[Pc_Support] Re: Reducing Electricity Costs -- bulbs first and foremost ...

[Jason Boxman]

Bryan J. Smith said:
> Jason Boxman <jasonb at edseek.com> wrote:
>> Anyone know just how much waste is created from these 'always-on'
>> appliances?  I just realized my TV is 'always' on.  The DVD player
>> is more obvious, since it has a standby light.  What about CRT
>> monitors in 'energy saver' mode?
>
> The problem with televisions, unlike computer monitors, is that they
> are not very interactive.  There's really no way to gage feedback on
> use, especially when you are using disseparate components that have
> separate remote controls.

Well, I do turn it off when I'm not watching it and there is anyone else
around so there's no risk of it being on unattended.  I rarely use it more
than an hour a night anyway.

<snip>
>> Is there any sizable savings in screwing with this stuff, or
>> is it not worth the effort to calculate up how much power things
>> draw?
>
> I went _completely_ fluorescent a couple years ago (over a matter ofa
>  few weeks) and noticed not only a considerable savings on my
> electric bill, but I stopped replacing blubs.
>
> E.g., I like to leave the 40W light above my stove on 24x7 on as it
> provides just enough lumination throughout my house so I don't trip
> if I get up in the middle of the night.  I was replacing incandescent
> blubs every 6 months or so.  I replaced it with a 60W equivalent, 13W
> actual, fluourescent light about 2 years ago.  I haven't replaced it
> since, and it provides even more light to reach the entire other end
> of the house, while still being low enough.

Yeah, I tried that at my last place, but I rarely have _any_ lights on, so
the savings wasn't immediately detectable.  I'm one of those light police
that turn off every single light that isn't being used.  The nice thing
about CFB that I've heard is there isn't much start up cost, so it's pretty
'free' to turn them on and off liberally.  Not having to replace bulbs all
the time was nice, too, but also not my primary goal.  (Although how much
are those incandescent bulbs per unit anyway.  I haven't replaced one in so
long, I forgot about that cost.)

>> Also, where I live now has all halogen lights.  How do those
>> compare to CFBs?
>
> Halogen lights are probably the "purest" light, fluorescent lights
> are the worst.  _Both_ are _better_ than incandescent lights in
> energy efficiency.
>
> Use halogen when you want the best lighting.
> Use fluorescent when you want general lighting.
>
> Halogen has greater heat generation and must be cleaned more.
> Fluorescent makes a number of trade-offs for its increased
> efficiency.

Where I live now, everything is pretty wired for cute mini-halogen lights. 
All the fixtures I have seen that are part of the structure of the building,
if you will, take little halogen bulbs.  Not sure how I'd even get a CFB in
one of those little sockets.  The kitchen has one of those overhead 5V or
12V setups with six little halogen lights installed.

As you can see, few, if any places can accept traditional bulbs or CFBs.

I'm also a cold whore, so I nearly never use the heater in the winter in
Florida.  It routinely hovers around 60-70F and it doesn't bother me.  I
sleep with my fan on maximum speed at night, even in the dead of winter.

Now, during the summer my CHA gets a real workout.  I usually set the 'stat
at around 75-77, at least at the old place.  I don't know how well air
circulates at my new place.  It has a pretty modern CHA unit that I'm told
is pretty efficient, so I might get off easy.

One thing's for sure.  My five boxes sure put off a ton of BTUs.  You can
seriously feel the difference in temperature, which the A/C has to
eventually cool down to a reasonable level for me.

I guess I could replace everything with lower power stuff, but as Derek
mentioned, that's a game of numbers and a potential loser.  When I do buy
new stuff, I'll certainly keep an eye on power efficiency, but I won't
upgrade just to chase potential savings.

On that note, how bad does it hurt to have PSUs that have lower efficiency
ratings.  What's that mean, anyway?  For example the ones I have now have
something like 70% or 75% efficiency.