On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:04:20 GMT, "Phil Sherrod"
wrote:


The main issue with electric water heaters, as far as I'm concerned, is that
the Carnot-limited power source wastes at least 60% of the fuel source heat
to the local rivers and dams, for you to take the (optimistic) 40% and
convert it back to heat.

I have absolutely no control over that nor was my study directed at that issue.

Your case study is flawed, and you lack appreciation of the big picture.

I never claimed to be presenting either a study or a solution to the "big
picture" of energy usage. My study was simply to measure the actual heat loss
energy for one water heater in a known environment. As shown above, you can
adapt the figures to other situations.

Phil,

Just ignore Roland. He just likes to hear himself type and throw out fancy
terms. Doesn't have a clue. Your measurements were right on target. Even
the temperature selected. The water heater I recently installed in one of my
cabins came from the Home Depot with the 'stats set at 115 deg F. Probably
the lawyers at work again. I bet just about nobody changes that setting.

Even Roland's appreciation of the "big picture" is incorrect. Modern
supercritcal fossil plants achieve overall efficiencies in the 50% range.
Even the good old nuke are in the high 30s. The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant where
I worked for about 10 years recently replaced the steam generators. The
improved design plus some plant upgrades pushed the efficiency to 38% and a
fraction, something that spawned a small staff party. Oh, and BTW, Roland,
the waste heat goes up the cooling tower stacks and not into the lake, at
least not to any significant extent. Much to the chagrin of local fishermen
who discovered that the warm water (pre-cooling towers) spawned great fish
growth and fishing conditions.

John



---
John De Armond

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN