|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:24 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk picture of steampunk type items. http://tinyurl.com/ksqncbk http://tinyurl.com/n2lqr9x http://tinyurl.com/ktxb6vb Mikek |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:46 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 4:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek I believe the HP-30 and most other scientific calculators appeared after I had received my M.A. We had a couple of clunky desktop calcs in the math labs and our trusty K&E sliderules. In those days, you actually had to know how to do the math, not that I was ever a whiz at math, but I did ok. I apologize. You are that old. :-) The T1-30 was my first calculator I got for use in my electronics classes. Mikek |
Bad outcome
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:31:16 -0500, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 2:57 PM, wrote: On Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:12:04 AM UTC-5, Hank wrote: Lots of chaff here today. why bother trying to make something of it? You could always add mud, and make bricks. That's the first intelligent thing you've said in months. I was thinking folks were trying to distract surface to air missiles. That chaff stuff is pretty useful, huh? |
Bad outcome
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:24:55 -0500, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk I had to look it up too, a couple months back. Google Images has some cute pics: http://tinyurl.com/kgtlp7m |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:35 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 4:31 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:36:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/20/14, 8:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:36:15 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote: k He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old A19, non halogen. But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb. It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them at least for now. Mikek The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this "ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless. I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly. Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they "banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre ban light bulbs) There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load. Like this? http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1150085 There must be a way you can find and attach a 9 mm model of one of those to your new SIG, eh? Might be difficult fitting the assembly in your pocket, though. Maybe not. :) Nah, 15 rounds is plenty. He's got some crazy ideas about souping up his guns. Don't listen to a word he says. I do? What might they be? Tell us about the mods that were done to your 9 mm CZ. Let a jury of your peers decide. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:40 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek Nah. He's older than that. He had one of those K&E slide rules. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:02:11 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 12:43 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:40:03 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 11:22 AM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:25:35 -0500, Hank wrote: I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs Saving $50 a month? Bull**** ... unless your house is lit like a used car lot all the time. That is 333 KWH per month (at 15c a KWH) Assuming you turn the lights off when you go to bed that is about 2000 watts of light you save every HOUR (based on 5,5 hours between sundown and bed time) You really had 2500 watts of light on all evening? (your LEDs and CFLs still draw something around 20%) I think you have fallen for the hype. I have 10 lamps that burn dusk to dawn. We use some lighting during the daytime also. I have spreadsheeted my KWH, Cost per KWK, and total cost. I'm comfortable with what I stated 10 lights from dusk to dawn? Let me guess, the Stalag 17 look . If you are burning 11,000 watt hours of light a day we can see your house from space. That is as much as my whole house air handler strip heaters use when I have the heat on for an hour running full blast. You need to reevaluate your lighting plan. Are you using a calculator, or are you counting on your fingers? A calculator. $50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway. I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California. I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the same.. The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74 cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are. Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity. :) Isn't Gregg in Florida? My experience with electrical power in Florida was that it sucked. Constant brown outs and voltage dips. That's one thing I can say that's good up here in MA. Our electric service is excellent. I monitor the voltage regularly, especially during heavy load periods in the summer. Voltage stays smack on 123 volts regardless of load and we have three large AC units plus a 150,000 BTU pool heater running (when required). |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:47 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:24 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk picture of steampunk type items. http://tinyurl.com/ksqncbk http://tinyurl.com/n2lqr9x http://tinyurl.com/ktxb6vb Mikek Oh, an early guzzy. Got it. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 6:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:24:55 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk I had to look it up too, a couple months back. Google Images has some cute pics: http://tinyurl.com/kgtlp7m I don't get it. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:40 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek I had a TI-30. I used it until I got an HP calculator (forgotten the model number) and had to learn reverse polish. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 6:19 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek Nah. He's older than that. He had one of those K&E slide rules. Hey. I have one of those too. In fact it's sitting right here on my desk. I was fooling around with it a couple of days ago. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:26 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:10 PM, KC wrote: On 1/20/2014 12:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: The ones I recently installed (Cree) are rated at 800 lumens (ea.) Big difference. Yeah, but it's still only equal to a typical 60 watt bulb... I need the lumens typical of a 100 watt incandescent (13-1500 lumens) to make a bulb worth while and I can't find that in a standard base, cfl or similar.... so far... If you used a little ingenuity you could pair up 2 800 lumen led's and have the equivalent of a 100 watt or better incand. Forget the CFLs. They are worthless, and dangerous. The other day I happened to go down to one of the finished rooms in the basement (I rarely go down there for anything) and I thought a strobe light was running. A certain person ... not mentioning any names ... had replaced a conventional bulb in a pole lamp with one of those non-dimmable CFL things made in China. The pole lamp has a built in dimmer. Stupid thing was flashing on and off and felt a lot hotter than normal when I removed it. In the trash it went ... sorry to the environmentalists who want you to dispose of them as hazardous waste. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:50 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 2:32 PM, wrote: the EPA calc is $7.23 a year to run it. That is less than 60 cents a month. Do you know what the EPA uses as the cost for aKwh? How many hours per day do they use? Mikek IIRC, the Cree packaging advertises a cost of about $1.46 a year to operate but I am sure that is based on the best, optimistic calculation. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle of the two estimates. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 6:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:02:11 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 12:43 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:40:03 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 11:22 AM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:25:35 -0500, Hank wrote: I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs Saving $50 a month? Bull**** ... unless your house is lit like a used car lot all the time. That is 333 KWH per month (at 15c a KWH) Assuming you turn the lights off when you go to bed that is about 2000 watts of light you save every HOUR (based on 5,5 hours between sundown and bed time) You really had 2500 watts of light on all evening? (your LEDs and CFLs still draw something around 20%) I think you have fallen for the hype. I have 10 lamps that burn dusk to dawn. We use some lighting during the daytime also. I have spreadsheeted my KWH, Cost per KWK, and total cost. I'm comfortable with what I stated 10 lights from dusk to dawn? Let me guess, the Stalag 17 look . If you are burning 11,000 watt hours of light a day we can see your house from space. That is as much as my whole house air handler strip heaters use when I have the heat on for an hour running full blast. You need to reevaluate your lighting plan. Are you using a calculator, or are you counting on your fingers? A calculator. $50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway. I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California. I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the same.. The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74 cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are. Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity. :) Isn't Gregg in Florida? My experience with electrical power in Florida was that it sucked. Constant brown outs and voltage dips. That's one thing I can say that's good up here in MA. Our electric service is excellent. I monitor the voltage regularly, especially during heavy load periods in the summer. Voltage stays smack on 123 volts regardless of load and we have three large AC units plus a 150,000 BTU pool heater running (when required). Since we had our genny installed, we haven't had a power outage that lasts more than a couple of minutes. We take credit for that! :) |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 5:32 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:46 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek I believe the HP-30 and most other scientific calculators appeared after I had received my M.A. We had a couple of clunky desktop calcs in the math labs and our trusty K&E sliderules. In those days, you actually had to know how to do the math, not that I was ever a whiz at math, but I did ok. I apologize. You are that old. :-) The T1-30 was my first calculator I got for use in my electronics classes. Mikek I watched the first shipment of dirt being shipped. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 5:19 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote: I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with your conclusion Math. Where did I lose you. I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents. I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style. If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now. Mikek Awesome. All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek Nah. He's older than that. He had one of those K&E slide rules. Slide Rule, what's that, sounds like something political :-) Mikek PS, I'm old enough to know what a slide rule is. |
Bad outcome
amdx wrote:
I just realized that the gov't. ban on incands. was created to guide the thrifty among us to stop making phony excuses for an inferior product. I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs. And that's not counting replacement cost. My replacement cost last year was $10. (one bulb) You need to relinquish your "Luddite" status. There are those here more deserving. Hank, I need to see you back that up. I'm going to compare 100 watt incandescent against a 10 watt new fangled low energy lighting device. Assume you were using $55 for light per month and now you use $5.5. 55-5.5 = $49.5 or your $50 savings. In order spend $55 on lights, @ $0.13 cents per kWh, you would need to use 423kWhs. I'll assume an average of 10hrs per day per light for convenience. That's 1 kWh per day of bulb usage, or 30 kWhs per month. 423kwhs / 30kWhs = 14 bulbs on 10 hrs per day for 30 days. If your buying the bulbs, lets assume $5 per bulb times 14 bulbs, that $90, so your payback is two months. I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback should certainly be less than one your for most people. There only two, in my home know I don't believe I use that much light in my house, I'd be surprised if I use 6 bulbs 5 hrs per day, but not 14 bulbs 10 hrs per day. Ok, no need to back it up, it is better than I thought. Anyone feeling energetic, can check my numbers and assumptions. I'm all switched over to CFLs and one LED. Hey turn that light off if your not using it!! Mikek I have an electric meter on my water heater. When my daughter went to college the electrical use went down by 1/2. I thought it was a fluke the first month, but it continued to stay that low. BTW, have you seen the water heaters that use a heat pump? http://energy.gov/energysaver/articl...-water-heaters Price shock, http://www.lowes.com/Plumbing/Water-.../N-1z0zp1j/pl#! My contribution to thread drift. Actually price is not that bad these days. Look at what a standard water heater costs now. All this low emission, safety stuff. Las one I replaced was about $700 for a 50 gallon gas. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 7:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 6:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:02:11 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 12:43 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:40:03 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 11:22 AM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:25:35 -0500, Hank wrote: I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any thing except light bulbs Saving $50 a month? Bull**** ... unless your house is lit like a used car lot all the time. That is 333 KWH per month (at 15c a KWH) Assuming you turn the lights off when you go to bed that is about 2000 watts of light you save every HOUR (based on 5,5 hours between sundown and bed time) You really had 2500 watts of light on all evening? (your LEDs and CFLs still draw something around 20%) I think you have fallen for the hype. I have 10 lamps that burn dusk to dawn. We use some lighting during the daytime also. I have spreadsheeted my KWH, Cost per KWK, and total cost. I'm comfortable with what I stated 10 lights from dusk to dawn? Let me guess, the Stalag 17 look . If you are burning 11,000 watt hours of light a day we can see your house from space. That is as much as my whole house air handler strip heaters use when I have the heat on for an hour running full blast. You need to reevaluate your lighting plan. Are you using a calculator, or are you counting on your fingers? A calculator. $50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway. I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California. I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the same.. The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74 cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are. Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity. :) Isn't Gregg in Florida? My experience with electrical power in Florida was that it sucked. Constant brown outs and voltage dips. That's one thing I can say that's good up here in MA. Our electric service is excellent. I monitor the voltage regularly, especially during heavy load periods in the summer. Voltage stays smack on 123 volts regardless of load and we have three large AC units plus a 150,000 BTU pool heater running (when required). Since we had our genny installed, we haven't had a power outage that lasts more than a couple of minutes. We take credit for that! :) A complete power outage is one thing. Storms and accidents cause them. Power is off and no damage can occur to expensive appliances or electrical units. I am talking about power that remains on but the voltage droops to levels that cause excessive current to be drawn when something like an air conditioning compressor starts. I saw the normal 120 vac drop to as low as 105 vac in Florida, which means the primary service of 240 volts that the AC units run on was drooping to about 210 volts. That's damn close to the +/- 15 percent most appliances will tolerate. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 6:23 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:24 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk picture of steampunk type items. http://tinyurl.com/ksqncbk http://tinyurl.com/n2lqr9x http://tinyurl.com/ktxb6vb Mikek Oh, an early guzzy. Got it. lol |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:50:35 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:32 PM, wrote: the EPA calc is $7.23 a year to run it. That is less than 60 cents a month. Do you know what the EPA uses as the cost for aKwh? How many hours per day do they use? Mikek I don't know and I didn't have much luck looking. I see a lot of calculators but nothing about how they get the number they print on the box. Obviously if you are getting that cut rate power Harry gets the number will be different than you get with the gold plated 45 cent California power. Interesting comparison of California to Texas. http://www.youtube.com/embed/4CDFxeB7Y-s Mikek |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 10:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:50:35 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:32 PM, wrote: the EPA calc is $7.23 a year to run it. That is less than 60 cents a month. Do you know what the EPA uses as the cost for aKwh? How many hours per day do they use? Mikek I don't know and I didn't have much luck looking. I see a lot of calculators but nothing about how they get the number they print on the box. Obviously if you are getting that cut rate power Harry gets the number will be different than you get with the gold plated 45 cent California power. Cree claims an annual operating cost of $1.14 for their least efficient LED bulb, based on running 3 hours a day. They don't say what the cost of electricity is. Assuming they are using a realistic rate that means it would cost under $10 a year to leave it on 24/7. Here's an impressive and recent article. Outdoor high pressure sodium lighting at Munich Airport in Germany is being replaced with Cree LED lighting. "The airport expects the new flood lights featuring Cree LEDs to consume at least 50 percent less energy than the previously-installed high-pressure sodium lamps, which would result in yearly electricity savings of 122,000 kilowatt-hours and approximately 70 tons of CO2 on completion of phase one of the lighting overhaul." There's a picture of the new lighting shown. They used the brilliant white color temperature and the result is much better and more natural lighting than the high pressure sodium lights they are replacing. http://optics.org/news/5/1/21 |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 10:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:53:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote: A calculator. $50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway. I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California. I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the same.. The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74 cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are. Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity. :) How are you looking at that? Is that total bill divided by KWH? I don't really know how the bill is determined. The rates for residential electricity from the various power companies in Maryland are posted on-line per state regulation. |
Bad outcome
On 1/21/14, 5:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 11:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:03:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Since we had our genny installed, we haven't had a power outage that lasts more than a couple of minutes. We take credit for that! :) Me too, since I bought a generator, I have not had anything worth going out and flipping the transfer switch. (not automatic) I am glad I saved that $5000 ;-) The only way I could justify a whole house generator is if there was a permanent and direct fuel supply to it, like natural gas. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. A short term (meaning 1 or 2 day) loss of power is manageable using a small generator like the little Honda. The problem I'd have with a large, whole house generator is fuel. We don't have natural gas coming up to the house so the generator would have to be propane, gas or diesel. We have a 100 gal propane tank that feeds a Hot Dawg garage heater but a whole house generator would drain a full tank of propane in a couple of days. Since long term power outages up here are due to winter snowstorms, it's unlikely we could get a propane delivery every other day. Same with diesel. I learned that lesson in Florida following Hurricane Wilma. I had just purchased the little Honda and had also purchased a 12KW gasoline powered generator and wired it into the main panel. It wouldn't power everything, but I could selectively turn on what was needed (well pump, water heater, certain room outlets, refrigerator, microwave, etc.) I thought I was well prepared with about 6, five gallon gasoline containers. Not so. That 12kw generator burned far more gas than I expected and it was clear that my supply would only last two or three days at best. So I used it sparingly and had the little Honda running 24/7 to power a refrigerator, couple of lights, the Direct TV box and a TV. The Honda sips fuel, running almost 24 hours on two gallons or less. We were powerless for just over a week following Wilma and gas, if you could find a station with aux power, was scarce. When we installed our pool eight years ago (up here in MA) the electrical contractor tried to sell me a whole house generator, telling me it could be fueled by the propane tank we use for the garage heater. He specified a 20kw generator for our house. I doubt a full tank of propane would last 2 days. We ran underground conduit and wiring for one, but I held off on the generator. In the eight years since, we've only experienced two longer term power outages, both due to winter storms. Each lasted about 3 days and the little Honda got us through them both. We have a 500 gallon buried tank, so it gets filled to 400 gallons. I think our genny burns about 1.75 gph at half load, so at any time during the month between tank top-offs, we should have at least a week of run time, probably more if it is winter, because the larger of our two heat pumps primarily runs off propane anyway, so if the power goes out, the only additional load for heat from the generator will be to run the compressor and furnace fan. The smaller heat pump is not on generator backup. The longest power outage we have had here to date was five days. It was hot outside and it was miserable. |
Bad outcome
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:53:47 AM UTC-6, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 11:16 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:03:48 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Since we had our genny installed, we haven't had a power outage that lasts more than a couple of minutes. We take credit for that! :) Me too, since I bought a generator, I have not had anything worth going out and flipping the transfer switch. (not automatic) I am glad I saved that $5000 ;-) You can't make electricity cheaper than you can buy it. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:46:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/20/14, 4:40 PM, amdx wrote: You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek I believe the HP-30 and most other scientific calculators appeared after I had received my M.A. We had a couple of clunky desktop calcs in the math labs and our trusty K&E sliderules. In those days, you actually had to know how to do the math, not that I was ever a whiz at math, but I did ok. I used to see calculators at work but they were big honking things that cost as much as a small car. Around 1970 Intel released the 4004 processor showed up and the pocket calculator hit the market. A "4 banger" (add, subtract, multiply and divide) was still $100 in 1971. I bought a Bomar. A year later they would give you one free if you bought a tank of gas. My first job out of the service was servicing electric adding machines. They actually had service contracts with scheduled PMs. Them wuz the days. |
Bad outcome
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 21:59:40 -0500, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 6:23 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:47 PM, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 3:24 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk picture of steampunk type items. http://tinyurl.com/ksqncbk http://tinyurl.com/n2lqr9x http://tinyurl.com/ktxb6vb Mikek Oh, an early guzzy. Got it. lol Don't laugh at his cheap shots. He's just jealous. BTW, I found my plug wires, off a wrecked Honda Civic at the junk yard for $1 apiece. I tried to talk the guy down, but he wouldn't budge a millimeter. |
Bad outcome
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:29:00 -0500, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 6:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:24:55 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk I had to look it up too, a couple months back. Google Images has some cute pics: http://tinyurl.com/kgtlp7m I don't get it. Never mind. You're too old. |
Bad outcome
On 1/21/2014 7:51 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 10:47 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:22:07 -0500, Hank wrote: Heres my avg monthly kwh for the past 5 years 2078 2301 2326 2089 1784. Have fun with those numbers. snip Did you notice my 2013 monthly average was over $300 less than 2012. Did you notice that 2013 was the lowest average in the last 5 years. Prior to 2013 I was using incand., CFL, and fluorescent tubes. I still have 8 4 ft tubes and 2 2 footers. The rest is LED. I saved exactly $468 last year. Enough to buy 46 more LEDs @10 per. Garbage in garbage out. To many variables. Heat and air conditioning used, hot water heater use. More or less overnight company, Etc. No saying you didn't use less for lighting, I just don't think you can quantify it using overall electric usage. |
Bad outcome
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:09:00 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/20/2014 10:28 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:50:35 -0600, amdx wrote: On 1/20/2014 2:32 PM, wrote: the EPA calc is $7.23 a year to run it. That is less than 60 cents a month. Do you know what the EPA uses as the cost for aKwh? How many hours per day do they use? Mikek I don't know and I didn't have much luck looking. I see a lot of calculators but nothing about how they get the number they print on the box. Obviously if you are getting that cut rate power Harry gets the number will be different than you get with the gold plated 45 cent California power. Cree claims an annual operating cost of $1.14 for their least efficient LED bulb, based on running 3 hours a day. They don't say what the cost of electricity is. Assuming they are using a realistic rate that means it would cost under $10 a year to leave it on 24/7. Here's an impressive and recent article. Outdoor high pressure sodium lighting at Munich Airport in Germany is being replaced with Cree LED lighting. "The airport expects the new flood lights featuring Cree LEDs to consume at least 50 percent less energy than the previously-installed high-pressure sodium lamps, which would result in yearly electricity savings of 122,000 kilowatt-hours and approximately 70 tons of CO2 on completion of phase one of the lighting overhaul." There's a picture of the new lighting shown. They used the brilliant white color temperature and the result is much better and more natural lighting than the high pressure sodium lights they are replacing. http://optics.org/news/5/1/21 Their carbon footprint will be so small that Al Gore will be sending *them* a check every month. |
Bad outcome
On 1/21/2014 9:20 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:29:00 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 6:02 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:24:55 -0500, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk I had to look it up too, a couple months back. Google Images has some cute pics: http://tinyurl.com/kgtlp7m I don't get it. Never mind. You're too old. I guess. |
Bad outcome
On 1/21/2014 9:25 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/21/2014 7:51 AM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 10:47 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:22:07 -0500, Hank wrote: Heres my avg monthly kwh for the past 5 years 2078 2301 2326 2089 1784. Have fun with those numbers. snip Did you notice my 2013 monthly average was over $300 less than 2012. Did you notice that 2013 was the lowest average in the last 5 years. Prior to 2013 I was using incand., CFL, and fluorescent tubes. I still have 8 4 ft tubes and 2 2 footers. The rest is LED. I saved exactly $468 last year. Enough to buy 46 more LEDs @10 per. Garbage in garbage out. To many variables. Heat and air conditioning used, hot water heater use. More or less overnight company, Etc. No saying you didn't use less for lighting, I just don't think you can quantify it using overall electric usage. How else would you do it? |
Bad outcome
On 1/21/2014 10:11 AM, Hank wrote:
On 1/21/2014 9:25 AM, amdx wrote: On 1/21/2014 7:51 AM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 10:47 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:22:07 -0500, Hank wrote: Heres my avg monthly kwh for the past 5 years 2078 2301 2326 2089 1784. Have fun with those numbers. snip Did you notice my 2013 monthly average was over $300 less than 2012. Did you notice that 2013 was the lowest average in the last 5 years. Prior to 2013 I was using incand., CFL, and fluorescent tubes. I still have 8 4 ft tubes and 2 2 footers. The rest is LED. I saved exactly $468 last year. Enough to buy 46 more LEDs @10 per. Garbage in garbage out. To many variables. Heat and air conditioning used, hot water heater use. More or less overnight company, Etc. No saying you didn't use less for lighting, I just don't think you can quantify it using overall electric usage. How else would you do it? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 13 percent of residential electrical energy use is for lighting. The same agency states that the US average monthly bill for residential electricity for June, July and August of 2013 was $395. Seems a little high to me, but again, it's the average for the whole nation. So, assuming those numbers are close, 13 percent of $395 is $51.25. Switching to LED lighting that consumes a fraction of the power would have a serious impact on that cost. So, Hank's numbers don't sound totally out of the ballpark. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/21/14, 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:38:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/20/14, 10:24 PM, wrote: On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:53:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote: A calculator. $50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway. I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California. I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the same.. The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74 cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are. Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity. :) How are you looking at that? Is that total bill divided by KWH? I don't really know how the bill is determined. The rates for residential electricity from the various power companies in Maryland are posted on-line per state regulation. It is easy to figure out. What did you pay? How many KWH did you use? I posted my last 12 months straight from the FPL web site. I can also get that broken down by the hour since they put in the smart meter. I'm not that anal. I know or can find out what the current rate per kwh is. It varies seasonally between 8 and 10.75 cents. If I want a lower bill, we can cut usage. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com