R.H. Allen wrote:
> About a third of the places I've lived have had kitchens without outside
> walls, and nearly all of the rest have not had an outside wall suitable
> for sticking a refrigerator (at least not without blocking a window,
> door, or countertop). Oddly enough, one of the places with no outside
> walls was one of the few places I've lived that had an oven hood that
> vented to the outdoors, instead of simply pushing the smoke through a
> filter....
The outdoor range hood vent is required by our building code... A good
reason for giving kitchens outside walls. I can't imagine anyone designing
their own home with a kitchen without a window.
--
derek
What a nimrod you are.
My outside cf's save because they heat the outside less!
My inside cf's save because I don't need any cooling for four months of
the year!
The ones in my garage dont heat my unheated garage!
The ones near the ceiling heat the top half of my house less....less heat
transfer out the attic
I heat with wood not light or gas.....think about it!
Sudden Disruption wrote:
> For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
> that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
> that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
> power bill. This is rarely the case.
> http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index
> Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
> money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
> September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
> project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html
> The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
> placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
> saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
> savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
> entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
> exaggerated.
> "Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
> house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
> the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
> home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
> is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
> production is literally ZERO.
> The only time energy is actually saved is when the air conditioning is
> running or you have the windows open to cool the house. With the air
> conditioning on, the savings can even be a little greater than 45
> watts, but for most of America that's a small part of the year. What
> are the savings for the rest of the year?
> ZERO!
> If you are not cooling your home, EVERY light bulb and appliance is
> 100% efficient.
> Here's why...
> The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that "wasted" energy
> tends to disperse evenly. And if this "wasted" energy is in your
> house, it simply keeps you warm. More importantly, it keeps your
> normal heat source from turning on. Let's see how it plays out in a
> real home and why saving energy by turning off the lights is mostly an
> illusion (pardon the pun).
> If you have a home in the northern latitudes which is electrically
> heated much of the year, you are a net consumer of heat. And the nice
> thing about heat is that It doesn't matter where it comes from. And
> that's the key.
> Take a light bulb that's only 10% efficient. That means 90% of it's
> energy is converted directly to heat. So what happens to that heat? It
> spreads out through your house and slightly delays your normal heating
> system from clicking on.
> And what about the 10% of the energy in the form of visible light?
> Virtually all of it strikes objects in the house. It too is converted
> to heat. The ONLY ineffectiveness of a light bulb in a northern home
> in the winter is the light that escapes through the windows, which is
> a VERY small amount. Even THAT can be stopped with curtains. Which
> would make ANY light bulb 100% effective at producing heat. Here's how
> Wiki explains it... Efficiency versus Effectiveness.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency
> Why do I qualify this with northern homes and winter? Because if you
> have to open the windows to be comfortable, you lose the advantage.
> And if you have to turn on the air conditioning, this "effectiveness"
> actually becomes a small liability. So those of you in Florida and
> south Texas, nevermind.
> It's all about heat, where it moves and how we store it. But for most
> of America, much of the year, energy efficiency is very much an
> illusion. Effectiveness rules the day because we actually USE that
> "inefficient" heat.
> And if your windows are closed but your heat is NOT turned on? Or not
> turned on until later at night? Those appliances are still 100%
> effective. That's because they are helping keep the house warm. They
> are one reasons your electric heat hasn't come on yet. If that heat
> doesn't come from one source, it has to come from another.
> But what if you're a bit on the warm side in late afternoon but you
> haven't opened the windows? Again, it doesn't matter. This thermal
> intertia will delay heating later on. As long as you don't have to
> cool your house, everything is 100% effective. Let's take a couple
> more examples.
> Electric blanket - 100% effective. If you turn it off, the electric
> wallboard heating will kick up 100 watts to compensate: net cost of
> blanket electricty for the same comfort level - zero.
> TV, DVD & computer - Left on all the time? No problem, as long as the
> air conditioning doesn't kick on.
> Hair dryer - 100% effective (and only used for short periods anyway),
> so get every hair in place.
> Electric touthbrush - Yep. Even the charger is a perfect machine.
> Refrigiator - 100% effective. This is one of my favorites. What does a
> refrigiator do? That's right. It compresses gas to pump heat from the
> inside to the outside of the ice box. Where does that heat go? It
> heats the kitchen! Even the compressor is 100% effective! Once again,
> it saves energy that would come from electric heat.
> Why do I keep referring to electric heat instead of oil or gas? That's
> because in the past gas has been far cheaper than electricity per BTU.
> This made electrical devices a little less "effective" (and a little
> more expensive) in producing that "wasted" heat. Unfortunately, cheap
> gas is history. The price of oil and gas now approachs that of
> electricity. There's no big difference. Leaving your TV on is now
> almost as cost effective as buying natural gas.
> This "effectiveness" creates the strange situation where you could
> turn EVERYTHING in the house off (except for the electric heat) and
> set in the dark for a winter month with no entertainment or hot food -
> and your power bill would be EXACTLY same. Try it sometime. You'll
> see.
> This also means you could go out and buy the most efficient light
> bulbs you could find and all new Energy Star appliances; STLL the
> power bill would be EXACTLY same. So enjoy your gadgets and think
> twice before spending extra for "efficiency". Spend your money were it
> counts.
> And where might that be? If there's little advantage to "efficient"
> appliances, how can we save energy and money? That's another blog
> post, but start by taking a look at the heat leaving your home through
> the walls or down the drain as hot water. Those two are your biggest
> loses.
> Heat and air conditioning use 50% of home energy. Better insulation
> and sealing can save up to 25% of your energy cost for the typical
> home. But make sure the house still has reasonable ventilation -
> especially in radon areas. And hot water is about 13% of your energy
> use, so again, use it carefully. It's not effective to heat up the
> sewer drains.
> Which brings up one important exception to this "effectiveness" rule -
> the clothes dryer. It blows it's heat outside and also brings in cold
> air - you lose. It's a good reason to get a clothes line. Or use the
> dryer sparingly.
> There you have it. Now you can sleep better (and warmer) knowing your
> heat isn't as "wasted" as you thought.
> OK. If you still want to know how much of that 65.7 KWH you would save
> by buying that bulb, multiply it by the ratio of cooling days over
> days in a year (365.25). The extra air conditioning load will be
> offset by less probable need for light in the summer. For me in Reno,
> Nevada that extra efficiency can be used about a quarter of the time
> (in the summer) which is probably about average for America. This
> makes WalMart's claim overstated by four times - you decide if that
> bulb still makes sense.
> But why would Fast Company, WalMart and Energy Star not point this
> out? Simple. It would make the story less exciting, WalMart would sell
> fewer light bulbs and... and... I don't know what's wrong with the
> Federal government.
> So from now on, don't let some slick magazine make you think a new
> light bulb will solve all your problems; don't expect WalMart to
> always save you money. And finally, don't expect the government to set
> them both straight. When you hear about efficiency, think also about
> effectiveness.
> And quit worrying about your household appliances.
> They are almost perfect machines much of the year..
> No matter what their efficiency rating.
XML site map
> walls, and nearly all of the rest have not had an outside wall suitable
> for sticking a refrigerator (at least not without blocking a window,
> door, or countertop). Oddly enough, one of the places with no outside
> walls was one of the few places I've lived that had an oven hood that
> vented to the outdoors, instead of simply pushing the smoke through a
> filter....