Posted by Trygve Lillefosse on February 23, 2007, 3:57 am
wrote:
>> >>> Let's see... 1850KW at 240 volts means your heat
>> >>>pump circuit must be good for at least 7710 amps.
>> >>>Obviously that's not the case, so you must have a
>> >>>hell of a high voltage line coming to your house!
>> >>
>> >>I think you are calculating the wrong way or something. 10 amp is
>> >>enough to run a 2000W space heater with some to spare.
>> >
>> > He was joking because you mistyped the KW,
>> >that made it 1,85 megawatts. :-)
>>
>> Aha.:-)
>>
>> I tend to forget that cap is important even when there are no
>> computers involved..:-)
>>
>> Guess it should be kW then. (He wrote somewhat uncertain.)
>>
>Uhhhhh.......It's all in the dot!!!!!!
>1850kW = 1.85MW
>1850W = 1.85kW
>1.850kW = 1850W
>It should of been 1.850kW, 1.850KW or 1850W
*blushing*
--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Posted by Eeyore on February 22, 2007, 4:52 pm
Trygve Lillefosse wrote:
> >
> >>>> *Don,t remeber exactely, but it gives out 6300Kw and uses 1850Kw
> >>>
> >>> Let's see... 1850KW at 240 volts means your heat
> >>>pump circuit must be good for at least 7710 amps.
> >>>Obviously that's not the case, so you must have a
> >>>hell of a high voltage line coming to your house!
> >>
> >>I think you are calculating the wrong way or something. 10 amp is
> >>enough to run a 2000W space heater with some to spare.
> >
> > He was joking because you mistyped the KW,
> >that made it 1,85 megawatts. :-)
> Aha.:-)
> I tend to forget that cap is important even when there are no
> computers involved..:-)
> Guess it should be kW then. (He wrote somewhat uncertain.)
Actually he meant you should have typed W not KW or kW !
Graham
Posted by Agrajag The Prolonged on February 2, 2007, 10:59 pm
> 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.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency
Hahaha... wikipedia... oh boy <rolls eyes> .............
I'm north of the 50th parallel and I heat my home and water with the sun and
supplement my electricity "consumption" with a couple of PV's. My front
loading washing machine uses hardly any water and I use barely 20% of the
soap required for a standard load. I vent my dryer back into my home thru a
bypass valve to recover the "waste" heat and to rehumidify my home as 20%
relative humidity is for the birds. In summer I don't expend energy to
cool.. I just open the windows and live with it, generations before me had
to. No matter which brand and voltage rated incandescent bulb I purchased,
I was lucky to get 1 year out of them. Most of my CF's are nearing 5 years,
and I have a couple more that I bought in 2000 that are still going.
I think i'll keep looking at the energy ratings and leafing thru the
Consumer Reports magazines, thank-you very much.
Good argument though.. i'm sure some will buy into it.
Posted by Me on February 3, 2007, 2:28 pm
> > 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.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency
>
> Hahaha... wikipedia... oh boy <rolls eyes> .............
>
> I'm north of the 50th parallel and I heat my home and water with the sun and
> supplement my electricity "consumption" with a couple of PV's. My front
> loading washing machine uses hardly any water and I use barely 20% of the
> soap required for a standard load. I vent my dryer back into my home thru a
> bypass valve to recover the "waste" heat and to rehumidify my home as 20%
> relative humidity is for the birds. In summer I don't expend energy to
> cool.. I just open the windows and live with it, generations before me had
> to. No matter which brand and voltage rated incandescent bulb I purchased,
> I was lucky to get 1 year out of them. Most of my CF's are nearing 5 years,
> and I have a couple more that I bought in 2000 that are still going.
>
> I think i'll keep looking at the energy ratings and leafing thru the
> Consumer Reports magazines, thank-you very much.
>
> Good argument though.. i'm sure some will buy into it.
>
>
Just don't "Trust" CU, when it comes to Child Car Seats and reports
on Isuzu vehicals...... they have been known to FABRICATE their
results in the past........
Me not a CU Fan, but I still look at their stuff........
Posted by Arnold Walker on February 3, 2007, 10:09 am
> 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.
On the clothes dryer....not all of us vent outside during the winter.
Some of us that chopped wood for heat ,found that venting indoors during
winter. Cut down on the fire you had to
build in the the stove or boiler.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
XML site map
>> >>>pump circuit must be good for at least 7710 amps.
>> >>>Obviously that's not the case, so you must have a
>> >>>hell of a high voltage line coming to your house!
>> >>
>> >>I think you are calculating the wrong way or something. 10 amp is
>> >>enough to run a 2000W space heater with some to spare.
>> >
>> > He was joking because you mistyped the KW,
>> >that made it 1,85 megawatts. :-)
>>
>> Aha.:-)
>>
>> I tend to forget that cap is important even when there are no
>> computers involved..:-)
>>
>> Guess it should be kW then. (He wrote somewhat uncertain.)
>>
>Uhhhhh.......It's all in the dot!!!!!!
>1850kW = 1.85MW
>1850W = 1.85kW
>1.850kW = 1850W
>It should of been 1.850kW, 1.850KW or 1850W