From: Paul M. Eldridge on 31 Jan 2007 15:32
I think the real question you have to ask yourself is "how much MORE
would I pay had I not gone ahead and made these changes?" You did hit
upon an important point though and that's behaviour. Better
technology will only take you so far and beyond that, it comes down to
attitude and behaviour. Your upright freezer may be an
energy-efficient Energy Star model, but if your son isn't careful
about closing the door, your energy costs are going a lot higher than
they need be.
As a simple guess, those four days may have added an extra twenty to
twenty-five kWh to your next bill and given that you didn't lose the
contents (potentially a much greater loss), things could have turned
out far worse. And the good news is that if the freezer is located in
a conditioned space and you are currently heating your home, the
additional out-of-pocket expense is likely to be very low (or nill in
the case of electric heat).
On 31 Jan 2007 10:42:52 -0800, "Seerialmom" <seerialmom(a)yahoo.com>
>Actually what I was saying is that after doing all these supposedly
>energy saving changes on the house not changing behavior otherwise,
>the bill did not go down. Our local utilities have been promoting
>various rebates on energy efficient appliances and house applications
>but I believe the rates had also increased.
>Speaking of electric bill....wonder how much I'll get slammed for my
>apartment sized freezer running constantly for 4 days? My son left
>the door slightly ajar the other day when he put something in it; I
>just found out this morning when I saw water underneath and all the
>items "frosty". Bleh! Guess I have to defrost when I get home;
>luckily items are still frozen.
From: Don K on 31 Jan 2007 16:49
"fluffy bunny" <betatron(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> I expect that LED's are going to virtually exterminate hot-filament and
> gas discharge lamps in almost all applications over the next decade,
> barring niche-applications such as [can't think of any].
I expect they won't.
There're still a few hurdles. Your unbridled optimism reminds me of that
project flow chart where the last step is labeled,
"... and then a miracle happens".
> soon, revolutionize the way we think about illuminating our homes and
> In twenty years, old style lamps will be curios, much like kerosene
It all depends on achieving that last step in the flowchart,
you know, the miracle.
> As replace incandescents, they will obviate the need for terawatts of
> illumination power over the next few years, and even, by dint of their
> incredible reliability, save lives.
> Its hard to overstate the breakthrough (or if you prefer, the profound
> incremental steps) represented by the recent few years of LED
But you did manage to do so anyway. :-)
From: throwitout on 31 Jan 2007 21:17
On Jan 30, 7:40 pm, "Seerialmom" <seerial...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:08 pm, BeaFor...(a)msn.com wrote:
> > I have changed all my light bulbs to flouresent and the savings was
> > considerable, until the utility company raised rates. Now I am
> > starting
> > to see LED bulbs. Seem kind of spendy. Anyone have experience with
> > them?
> The only thing I have LED's in at the moment is my hand-crank
Incandescent flashlights are terribly inefficient (even compared to a
household 120V incandescent), as well in the high shock environment of
a flashlight, the durability and long life of LEDs is a plus. As well
they have much better characteristics as the battery dies than an
incandescent. Also, most "white" LEDs have poor colour rendering
quality, and colour temperature. While adequate for something like a
flashlight, I wouldn't want that kind of ugly light lighting my house.
It will take more R&D to improve this.
> I believe there were quite a few LED Christmas lights
> recently; more expensive initially but lower cost to run.
Unfortunately the output of these LED Chrismas lights is quite dim
unless you look at them straight on, and the output is very flickery.
> Many cities
> have taken to use the LEDs in traffic lights as well.
Several factors here. Traffic signals use single colours (Red, Amber
and Green), LED technologies for those colours have been perfected
long ago. Monotone LEDs have better efficiency than white LEDs, and a
An incandescent bulb in a traffic signal must be a long life, shock
resistant bulb, so immediately you loose a lot of efficiency (compared
to a normal incandescent), and as well, of the white light the bulb
puts off, all light except that of the desired colour is filtered out,
further reducing efficiency. Traffic signals are also very
directional, which is a light pattern LEDs excel at. All in all LEDs
are very well suited for traffic signals. However, I see very few
people lighting their homes with traffic signals.
LEDs are great for certain applications, however it will be a while
yet before they replace general household lighting, IF they replace
general household lighting.
From: Don Klipstein on 31 Jan 2007 22:17
In <1170200408.225596.222060(a)a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Seerialmom wrote
>The only thing I have LED's in at the moment is my hand-crank
>flashlights. I believe there were quite a few LED Christmas lights
>recently; more expensive initially but lower cost to run.
They are getting more common every year, and a decent selection is
available at Target during the time of year to get Christmas lights.
I think a major advantage is that LEDs do not burn out the way
incandescents do. Although LEDs are not indestructible and some cheapies
are clunkers that fail somehow, LEDs do not have hot filaments.
- Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 31 Jan 2007 22:31
In <I8udnf4qgYdLYyLYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, Lou wrote in part:
>"Don K" <dk(a)dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
>> "Seerialmom" <seerialmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > I don't think you're the first to notice the correlation between
>> > "lowering your consumption" and rates being raised. I've jumped
>> > through many hoops making my house energy efficient (insulation, dual
>> > pane windows, energy star appliances) but never really seeing any
>> > dramatic decrease in my bill.
>> You've got cause and effect backwards.
>> The increasing rates caused you to lower your consumption.
>> Your lower consumption didn't cause the rates to increase.
>Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the rules current today, but in the past,
>state regulatory commissions have approved rate increases when consumption
>dropped. The utility built generating plants and entered into contracts
>based on estimates of consumption levels, and even if those levels drop,
>debt service does not. The theory being, I guess, that more expensive
>electricity is better than no electricity.
However, if plant construction falls below forecasts, this is a cost
that is avoided. Also, less fuel will be needed. As a result, the
customer base as a whole will have less to pay for, even if the per-KWH
rate increases to keep up the bond payments and the bottom line for
Given the obstacles and associated costs for new plant construction
nowadays, I think consumers will save bigtime if these costs are not
I just heard stuff from some environmental group opposing two planned
new coal fired plants in Pennsylvania. And it's obvious that oil fired
plants will cost a lot next time oil spikes, natural gas is only a minor
improvement over oil, and it should be obvious how easy it is now to build
nuke plants within 200 miles of anyone's backyard.
Check out how many acres of windmills are needed to replace a gigawatt
or so plant, also what is needed to store 10's of gigawatt-hours for lower
wind times. And I so clearly remember some greenies bragging about a
solar generating facility feeding the grid as a generating station - built
onto the rooftop of a building that consumed more electricity than this
generating station produced!
Oh, I think conservation is in serious order - especially considering
issues of pollution and limitation of the resources that are to this day
the most economical!
- Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)