Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:33 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: TVs, Cable Boxes, Appliances Cause Global Warming Even When Switched Off Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 7:53:01 AM

Our standard of living is destroying our habitat. The worst thing that could possibly happen to destroy the ability of people to enjoy a wonderful future would be if everyone on the planet right now were suddenly able to live as most Americans do. We are gluttonous users of energy who think nothing of plugging things in that constantly draw power whether we are even home to enjoy them or not.

"Standby power, also called vampire power, vampire draw, phantom load, or leaking electricity ("phantom load" and "leaking electricity" are defined technical terms with other meanings, adopted for this different purpose), refers to the electric power consumed by electronic and electrical appliances while they are switched off (but are designed to draw some power) or in a standby mode.

...

The disadvantages of standby power all relate to the energy used. As standby power is reduced, the disadvantages become less. Older devices often used ten watts or more; with the adoption of the One Watt Initiative by many countries, standby energy use is much diminished.

Devices on standby consume electricity which must be paid for. The total energy consumed may be of the order of 10% of the electrical energy used by a typical household, as discussed below. The cost of standby energy is easily estimated—each watt of continuous standby consumes about 9kWh of electricity per year, and the price per kWh is shown on electricity bills.
Electricity is very often generated by combustion of hydrocarbons (oil, coal, gas) or other substances, which releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, implicated in global warming, and other pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, which produces acid rain. Standby power is a significant contributor to electricity usage.
As electricity consumption increases, more power stations are needed, with associated capital and running costs.

...

"Many appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when they are switched off. These "phantom" loads occur in most appliances that use electricity, such as VCRs, televisions, stereos, computers, and kitchen appliances. This can be avoided by unplugging the appliance or using a power strip and using the switch on the power strip to cut all power to the appliance."[2]

...

Continuous low power consumption is needed for some devices, such as security systems, fire alarms, and many digital video recorders on standby, to operate properly. Some such consumption, such as low power used by timers to switch off devices which would otherwise waste energy, can reduce total energy usage."

Wikipedia: Standby Power

***

Also, there is a disturbing indication that the manufacture of LCD TVs involves a process that could be deadly to future human life:

"LCDs May Contribute to Global Warming, Study Says
Study says chemical in LCDs is 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide and is a "missing greenhouse gas."

A chemical used to produce LCDs may be causing global warming, according to a report published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Michael Prather, an atmospheric chemist who co-authored the report, is calling Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) a "missing greenhouse gas," saying the chemical could double to 8,000 metric tons in 2009.

NF3 is used in chemical vapor deposition to make LCDs, semiconductors and synthetic diamond.

This isn't the first time the energy usage of LCDs has sparked controversy. Government officials in Australia and England considered banning LCDs altogether last year.

The Kyoto Protocol, an international climate change treaty, doesn't include NF3. When the agreement was reached in 1997, NF3 wasn't being mass produced.

The report says NF3 is 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

Not that this would occur, but if all the NF3 made this year was released into the air, the warming effect would emulate 67 million tons of carbon dioxide, the study found."

Chemical Used For LCD MFG Potent Global Warming Cause

--Maybe it is time to rethink how we entertain ourselves. A life based on sitting still in front of a TV isn't much of a life. As a matter of fact (an ironic one at that) a dead person could sit in front of a TV just as easily as a breathing human. Try reading books, doing physical activity such as walking, take up playing musical instruments, sports, crafts, hobbies. Join a theme club. You never know what you can do until you try. Open up your mind and expand your horizons. While we can still see the horizon. Show you kids how to really live; instead of sitting around and watching others do it.

How many TVs do you have in your home?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 10:31:16 PM

" I can certainly see that if you were totally responsible for taking care of the children you bring into the world, you would be a lot more careful about having them if you knew that their total care would have to come out of your pocket."

--I completely agree with that statement. I could not have said it better.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,765
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 11:28:24 AM

mj: "One of the most effective ways of controlling population is through the use of Capitalism. Where it flourishes, population growth is usually lower than in countries which advocate socialism. "


One obvious connection is that if you live in a socialist country you are insulated from the bad decisions you make in life (at the expense of your fellow better behaved citizens), such as bringing children into the world that you can't take care of; and in fact in many places (the U.S. included) you are actually rewarded for bringing children into the world that you can't afford to take care of in the form of increased freebies to support the child. I can certainly see that if you were totally responsible for taking care of the children you bring into the world, you would be a lot more careful about having them if you knew that their total care would have to come out of your pocket.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 3/6/2013 11:28:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 9:59:34 AM

"One of the most effective ways of controlling population is through the use of Capitalism. Where it flourishes, population growth is usually lower than in countries which advocate socialism. "

--An interesting statement. I'm not sure if I see how this works. There are many places which operate on a capitalist system and yet they have a huge population expansion going on; most of it being among the very poor. Look at Brazil, India, Sadr City...

Do you have anything that supports your assertion?
Profile Pic
LTVibe
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:6,701
Points:523,620
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 3:26:43 PM

I support giving out free birth control, but only to liberals and Democrats.

:)



[Edited by: LTVibe at 3/5/2013 3:27:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,241
Points:2,412,775
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 2:16:37 PM

Another way to keep the population down is free birth control for women.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 11:49:09 AM

mini: "I am for our government moving away from corporatism--not cozy-ing up closer to it."

--I am shocked to hear you say THAT. I, of course agree; but thought you loved big oil, big insurance, big health care, big corporations.

You also falsely allude that Obama's vision for America and mine are the same. They are not. Obama is too cozy with big powerful corporate moguls.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,858,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 11:18:25 AM

SemiSteve, >>Just about everything gets better if we could only get a handle on population growth.<<
***
I agree.

One of the most effective ways of controlling population is through the use of Capitalism. Where it flourishes, population growth is usually lower than in countries which advocate socialism.
Profile Pic
LTVibe
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:6,701
Points:523,620
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 8:24:08 AM

SS: "If humans were to take a logical approach they would agree that a saturation point will be reached; and take steps to avoid exceeding it..."

When you have a garden that is overgrown with both weeds and flowers, it is best to eliminate the weeds, and allow the flowers to flourish.

Let's start here: California taxpayers have spent well over a million dollars over the last 42 years to feed, clothe, and care for just one 'weed' named Charles Manson. There are many more of these 'weeds' inside (and outside) prison.

President Obama has been doing his part to 'weed the garden' using drones.

;-)
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,765
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 10:57:17 PM

SS: "Power is the same way. We get it mostly from fossil fuels. But there are only so many deposits of fossil fuels. Therefore these existing deposits can only support a certain number of humans for a certain number of years. The more humans in existence the fewer years these deposits can support."


You are assuming that no technological progress will ever occur, which the past has shown to be absolutely false. We aren't that far from being able to control a fusion reaction, at which point we will have a fuel source as large as the oceans. We also have enough uranium to power the planet for a very long time, especially since it can be recycled into plutonium and used again. Fossil fuels aren't the end all, be all. They are merely the best thing we have for right now. Capitalism, if allowed to work, will enure that technological progress continues to occur, as it always has in the past.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,250
Points:1,123,205
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 6:34:43 PM

Steve: "I notice you did not mention Germany, which is on track to have 80% of their power from sustainable sources by 2050. They are already leading the world in this area. so why is their economy not tanking?"

In Germany, everything is coming up roses. Power Failures: Germany Rethinks Path to Green Future

"The pace of grid expansion is sluggish, and electricity costs for consumers are rising."

"Timetables are being mixed up, costs are spiraling out of control, and every day that the chaos continues, the green-republic project risks losing more supporters."

"The millions this would cost would once again be passed on to the consumer."

"And it's anybody's guess whether Altmaier's concept can solve this dilemma."

"Altmaier....wants to slow the expansion of the development of renewable energy so that it remains affordable for taxpayers."

"But, unfortunately, it is moving so rapidly that the costs in the coming years will be far higher than originally planned. To make matters worse, the government is losing control of its ability to steer and coordinate projects, causing them to run awry and costs to keep going up."

The article talks again and again about government forcing this on its people, and that they're going to pay for it. It talks of government picking winners and losers. That's soft fascism, or corporatism. I am for our government moving away from corporatism--not cozy-ing up closer to it.

Yes, it's a big project. With the many times that article talks about higher costs spiraling out of control and being passed onto taxpayers, it's a resounding NO--I don't appreciate nor do I want yours and Obama's vision for America.

IMHO
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 6:34:13 PM

Steve, that reminds me of a number of years ago when a private company wanted to start piping water out of the great lakes down to the dry states. At the time all they had to do was get permission from a single state in order to start piping the water. They very nearly did it. The result from a single companies' greed would have been catastrophic to the water levels of the lakes and would have harmed all of the border states and not just state that the water was being pumped from.

This near miss caused all of the states bordering the great lakes and Canadian provinces to form a compact stating that no one could pump water out of the lakes unless all of the states and provinces agreed.

Deserts are deserts and for people to pretend that they are not is foolish, especially when the cost of fuelling that delusion is so high.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 6:25:59 PM

SemiSteve: "You know if we didn't have so many humans on the planet we would not be forced to conserve everything."

mini: "That's opinion."

--(just looking at water for example) Many live in areas where water usage is limited. IT wasn't always that way. Water restrictions came about slowly. As human population grows, water restrictions become more numerous and are begun in places that never had them before. Typically, when water restrictions are put into place they are never lifted.

Because there is only so much water it can only support so many humans.

Power is the same way. We get it mostly from fossil fuels. But there are only so many deposits of fossil fuels. Therefore these existing deposits can only support a certain number of humans for a certain number of years. The more humans in existence the fewer years these deposits can support. Why do you think there ever was legislation regulating vampire power? Because we have accepted that our population will always be increasing.

Which is why I say if we did not have so many humans we would not have to enact so many conservation efforts.

Just about everything gets better if we could only get a handle on population growth.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,250
Points:1,123,205
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 6:06:57 PM

Steve: "I notice you did not mention Germany, which is on track to have 80% of their power from sustainable sources by 2050. They are already leading the world in this area. so why is their economy not tanking?"

It's not? Feb 13, 2013: "The 17-nation bloc slipped far deeper than expected into recession in the fourth quarter as economic giant Germany suffered its sharpest contraction since the height of the global financial crisis in 2009."

SemiSteve: "You know if we didn't have so many humans on the planet we would not be forced to conserve everything."

That's opinion. Because a proponent of eugenics believes we have too many humans on this planet, does not make it fact.

SemiSteve: "The propensity to cling to ancient myths; even as science has shown them to be incorrect is perplexing."

Now, look yourself in the mirror and repeat that over and over until the spell is broken.

[Edited by: ministorage at 3/4/2013 6:07:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 5:50:15 PM

You know if we didn't have so many humans on the planet we would not be forced to conserve everything.

If human population continues to expand there will come (if it has not already) a point where the number of humans exceeds the natural resources needed to support them. It is not clear which of these resources will be depleted first. It could be fossil fuels, rare earth minerals, rain forest plants harvested for medicines, land suitable for farming, trees abundant enough to extract CO2, etc.

If humans were to take a logical approach they would agree that a saturation point will be reached; and take steps to avoid exceeding it. But most choose to embrace religion instead; which places no restrictions on growth. What most don't realize is that religion was conjured up at a time when humans thought the Earth was endless.

The propensity to cling to ancient myths; even as science has shown them to be incorrect is perplexing.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,765
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 5:33:28 PM

SS: "It makes no sense to have a priority of constant expansion of the human race. "


Maybe we should legalize recreational drugs and allow those foolish enough to take them to do so to their heart's content, until they OD that is. That might help the situation you describe. It could be a win all the way around. Those who think like you do get a lower total carbon footprint of mankind which you believe will help save the planet, and those who think like me get fewer people on the dole sucking down resources that have to be confiscated from the producers.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 3/4/2013 5:34:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 4:49:36 PM

"Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." --AYN RAND

--Oh, that's a choice quote from an atheist. I have to wonder how she explains humans coming into and surviving in this world? Wasn't there some point when humans existed with nothing more than their bare hands and the will to survive? I surmise that she doesn't think we were 'created' in a garden of plenty...

Or that native tribes of American Indians were so destructive to the land that they were on the verge of causing their own habitat destruction...

***

"Priorities are way out of whack."

--On that, we agree!

It makes no sense to have a priority of constant expansion of the human race. It makes no sense to have a priority of that human race using as much fossil fuels as it can extract without regard to the consequences. It makes no sense to have a priority of comfort disconnected from the downside. Cable companies and TV manufacturers want consumers to be able to have instant gratification when the urge to veg and watch arises. There is no concern for the repercussions of having so much vampire power draw toward that end.

It is up to the populace to keep a wary eye on what our powerful corporations are doing and how they are manipulating our government. It is up to PEOPLE to look out for people; corporations certainly aren't going to do that.

btw, mini. You think our fate is looking so bad because we are chasing failed economies? I notice you did not mention Germany, which is on track to have 80% of their power from sustainable sources by 2050. They are already leading the world in this area. so why is their economy not tanking?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 3/4/2013 4:51:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,250
Points:1,123,205
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 2:09:54 PM

This topic is based on an unproven hype-othesis, which is fraught with lies, manipulation, corruption, and ineptitude of the highest order.

The only thing good about any of these suggestions is how to lessen the financial burden that will result from laws enacted in belief of that unproven hype-othesis which is based on lies, manipulation, corruption, and ineptitude.

We're about to go the way of Australia and Europe, and we're across the pond drinking in those government TV commercials with the little girl lying about having a cell phone as we're talking about whether we should unplug our toasters

The band plays on.

Priorities are way out of whack.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 3/2/2013 2:13:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 1:25:26 PM

Oh, and as to that "vampire power", if you eliminate it, what would Lestat and Louie say?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 1:21:34 PM

SemiSteve was confused when he said: "And if you find my comment about cell phones to be 'ignorant' then I am perplexed. Because your comment is even more baffling."

--So then why did you bring up cell phones? You started it, not me. I think what you were saying is that you can use the cell phone as an alarm clock. But you forgot that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You still need to charge the phone, and it still sucks power.

SemiSteve, also speaking of his "thingy": My take on the whole environmentalists vs living humans thingy? Well, no big surprise. I tend to favor the environmentalists. Not always the most extreme actions but mostly the environmentalists make a very good point."

--Here's a quote from Ayn Rand that I think sums it up nicely:

"Observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature'—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." --AYN RAND
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 11:41:21 AM

" haven't experimented with any kind of wind-faring".

Put some aerodynamic modifications on it.

"Such use would greatly shorten the life of the starter and I would end up replacing it too often".

Starters don't wear out as a function of how many times they are used. Starter life seems more closely tied to its age.
Where I work we have trucks that are run non stop for 24 hours a day for 5 or 6 days straight and are turned off and restarted at least 90 times a day.
We have replaced very few starters.
On the other side of the spectrum we have diesel powered equipment that only gets used a few times a week or less and starters still go bad on them even tho they see less than 1% of the use that the work trucks see.
Profile Pic
LTVibe
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:6,701
Points:523,620
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 7:57:06 AM

SS: "Another trick is to put in in neutral while coasting. Then the engine idles down to a lower RPM and burns less."

That was true back in the days of carburetors, not so much with modern electronic fuel injection.

In today's vehicles, coasting in gear will usually cause the injectors to shut off completely and the engine 'runs' on air (driven by the transmission) until the vehicle gets close to stopping.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 6:22:48 PM

Hey Steve - that mileage doesnt happen by accident. It called doing the maintenance, putting in 38 lbs air in tires when door post calls for 24 or whatever. Changing oil often and being real gentle on the gas and brake pedal. Hyper miler - n o just a cadegy oldphart driver.

Like lots of things we do save money/resources where it makes sense. We added extra insulation to our home and reduced our water use - lots of thing that make sense. But trying to take a shower in one gallon of water - nope did that for years fighting fire - put a one gallon canteen in the sun and when you get back to camp wash yourself and your skivies/socks with just that water. Been there done that - aint gonna do it no more. Also lived in a house with no power and only a hand water pump in the kitchen sink. Heat was wood stove and fireplace. Outhouse in Northern Minnesota in January are interesting for sure. Aint gonna do that no more either....

I kind of like it as it is. More people living better now than at any time in the history of the world.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 5:29:42 PM

Hey, that's pretty darn good mileage for that car, fly. And with the few miles you do it makes sense. Why not have a nice luxury car with lotsa room and steel around you if you're not driving that much? You're driving so few miles compared to a working stiff like me that I'm burnin up more gas than you are.

So it is appropriate that you can drive whatever you feel like driving and I should lean towards getting much better mpg.

My highway is not a lot better than my city mpg. When I concentrate on hyper-miling I can get over 40 hwy. (best ever was 42) (car is rated 31 hwy) But that does impact the driving time much more significantly than city tricks. Highway: the big thing is to find a follow vehicle (truck is best) and keep the speed down and the AC off. I tend to want to go faster than most trucks and I do run the AC intermittently. I get about 36 hwy. Not much better than my city mpg.

I haven't experimented with any kind of wind-faring. That would help hwy mpg, too.

City driving is where the biggest gains can be made.

My car shifts into high gear at around 43 mph. It would probably get the best hwy mileage if I went 45mph with the windows up and the AC off. Of course, that ain't gonna happen for long. It would nearly double long distance driving time.

I know I could do better on city if I kept turning the engine off while I was coasting, and then restarting it only when the lights turn green. But I made a conscious decision that that is going too far (for me). I am not so obsessed with getting a high number as I am with saving money. Such use would greatly shorten the life of the starter and I would end up replacing it too often. That could easily wipe out the gas savings (I think - haven't run those calcs). Also, some States make it illegal to coast with the engine off. Florida is one.

Another trick is to put in in neutral while coasting. Then the engine idles down to a lower rpm and burns less. But I decided against that because I don't want to pay for a transmission, either.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:55:36 PM

oilpan the point I was trying to make is that Steve is right in one respect. How one drives teh car (aggressively or gently) makes a large difference in the mileage. The other point (more subtle maybe) is that the big 'tuna boat grandmamobile of 13 years old gets as good a mileage as many of the new 'fuel efficient' spam cans on wheels they want to sell us.

I wish we could still buy an nice brand new Merc Grand Marquise/Lincoln Town car or Crown Vic. Lots of room in it and very comfortable riding adn lots of steel surrounding one.

For the amount of gas we actually buy these days I like the big heavy vehicles just fine....
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,440
Points:561,500
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:53:41 PM

"So go ahead and burn your 150 watt reading bulb. I've got an LED that uses 13W and I can read Mother Jones just fine with it... While my TV is unplugged."

Thats your choice.
Why do you, and those like you, feel the constant need to try to get other people to make the same choices you make because you suffer form the belief that your choices are the best and make sense for everyone.
They're not you know.

[Edited by: theTower at 3/1/2013 4:55:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:39:54 PM

"The wifes 2000 Merc Grand Marquise with a 4.6 V8 in it gets 28 on the hwy".

We have one too. A 2000 lincoln town car with a 4.6L, gets an impressive 25 to 28 MPG on the highway, but sucks gas in town, getting 16-18 MPG.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:37:49 PM

"You ought to write a book on getting that kind of milage. You'ld have at least one buyer- me".

You don't need a book, just go over to ecomodder.com and check it out.
They have a wiki and forum that covers maintenance, modifications, hypermiling, DIYs and more.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:04:47 PM

Steve - I hope your sitting down ----- I agree with you on the fdriving hard vs driving sane bit. I may not "hypermile" like you do but I drive easy. Both teh wife and I get more mpg than the vehicles are rated for.

Heck we each only put in ten gallons or so every 4-6 weeks. My truck is rated for 16-18 on the hwy. I get 18-20 in towm and 20+ on the hwy. The wifes 2000 Merc Grand Marquise with a 4.6 V8 in it gets 28 on the hwy.

When we run out of 150 reading lamp bulbs we will have to find a substitute. Maybe by then they will have a LED that puts out the same lumens in the same color scale. It doesnt matter what kind of bulb it is just so it puts out the lumens in the color we like.

Hey just got our electirc bill - 638 Kwh - how is yours?
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,588
Points:1,858,060
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 4:01:55 PM

SemiSteve, >>Let's just run some numbers here. I'm getting 34 in a car That's rated 21. 34/21 = 1.6. That means I am getting 60% more miles out of every tank than the 'average' driver. That's nothing to sneeze at. The car holds about 12 gallons. Best price around here is 3.60/gal. 12 x $3.6 = $43.20 for a fill up. 1.6 x $43.20 = $69.12. I'm getting the miles out of $43.20 that the 'average' driver is getting out of $69.12 worth of fuel. The difference is $25.92. Not bad at all - for me.<<
***
You ought to write a book on getting that kind of milage. You'ld have at least one buyer- me.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 3:42:56 PM

Only thing I still use incandescents for are my work lights. Some times they double as a heat source so I will never get rid of all of them.
CFL will not work in drop light and work light applications, a slight bump or even just moving them around while the light is on can cause them to burn out.
I bought 1 LED work light and plan on getting more. They will be good for tight quarters where regular bulbs get too hot.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 3:18:31 PM

"The claims for the mileage that hybrids get according to the EPA just dont hold water when real people drive them everyday."

--That depends on who is doing the driving and how they drive. My non-hybrid car is EPA rated to get 21mpg City. I just got new tires so I wondered how I was doing. After a week and a half of city driving I had clocked 301 miles. The car took 8.9 gallons to fill. I'm getting 34 mpg city. Right on!

I gotta laugh when I think of the one who drives the Metro real hard because he 'just likes to.' And he thinks he's saving money because the mileage is 'built in' to the car. I could be spending less on fuel than he is!

Let's just run some numbers here. I'm getting 34 in a car that's rated 21. 34/21 = 1.6. That means I am getting 60% more miles out of every tank than the 'average' driver. That's nothing to sneeze at. The car holds about 12 gallons. Best price around here is 3.60/gal. 12 x $3.6 = $43.20 for a fill up. 1.6 x $43.20 = $69.12. I'm getting the miles out of $43.20 that the 'average' driver is getting out of $69.12 worth of fuel. The difference is $25.92. Not bad at all - for me.

Say a tank lasts around two weeks. That's like having somebody hand me nearly $26 every time I fill up every two weeks or so. That really adds up.

$25.92 x 26 = $673.92 per year in savings.

If I own the car for 5 years that's $3369.60 over the life of the car. If I own the car for 10 years (I've already had it for 7...) that's $6739.20. That is about half what I paid for the car when it was nearly new!

Yeah. Go ahead and race each other up to every red light. I'll just take my foot OFF the gas and coast up to it; and laugh all the way to the bank. Do I care if so many fools pass me while I'm coasting towards a RED light? Hardly. I am actually quite amused. It appears to me to be so foolish it is to the point of absurd. It's like all these idiot drivers can't wait to WAIT; they are so hell-bent to beat each other to a RED light. Simply amazes me. And then I come rolling up right next to them as the light turns green and we restart the whole scenario. Light after light after light.

And the above calculation does not even factor in the savings on tires and brakes. They last much longer if you drive it easy...

So go ahead and burn your 150 watt reading bulb. I've got an LED that uses 13W and I can read Mother Jones just fine with it... While my TV is unplugged.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 12:47:56 PM

When we service computers and other electronics in many homes and businesses, many don't switch them off due to the numerous reasons I've already listed, however many of the outlets, powerstrips, surge protectors etc are difficult to access and/or unnecessary and non critical vampire loads aren't isolated, so they don't get switched off.

We have many friends, relatives and customers that keep more than 1 television running frequently for background noise, or while they sleep.

The only thing that will change the behavior of many is when something becomes extremely expensive and/or an alternative of equal performance is affordable.

Many are more concerned with initial cost, than total cost of ownership as well.

Although we have some of the highest electric rates in the nation, we sell and install more electric water heaters than, gas, oil or indirects due to the low initial costs.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 12:33:50 PM

Thinking that you are "saving the environment" by driving a hybrid car; so pathetic as well. Look at the damage done by mining rare earth metals like lithium for the batteries. Take away the tax dollars funding their purchaseand they are a net LOSER.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,630
Points:44,620
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 12:19:01 PM

We use additional energy as many of our electronics are in standby mode, sleep mode, wake mode, alarm mode, timer mode, monitoring, recording, keeping batteries charged, keeping settings current - too much to list.

Speaking of incandescent bulbs, we have enough incandescent bulbs in our warehouses, businesses and homes to last a very long time, halogens as well.

When a similar priced alternative with similar appearance and performance becomes available, we'll be glad to switch.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,930
Points:322,565
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 11:37:32 AM

"What do you wanna bet that some of the same folks who are hoarding guns and ammo are also hoarding wasteful bulbs?"

Ammo or incandescent bulbs... what a dilemma. Maybe it's time to invest in portable storage sheds.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 3/1/2013 11:38:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 11:22:38 AM

Mud the wife and I figured out a rought idea (based on how often we have to change them) of what wattage bulbs we would need for the next ten years and scrounged them. We figure by the end of that time the LED technology would be up to speed and really usable.

The idea of being forced to use 'curlyfry' bulbs is revolting. We like out 150 watt GE Reveal bulbs for reading lamps. We like 60 watt decorative bulbs in the baths as the fixtures were designed for. I do not like the treehuggers telling me what light bulbs I have to use.

Hey in the same vein - saw part of a story on TV this AM. The claims for the mileage that hybrids get according to the EPA just dont hold water when real people drive them everyday. NOt minor losses but huge losses. To the point that its more fuel efficient to get a diesel car....
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 11:22:36 AM

What do you wanna bet that some of the same folks who are hoarding guns and ammo are also hoarding wasteful bulbs?

So pathetic.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 11:21:07 AM

My take on the whole environmentalists vs living humans thingy?

Well, no big surprise. I tend to favor the environmentalists. Not always the most extreme actions but mostly the environmentalists make a very good point.

But first let me point out what is wrong with the criticism you posted. On the surface it appears to make a lot of sense. I mean the way it is presented it tries to establish that we have to choose one or the other between looking out for the environment or looking out for human life. And of course when it is presented this way it seems whacked to favor nature over humans.

But the problem with that is the premise is flawed.

It is not a matter of caring more for one than the other. The goal of environmentalism is to take care of the habitat on which we ourselves are dependent. These two entities are not at odds with one another at all. They are inextricably linked. Humans must have an environment to live in. The whole point of taking care of the environment is to make sure humans have a healthy place to live and thrive.

So to address the specific issue in your linked article, that it is either supply all this rice any way we can or these children die then I would say if we have to destroy or poison part of our habitat to support this many humans on the planet then perhaps we already have too many humans on the planet.

Now before you try to put words in my mouth and claim that I just said something I didn't say, let me just say that if we do need to reduce the number of humans on Earth that the way to do it is to a) stop making more humans; and b) do the best we can to support the ones already here; and allow natural forces to reduce the numbers. When we get to whatever we think is a sustainable level then we should try to maintain that level.

Personally I would hope that we could solve the unemployment issue and the need for food issue simultaneously by putting people to work producing food instead of using chemicals and GM frankenfoods. That, of course, would take the kind of organization which could only be accomplished with a functional world government. So perhaps that is what we really need instead of all these bickering countries and powers-to-be preventing the ready labor from being applied where it is most needed! (ie the starving families on one part of the planet and rotting crops that simply need harvesting on the other)
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,765
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 10:57:39 AM

flyboy: "But I sure am glad we stocked up on those nice bright bulbs while they were still on the shelves. "


I have two gross cases of 100 watt bulbs in my basement. I'm set for life. :)


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2013 10:52:21 AM

AC-302: "OK, and I find your quip about cell phones to be ignorant. Excuse me? How do YOU charge YOUR cell phone, Steve? Sure, it isn't "sucking juice" when you have it un-docked. But that charger takes power. And most folks leave their chargers plugged in all the time (I do not). You are forgetting that a cell phone needs energy, too.

Hey, if you want an alarm with no battery, why not buy a wind-up alarm clock, like a "Baby-Ben" or a Westclox? (I had one for years, btw)."

--Hey, great suggestion about the wind-up alarm clocks. I remember those. I used to have one. Can you even get them anymore? You probably have to go to a thrift store, I imagine.

And if you find my comment about cell phones to be 'ignorant' then I am perplexed. Because your comment is even more baffling. Was there some part of my post that said people should charge up their cell phones just to use them as alarm clocks? -checking- Nope! Hmmm. OK, what's the deal? Dig this, man. People plug in their cell phones every day ANYWAY. They are not plugging them in for a longer period of time just so they can use the alarm feature. I hope you are not taking the position that the use of the alarm feature consumes more power than a stand-alone alarm clock... That, I think, may better fit the description you used for my post.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 7:35:26 PM

Nicky - I have to appologise to you. I just got another utility bill about a half hour ago and decided to double check my math. Sometime between last year and now the rates have inched up.

I now pay $0.0819 per Kwh. Thats what I get for only looking at usage from bill to bill as opposed to what it costs. But I still think the relationship is the same. Spending good money to buy power strips just cannot be economically justified. Especially when the wife and I use 150watt incandescent bulbs for reading lamps on the couch. Turn one of them off for a short time and the parasitic loads are made up. But I sure am glad we stocked up on those nice bright bulbs while they were still on the shelves.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 3:57:11 PM

Nicky - I showed you the source of my statement of the 7 watts.

Also you responded to this statemnt of mine "I pay 7 cents per Kwh."

With this - "For starters, you probably pay more than "7 cents per Kwh"

Now just what part of "I pay 7 cents per Kwh." is unclear to you?

Enjoy your day now----
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,144
Points:3,447,945
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 3:32:09 PM

SemiSteve foolishly and smugly quipped: "There are display clocks and even alarm clocks that run for years on a single AA cell. Nearly every cell phone has an alarm clock. I'm sure the time spent on a prudent search for a time piece could result in a monetary savings on the power bill and a reduction of the associated carbon footprint."

--I grant you that some travel alarms can run a year or so off of a AA battery. But what if I want a clock radio (to listen to music)? Or what of the i-pod dock/clock/alarm I bought the Mrs. for her birthday one year? Should she not be allowed to use that?

OK, and I find your quip about cell phones to be ignorant. Excuse me? How do YOU charge YOUR cell phone, Steve? Sure, it isn't "sucking juice" when you have it un-docked. But that charger takes power. And most folks leave their chargers plugged in all the time (I do not). You are forgetting that a cell phone needs energy, too.

Hey, if you want an alarm with no battery, why not buy a wind-up alarm clock, like a "Baby-Ben" or a Westclox? (I had one for years, btw).
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,832
Points:1,875,765
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 1:52:05 PM

wbacon: "why doesn't semi-steve
1) stop exhaling we exhale co2...."


Better be careful wbacon (ROFL!). Last time someone suggested that (it was me BTW), SS responded that he was saving posts he considered "threatening" as "evidence" for the moderators. Your name may end up next to mine on his list. You wouldn't want that now would you?.......


mudtoe
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 1:03:05 PM

Understatement of the century:

"They dont really want to know what the effects are of what they propose"
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,601
Points:3,167,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 12:36:20 PM

>>Nick the figure for 7 watts comes from here - "
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 8:07:45 AM
Ignore AC-302 Report Abuse

SemiSteve - as I understand it, any appliance sold in California has to have a draw of less than 1w when on standby or off. My alarm clock draws 7W. ..."<<

That post was from AC-302, NOT SemiSteve.

>>As far as the price of electricity here - do you pay my bills? Why are you saying that I dont pay the rate I got off my bills?<<

I never said that. Here's what I DID write: "Now I haven't seen your electric bill and you may have gotten a great deal on your electricity, but in general 7 cents is a real lowball figure." So, maybe you're paying over 2.5 cents per kWh less than the average Utahan, or maybe you're only looking at your base generation and distribution costs. Again, I don't know. But what I DO know is that the average American pays 11.6 per kWh. And that's the price that more accurately reflects what most others in this thread are paying, some even much higher.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 11:08:59 PM

Environmentalists want kids to die.
.
>>>Last week, Bjorn Lomborg, the widely published Danish professor and director of one of the world's leading environmental think tanks, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, published an article about the Philippines' decision, after 12 years, to allow genetically modified (GM) rice — "golden rice" — to be grown and consumed in that country.

The reason for the delay was environmentalist opposition to GM rice; and the reason for the change in Philippine policy was that 4.4 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency.

That deficiency, Lomborg writes, "according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year."

During the 12-year delay, Lomborg continues, "About 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency."

"Golden rice" contains vitamin A, making it by far the most effective and cheapest way to get vitamin A into Third World children.

So who would oppose something that could save millions of children's lives and millions of other children from blindness?

The answer is people who are more devoted to nature than to human life.

And who might such people be?

They are called environmentalists. These are the people who coerced nations worldwide into banning DDT.

It is generally estimated this ban has led to the deaths of about 50 million human beings, overwhelmingly African children, from malaria. DDT kills the mosquito that spreads malaria to human beings.
.
.
Though Lukas blames environmentalists for tens of millions of deaths, she nevertheless describes environmentalists as "undoubtedly well-intentioned."

I offer two assessments of this judgment.

First, in life it is almost always irrelevant whether or not an individual or a movement is well intentioned. It is difficult to name a movement that has committed great evil whose members woke up each day asking, "What evil can I commit today?"

Nearly all of them think they're well intentioned. Good intentions don't mean a thing.

Second, while environmentalists believe they have good intentions, I do not believe their intentions are good.

Concern for the natural environment is certainly laudable and every normal person shares it. But the organized environmentalist movement — Lomborg specifically cites Greenpeace, Naomi Klein and the New York Times — is led by fanatics.

The movement's value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.

The environmentalist movement's responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of poor children in the Third World is the most egregious example.<<<

Kind of a daming assessment of the truth about most of the environmentalists I have bumped into. They dont really want to know what the effects are of what they propose adn their idea of the earth is more important than people who will be harmed by their ideas.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,930
Points:322,565
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 6:18:43 PM

You have a groupie, Steve.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,052
Points:3,586,825
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 6:06:04 PM

why doesn't semi-steve
1) stop exhaling we exhale co2
2) turn off that computer and save even more electricity?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 5:46:59 PM

"Would you be "getting after" me for having an alarm clock plugged in, too? Think about it. 4 alarm clocks of this type - 28W. Let's also say I have 20 other appliances."

--[set-up alarm] 4 alarms? Maybe try going to bed a little earlier?

There are display clocks and even alarm clocks that run for years on a single AA cell. Nearly every cell phone has an alarm clock. I'm sure the time spent on a prudent search for a time piece could result in a monetary savings on the power bill and a reduction of the associated carbon footprint.

But, as you say. It's your money.

But, it is not your planet.

And your grandchildren will live on whatever is left of it in whatever habitat is left to them, if they can. Your choices affect that. I just hope you choose wisely.
Post a reply Back to Topics