widget on the wall in the laundry room that
>> tells
> me
>> when it's most effective to run the wash and I'd buy it.
>
> I'd like to know what other people are using to monitor power use?
> I tried
> using a photoelectric pulse counter aimed at the meter's rotating
> disk but
> the power company left me a door tag explaining why they removed it.
> (Customer attached equipment prohibited)  (-:   I'd imagine that now
> the way
> to go is to ask for a reporting meter that had some sort of output
> for
> consumption data.  I'll see what my local power company says when I
> call
> them this week to ask.   I believe the report cited in the article
> is
> correct.  Knowing how much juice a house is using is an essential
> step in
> achieving conservation.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
>