Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Most Popular Topics
Collapse
SDG&E sharpening the guillotine for residential solar.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by TAZ427 View Post
I 100% agree with the energy use side of things. I was speaking more of the rates, which in general start out a 2x the national average, are on a tier system that go to 3-4x the national average, or on a TOU system that goes even higher during peak times (and it's annoying that going Solar in CA at least on PG&E you're now forced into using one of the TOU plans.)
Since I moved to CA, on Nextdoor, in the winter I hear the OMG I got a $900 PG&E bill (turn the heat down) and OMG I got a $1000 electric bill, (set the temp higher.)
My power consumption manages to come in lower than average for those with my same size house in the area, and I'm running a pool pump every day (yes it's a variable speed pump.) My AC is set to 78F for the summer, heat at 65F in the winter, I installed a whole house fan after the 1st summer (600W/hr running is much better than the 3000W/hr on the AC) even preventing a couple hours worth of AC running during the 115F days is worth it. Lights are off if not in use. I had a free energy inspection, and about the only thing they guy could say was, maybe turn off my cable modem and router at night (well, I've got security camera's and ring doorbell that needs internet access to upload any events) and maybe a couple other piddly things, that with a power meter and calculations might account for 0.5% of my electricity usage. I'll be time shifting when my pool pump runs, to accommodate the TOU.
I definitely understand, that some people are running away from high self inflected electric bills and throwing money at other things instead of looking to reduce their usage. I'm seeing it every summer with the complaints on Nextdoor and then going immediately to solar, instead of adjusting usage habits, adding a whole house fan, or other things to mitigate their power consumption.
Personally, I'm not really running away from high rates, I'm running towards money savings over time. Also, running towards a personal lower CO2 generation.
BTW, as a consequence of entropy, If you reduce your use, CO2 generation will be lowered more than the same amount of R.E. generation would offset CO2 production. R.E. generation is probably cleaner than most other methods of energy production, but until someone figures out a way to violate the 2d law of Thermodynamics, it aint pollution free. Not using something is pollution free.Comment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostBruce many of those items cannot be turned off either by codes or common sense. Example CO2/Smoke, alarm systems and clocks. Never heard of a ceiling fan radio. If you were to go that far might a swell live in cave or travel back in time before electricity.
ELIMINATED entirely. Note security stuff and GFIs remain. In some cases like the security
system, I was able to redesign the (very inefficient) power supply and remove unused stations
to much reduce the drain.
I see no reason to keep the guest room clock plugged in, until I have a guest. Some of the
smoke/CO detectors got replaced, one would run on a couple AA batteries for a year. BUT I
tied an extra 3VDC output on my efficient battery maintainer so no actual battery.
The master bedroom fan here came with a radio controlled ceiling fan, so if things were getting
pretty hot and you couldn't reach the switch, you could use the radio remote. I much earlier had
set up a fan with THE CLAPPER, which I had to activate because she couldn't clap that loud.
You will note that as always, this is about eliminating WASTE, there is in no case any reduction
in creature comforts or moving back to a cave. Bruce RoeComment
-
Bruce I was just poking fun at you. You know that right? Just don't take it serious and get pregnant like my wife use to do.MSEE, PEComment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostBruce I was just poking fun at you. You know that right? Just don't take it serious and get pregnant like my wife use to do.
done. I think those GFIs are permanent. Bruce RoeComment
-
Originally posted by bcroe View PostGood idea, cutting consumption. Good starting point is knowing just where/how much the energy
is going. Before Solar, I measured all the heavy hitters. That left a substantial phantom load of
many, many smaller items drawing power 24/7. Back then it looked something like this, eventually
I eliminated about 3/4s of the waste. Bruce Roe
+++++++++++++++
Here is a list of phantom loads I tracked down in 2010-12, which used
continuous power listed even when turned off.
OFF
Watts--Units------ Description------ Remedy
3.5-- 1 microwave oven---- redesign control to unplug till door opened
1.4-- 2 security camera
10 --1 FM tuner and amplifier--- rewire power switch to AC line side
3---- 2 garage door opener----- redesign with tape wound transformer
4 ----2 smoke detector RES
2 ----2 CO2 detector RES
5 ----2 printer----------- plug into light switched outlet
3---- 2 laptop supply
1.1-- 1 projection atomic clock
1.5 --1 bedroom clock radio
2----- 1 talking alarm--- remove
1.2-- 1 guest bedroom clock--- unplug
1---- 2 out building light control---- change transformer
1---- 1 central vacuum--- change transformer
3.9-- 1 phone ans machine + wireless---- redesign power supply
1.7-- 2 antenna preamp--- change transformer
5----- 2 TV remote control------ RES
4----- 3 TV digital converter box---- change out TVs
4 -----2 furnace trasformer---- change transformer
3 -----1 door bell-------------- power from furnace transformer
12 ---1 alarm system------- power from furnace transformer
3 -----1 duplicate control--- remove
4----- 1 heat pump transformer--- RES
46--- 1 heat pump heater--- disconnect
1 ----20 GFI outlets
1----- 9 motion detector lights
6----- 4 electronic shop instruments---- plug into light switched outlet
3.5-- 6 battery maintainers-- redesign
2 -----1 stove clock
1----- 3 garage door radio
7----- 1 phone booth light---- change to 1.5W LED
3----- 1 electric toothbrush
3------ 3 WiFi signal boosters & ant
4----- 1 VHS tape player
2----- 1 hot water circulator---- redesign power supply
0.5--- 1 dead ceiling fan radio--- remove
about 300W total
RES = replace with Energy Star version
A 1W continuous phantom load will add 8.766 KWH a year to the electric bill. I started
with 300W, 2630 KWH a year. This list is not complete and is continuously changing.Comment
-
Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
Bruce: I owe ya'. I saw your postings about vampire loads a few years ago and really started poking around. I've got the continuous load down to ~ 50 W, spread between GFI's, nite lights, a few glowing light switches, microwave/kitchen lites/clocks/etc. and 2 cable boxes of ~ 12 W ea. which are on power strips and off most of the time - and the garage door opener w/motion photo safety switch, I think I'm down to ~ 50 W without the cable boxes.
besides yours, I haven't seen them pursued to the deadly end. Just finding everything is a major project.
Using Energy Star stuff is effective. For older stuff the problem often is with very inefficient power
supplies, usually with a very poor quality transformer suppling low voltage AC to thermostats, door
bells, etc., and a long list using them in wall warts. I found a tape wound transformer (such as used
in a Variac, etc) helped a lot and could replace many of these. I wrote ANTEK, a supplier of these
and suggested they come out with a couple UL approved models for retro fits in the green market,
but they ignored me. Bruce RoeComment
-
Originally posted by bcroe View Post
Perhaps I should change PHANTOM to VAMPIRE. These things get mentioned in green literature, but
besides yours, I haven't seen them pursued to the deadly end. Just finding everything is a major project.
Using Energy Star stuff is effective. For older stuff the problem often is with very inefficient power
supplies, usually with a very poor quality transformer suppling low voltage AC to thermostats, door
bells, etc., and a long list using them in wall warts. I found a tape wound transformer (such as used
in a Variac, etc) helped a lot and could replace many of these. I wrote ANTEK, a supplier of these
and suggested they come out with a couple UL approved models for retro fits in the green market,
but they ignored me. Bruce Roe
I found one load reduction that is a real benefit: I took the doorbell out. As an adjunct, I borrowed a tradition from Judaism and added a Mezuzah to the front door frame using the logic (and a couple of wood screws) that the Mezuzah would give the door to door religious zealots a clue, but they, usually having the IQ of turnips or doorknobs, don't usually get it.
But even so, the lack of a doorbell keeps things more quiet around here than with it as most folks these days, regardless of religious stripe it seems, are befuddled when there is nothing to push that makes a noise, and they leave. Maybe the non doorbell solitude is a side bennie to the great dumbing of America.Comment
-
Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
In one or several ways, living comes down to a matter of choices, and then paying for those choices. Some choose to live where the cost of living is high. Or where power is expensive. Some choose to not educate themselves about what things cost, either before they move, or after they become established in a new place. Some choose to not avail themselves of educational tools or lifestyle adjustments that might help reduce the sticker shock of high living expenses. Because most folks are mentally slothful to varying degrees, the usual sequence is that it's easier to bitch, moan and put the blame somewhere else for high costs of living than get proactive or involved, take the bull my the tail and face the situation squarely. Next easy/lazy way out after the bitch fest is to throw $$ at a problem without thinking it through - like, for example, throwing less than cost effective PV at a self inflicted high electric bill. Lastly, there's a sober and reasoned look at the situation that can lead to some positive outcomes and problem resolution. Those 3 alternatives are usually the order of battle in the energy bill wars. Because most folks are shortsighted and mentally slothful, the last the last is the most difficult and often not considered. Too bad it's the last, because of the 3 paths, it's usually the most cost effective.
BTW, as a consequence of entropy, If you reduce your use, CO2 generation will be lowered more than the same amount of R.E. generation would offset CO2 production. R.E. generation is probably cleaner than most other methods of energy production, but until someone figures out a way to violate the 2d law of Thermodynamics, it aint pollution free. Not using something is pollution free.
While some choose to live where the cost of living is high, for some the cost of living somewhere that the cost of living is low may limit job availability. Having moved from TX to CA, I actually earn enough more, that it makes up for the cost of living difference, but I'm still going to complain about it, write my representatives, and vote to improve things. As a good engineer, I did all my analysis before I made the decision to take a position here in CA. That said, I always want things to be more cost effective and more environmentally friendly than what I typically see, and look to get to that point. I've been looking at solar for 15yrs+ while living in Houston paying $0.10-$0.12/kWhr.
I agree that too many through money at it without thinking it through. I've done a more than reasonable job at reducing my consumption, within my comfort living, but I'm at my personal limits when it comes to that. Where that limit is depends on the person, but unless you're willing to go living in a tent in the wilds, one can always say 'well you can reduce more', and even then it took energy to make that tent.
As for the 2nd Law of Thermaldynamics, I just thank goodness that the energy the earth receives from the sun is an Open System and not a Closed System, and that in the end is what drives all renewable energy that we can utilize on earth.
I do get your point, that there are other pollutants in the manufacturing of equipment which is then later used to convert the renewable energy source into electricity, but when those are small in comparison to the equivalent pollutants from energy produced by fossil fuels (and I'm not limiting this to greenhouse gases) then I'm not going to quibble. Yes, first reduce and that is the best.Last edited by TAZ427; 05-18-2018, 12:47 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by TAZ427 View Post
I agree with those statements, in general, but would counter some of the.
While some choose to live where the cost of living is high, for some the cost of living somewhere that the cost of living is low may limit job availability. Having moved from TX to CA, I actually earn enough more, that it makes up for the cost of living difference, but I'm still going to complain about it, write my representatives, and vote to improve things. As a good engineer, I did all my analysis before I made the decision to take a position here in CA. That said, I always want things to be more cost effective and more environmentally friendly than what I typically see, and look to get to that point. I've been looking at solar for 15yrs+ while living in Houston paying $0.10-$0.12/kWhr.
I agree that too many through money at it without thinking it through. I've done a more than reasonable job at reducing my consumption, within my comfort living, but I'm at my personal limits when it comes to that. Where that limit is depends on the person, but unless you're willing to go living in a tent in the wilds, one can always say 'well you can reduce more', and even then it took energy to make that tent.
As for the 2nd Law of Thermaldynamics, I just thank goodness that the energy the earth receives from the sun is an Open System and not a Closed System, and that in the end is what drives all renewable energy that we can utilize on earth.
I do get your point, that there are other pollutants in the manufacturing of equipment which is then later used to convert the renewable energy source into electricity, but when those are small in comparison to the equivalent pollutants from energy produced by fossil fuels (and I'm not limiting this to greenhouse gases) then I'm not going to quibble. Yes, first reduce and that is the best.
But, that would be "Thermodynamics", with all the good engineers I know being aware of the proper term.
As for whether or not the sun-earth system is open or closed, that's somewhat definitional (but I agree that it's an open system). But, either or any way, irrelevant to less entropy increase resulting from not producing or using something and so producing no change or disturbance in a system, open or closed.
But enough off topic quibbling on my part, and so the last word is yours.Comment
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
Simple rule of thumb. "Using less electricity will save you more money".Last edited by FFE; 05-18-2018, 03:29 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by FFE View Post
This is true when planning a solar install. However, if you already installed it is not true if their is not a grandfather clause in the proposal. One should consider purchasing a partial or full Electric Vehicle for your next vehicle purchase if you fall victim to this. Using more electricity might reduce your overall energy costs. You might as well get something for that $400+ per year.19 SPR X21 345 / SMA 6000TL-US22Comment
-
Originally posted by TAZ427 View PostHaving moved from TX to CA, I actually earn enough more, that it makes up for the cost of living difference, but I'm still going to complain about it, write my representatives, and vote to improve things.
MSEE, PEComment
-
Originally posted by J.P.M. View PostBut, that would be "Thermodynamics", with all the good engineers I know being aware of the proper term.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sunking View PostWaste of time on the Left Coast. Complain and the the locals will lynch you. Who would pay for their stuff?Comment
Comment