Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

You still miss the point. Regardless what other things people do to reduce electrical demand, using more efficient bulbs -- even those which contain small amounts of mercury -- will reduce mercury and other forms of air pollution by more than the bulbs introduce.

It's analogous to taking a short-cut to work every day. If I travel one mile on the interstate vs. 2 miles on city streets, my car will certainly add to the airpollution during that mile. But it will add

*less* pollution than if I drove through the city. I have to go to work one way or another so I choose the more efficient route.

As pertains to mercury pollution CFL's are more efficient than incandescents because (1) they introduce less mercury into the environment and (2) the mercury is sent to landfills rather than into the atmosphere where it is known to do far more harm.

You can thump the mercury drum all day long, Bobby, but you'll still be wrong. Getting Houdton to agree with you won't make you right either. He's an expert on being wrong.

That is one of the places where it needs to be addressed.

On that we agree.

I saw that article. There was another a few weeks back (NYT, IIRC) about a company that manufactures equipment to generate electricity using waste heat from smokestacks. The potential savings from both ideas is huge (4-5 times the savings from CFLs) but most utilities are guaranteed a rate of return on investment so they have no interest in reducing their plant & equipment - the more they waste, the more they profit.

The smokestack generators could even be combined with scrubbers to remove mercury and other pollutants.

But c>

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

I agree, better efforts put into controlling pollution from power plants is certainly VERY important.

But it's no replacement for putting effort into consumer-side energy savings too. Neither is worth doing alone. And please, let's not have this devolve into another STUPID thread complaining about CFLs.

I'd much rather see better power plant pollution controls, better electrical distribution and more use of electricty (or hydrogen) in the cars themselves. It only seems logical to concentrate pollution reduction at the source instead of trying to graft it onto the vehicles. Better electrical distribution from cleaner sources used to create hydrogen locally would certainly go a long way to put a dent in hydrocarbon use in vehicles.

Meanwhile I'd certainly like to have a more convenient way to plan my major appliance use of electric in ways that'd a) save me money and b) cut down on peak loads. Give me a widget on the wall in the laundry room that tells me when it's most effective to run the wash and I'd buy it.

See, there you go again with your inane rant about CFLs. Give it a rest already, it's gotten way past old.

I question the 'reduce the need to build new power plants' portion. I'd agree with reduce the number of new plants.

Skipping the environmental debate, if we had tools that would allow us to monitor each device's power usage we could probably come up with tools that allow us to figure out a lot more. Say I have a refrigerator that was new 3 years ago and it uses x kw avg/day. If I monitor it I may be able to determine that the unit is going bad (it's now using 1.5 * x kw avg/day). Or maybe I can figure out that if I purchase a new 'frig in n months I'll be able to save more money (return on investment in y months at current power pricing). Monitoring our own usage allows us to more than 'green' it allows us to use our money more wisely. I've always found that it's easier to sell money-wise vs enviro-wise.

Here's something from California on a related subject, it's titled: "California Seeks Thermostat Control". The gist of the story is that the California Energy Commission wants to be able to control the temperature of your HVAC to 'manage electricity shortages'.

Here's the link that appear on Slashdot:

If you get nasty wrap:

cut and paste the second set of lines together before sending.

I can easily see this being used throughout the country. It does make me a bit nervous. I'd like to understand the rules. The reason it makes me nervous is that the local power companies have been going out of their way to reduce cost at the sake of quality. We have power problems in my area because they refuse to expand but rather just add onto the existing strained system.

So creating more mercury contamination justifies a poor source of energy?

Me thinks we need to improve at both ends. Your mercury saving logic is very short termed thinking. I agree that CFL lamps may be a good thing in the short run but not the best in the long. The creation of electrical energy in an irresponsible (for the era) way, cannot and should not justify a product that can harm our environment.

All the best.

How many points do you get for associating his comparison with saying CFLs are no good. This appears to be a game for some here. I am quite new here but I have never witnessed Dave actually say CFLs are bad. Despite all his protests to the imagined observations of his statements many still cannot "read between the lines" any other way.

Interesting. What is the prize if I knock him off as King of the Castle?

You can search the archives for the 8-9 years I've posted here and you won't find where I've said, "Don't use CFLs." despite all the false claims by Hult, Bass, Kearney and the newbie stupid pollack.

Hult happens to hold an elective office >How many points do you get for associating his comparison with saying

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

I saw the same article on several different sites. I believe the authors of the study suggested there would be a reduced need for "peaking" plants rather than an overall reduction in new plants. The consumer controls let users respond to peak pricing by reducing peak demand. The media tends to distort the facts to fit their preconceptions.

The Kill A Watt meter, now available from Smarthome for under $25 will let you monitor a specific appliance. It's been around for quite some time although it cost about $60 when introduced. The same nitwits who now attack me for questioning CFL statistics viciously attacked my review here of the Kill A Watt when it was first introduced. One of them even referred to Home Energy Magazine, published by folks from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as an "obscure west coast magazine" when it published an article I wrote on the Kill A Watt (at their request BTW).

You might wanbt to check their site.

Neil Cherry wrote:

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

What're you, drunk or something? Or hopped up on meds? That's one of your most incoherent posts yet.

That is true. You never said "Don't use CFLs." However, you have repeatedly posted misleading information, twisted the facts and from time to time posted outright lies, not only abvout CFLs but about Z-Wave, about ELK engineers, about anyone who has the timerity to disagree with you, etc. For example, you claim that we have charged you with having made that statement.

You are also a bigot.

Marc Hult happens to be expert in several areas where you have posted inaccurate statements. He has corrected some of the things you've said and that apparently infuriates you. I've also disagreed with you on several occasions though when you asked publicly (via your website) for assistance I offered it, thinking there was an opportunity to mend some fences. To avoid publicly embarassing you I sent an offer of help via private email. In return you attacked me publicly, claiming I wanted to steal your invention or some such nonsense. Needless to say, it will be a cold day in hell before I offer to help you again.

Dave, you have so much to offer but you really spoil it by being such an ass.

And you find that improper? Hmm. :^)

Must have been some other nitwits. I don't even recall your "review".

In comparison to widely circulated periodicals, it is indeed an obscure West Coast magazine. Did you think you were writing for the New York Times?

The problem, at least from my view, is that it's awfully hard to retrofit a truly useful monitoring system in the average home. I recall reading about someone who made their own branch circuit sensors that gave some clue as to localized power use. IIRC, it didn't appear likely to pass inspection.

Is anyone out there doing detailed monitoring of the electrical load? I'd like to program my HomeVision controller to speak an audio warning when consumption exceeded a certain level.

I know there are expensive load centers with intelligent branch power consumption sensors, but last time I looked, it was a $1500+ investment. I would do it if I were spec'ing a new custom home I expected to retire in. I'd especially do it if I were going to add a lot of solar panels and wanted precise consumption estimates. In the meantime, I'm making do with a couple of $23 Kill-o-watt meters. I even gave some away as presents. (-:

I saw that. If you're a subscriber, this truncated link:

works too. (I'd like to know if it works for non-subscribers, too. The NYT recently abandoned its pay-for-content "Times Select.") I've also been seeing some pretty scary comments from DIY home handyman groups about new lighting rules in California. I think it's a little too early to standardize on fluorescent technology without giving competing, less pollutant-containing, high efficiency light sources like LEDs to mature. But that seems to already have happened in CA.

The comment:

"Mr. Somsel, in an interview Thursday, said he had done further research and was concerned that the radio signal ? or the Internet instructions that would be sent, in an emergency, from utilities? central control stations to the broadcasters sending the FM signal ? could be hacked into"

That got me thinking about the "unintended consequences" of such a plan. People who didn't want to play along could buy auxiliary generators that often have small bore, dirty engines. Captain Crunch AC boxes would be sold via the internet and someone might try to jam the signal and the power companies themselves would misuse the process.

But on the whole it may be a viable way to keep from adding new plants and increasing pollution. The USA still has some of the world's best brains and I think this a problem that has a solution. It takes the political will to do research in solar, superconductors, stack scrubbing and other green technologies. I'm afraid that won't happen soon enough, though. I can understand why companies don't want to make the investment. We're a profit-obsessed society.

There has to be more meaningful Federal oversight of the national powergrid. It's a critical infrastructure issue. There are serious quality of service issues. No one I know has said their power outages have lessened in duration or frequency. The opposite is true.

We get loads of power blips at my house late in the morning, around 4AM. I've had to silence the UPS's in sound range of the bedroom because it's become so frequent an occurrence. The Feds should also make sure power companies don't cause artificial shortages so they can game the markets for power contracts the way they did in California. I sadly agree that the price has gone up and the quality of service has gone down. I've also discovered that power blips and sags are the cause of some common X-10 problems.

-- Bobby G.

Actually, it could be very simple to do whole-house monitoring. Duke Energy recently replaced all the meters in my neighborhood with ones that can be read remotely. Someone at CES (I don't recall who) suggested putting the data from whole-house meters on a TV channel so users could see their usage patterns. Meters like the Kill A Watt can be used on individual appliances. This could be done with minimal effort and cost.

There are some recently introduced hall-effect current sensors from Allegro Microsystems that measure current flow while maintaining electrical isolation. They output 0-5V that is proportional to the current flow. They are very accurate and come in current ranges from very low to very high. They could be the foundation for affordable branch circuit monitors that would not be difficult to retrofit.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

I am wary of carbon credits and "greenwash"

and fighting mercury at the stack with mercury in consumer products. I think we can do better with either enhanced incandescents or LEDs. That's why I favor the "at the stack" solution, although the power companies certainly don't. No matter what light source emerges as the conservation champion, we MUST clean the stack exhaust, no matter what the cost. I just want to make sure all the contenders in the consumer lighting contest get a fair shot, especially the ones that don't have the mercury problem of CFLs.

Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid CFLs in an energy-saving thread, but it doesn't have be a devolved one. I just bought 8 N:Vision 14W bulbs on special sale for $4. That means that my objection on price has lost a lot of merit. Things change, opinions can change, too. That comes from a meaningful dialog, something I know that virtually everyone here in CHA is capable of if they exercise just a tiny bit of self-control. I learned about N:Vision here in CHA and it was a positive discovery.

The major problem facing CHA, as I see it, is that it devolves into personal attacks far too readily. It's fair to question someone's statement but it should be done by posting controverting information, not calling someone else the equivalent of a pathological liar or fool.

I still don't get the life I expect from CFLs, and I don't like the slow warm-up or the X-10 issues, but I do like saving money and the CFL bulbs do that. Plus, I no longer burn my arm on the stinking bedside lamp! The savings make it worthwhile, to me, to spend money on XTB boosters and X-10 filters to mitigate the X-10 problems.

I'm glad that most (but sadly not all) X-10/CFL problems have solutions. I would love to solve the "flashes after shutdown" and "needs a neutral" problems that still vex me. I just hope that they'll solve the temperature/slow warm up problem eventually.

I'm also not worried about my recycling the bulbs, but my frequent trips along the 200 mile garbage dump that is the Amtrak RR DC to NYC right-of-way makes me worry about where the bulbs will end up. I think they need to have a deposit of about a quarter to make sure they find their way to a recycling center *intact* (no $ for busted bulbs). I hope that's not a devolution - just a part of the overall problem. When the number of bulbs appearing at recycling centers approaches 75% of the bulbs sold, I'll be more sanguine about CFLs.

You sound old enough to remember what it was like to stand near a circa 1960 V-8 car exhaust. You would pass out from the fumes in very short order. Now you can stand next to some cars and not even know they are running except for the radiated heat. We need to accomplish that same process with electrical power plants. US Big Auto complained bitterly that car exhaust was inherently dirty and was impossible to clean economically. And then Japan's automakers, especially Honda, turned that belief on its head. This is a doable problem. It just needs doing.

I'd like to know what other people are using to monitor power use? I tried using a photoelectric pulse counter aimed at the meter's rotating disk but the power company left me a door tag explaining why they removed it. (Customer attached equipment prohibited) (-: I'd imagine that now the way to go is to ask for a reporting meter that had some sort of output for consumption data. I'll see what my local power company says when I call them this week to ask. I believe the report cited in the article is correct. Knowing how much juice a house is using is an essential step in achieving conservation.

-- Bobby G.

What worries me the most is that we'll adopt a long term solution that add mercury to the environment before we thoroughly review all the alternatives that don't pose a mercury threat. California seems to be heading in that unfortunate direction, though.

As I said to Bill (and I KNOW you're old enough to remember the exhaust of a high compression 1960's V-8!), the carmakers whined that it couldn't be done and the auto industry lost ground to foreign autos that it never recovered. We shouldn't let that history repeat itself.

Spawlmart *could* do it right, or at least better than they're doing with in-store recycling and realistic cash deposits built into the cost of the bulb to encourage recycling. But mandating a technology that's clearly not up to the technical specs of what it's replacing smacks very much of Big Business and its captive Congress to punish people for demanding a cleaner environment. Just like Big Auto tried to pass on much more than what it cost them to add pollution control equipment. Young whippersnappers probably don't remember how bitter a battle that was.

-- Bobby G.

appliances.

Sounds interesting. Since Allelectronics has some sort of Hall effect sensor for 50 cents each, I just ordered a few. I wonder if the Ocelot will be able to read them directly or whether I need some additional drive circuitry? Have you seen any sample circuit designs?

-- Bobby G.

There's always a whole lot of payback for crap that went on months and years ago that leaks its way into threads the way mercury will leak out of landfills and into the groundwater. (-:

It's disturbing when the discussion always devolves into personalities and not facts. The CFL issue is a very pertinent one to HA and to people at large because it's not an ideal replacement. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to improve CFLs in particular and lighting technology in general.

One thing CHA'ers can do is write to the manufacturers if they find that company's bulbs start slowing, or dim over time or interfere with X-10 commands or radio reception. They can't improve their products without feedback.

-- Bobby G.

Frankly, if the emergence of CLFs puts the final nail in the X-10 coffin I'd be glad.

But you're certainly right about feedback to the vendors. Trouble is it's easier for people to whine online than to actually DO that. To say nothing of actually participating in recycling efforts.