19 replies to this topic

[eds]

While Billions of people in the world have no electricity,
. . . Most America's have Consumer Electronics.
We are NOT counting Kitchen "Small" Appliances:
. . . (Lights, Tea & coffee makers, Microwaves, toasters, blenders, can openers, etc.)
and NOT counting "Large" Appliances:
. . . (Refrigerators, freezers, stoves, washers, dryers, etc.)
By Consumer Electronics, we just mean:
. . . (TV's. CellPhones, Computers, DVD's, Camera's, Internet, etc.)

Your score compares your household energy consumption,
. . . of just consumer electronics,
. . . to that of the average American household.
Consumer Electronics Energy Calculator
When you're done, click "Calculate" to see your score!
If your score is less than 100%,
. . . then your energy use is less than the average household.
If your score is over 100%,
. . . your energy use is more than the average household.

Attached Images

• 

[Besoeker]

Got 6%.

[eds]

Got 48%

[Besoeker]

eds, on 14 December 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Got 48%

Call me Scrooge....

[Shortpoet-GTD]

22% but then again, I don't have a lot of the new gadgets, and I power down everything when away
or at night (computer, modem, keyboard, wireless mouse) tv and cable box.
(And since  there isn't anything worse salt on tv anymore I don't even have my old vcr hooked up)

The only thing that stays on 24/7 is the frig, and it's a newer energy efficient one; (chilling tons
of veggies)

[gar]

I came out at 90 %, and I expected much higher. I don't live in a "dog house" and therefore my usage should be higher. "Dog houses" are large homes in which everyone works to pay for the cost of the home. The primary occupant most of the time is the dog.

I am not impressed with the questionnaire, design or concept. I am not sure of its purpose and what function it performs. It is one of these cute qualitative gimmicks. The function can be handled better with straight text and eliminate all the scrolling and useless pictures. There was no kWh quantitative information provided. Further, there should have been a distribution curve of energy vs number of users.  

I also do not find that the average person is really interested in studying their energy use and doing something about it. I ask a local hardware store owner about his home energy use. He doesn't care. He looks at the bill and if it is about as expected he pays it. In my neighborhood about the same attitude exists. There is some interest, but not enough to do anything.  

People need to be educated in watts and watt-hours and understand the relationship. Broad assumptions were made in the questionnaire on power consumption. There was no quantitative data associated with the different loads. My laptop that is on 24 hours per day is 15 W when the screen is illuminated, and 11 W when yhe backlight is off. Most of the time the screen is off. So my yearly consumption is about 8766*11 = 96 kWh or a cost of about 96*0.16 = $ 16. Can I do the same job at a lower energy level? Yes, but it is not worth my time to do it.

My total daily consumption ranges from about 20 kWh/day to 40 kWh/day. There are a multitude of components, and these vary thru the year. At the present time the big part of my base load is the furnace blower motor, about 400 W when running (about 70% duty cycle presently), 25 cu-ft refrigerator-freexer, and one additional freezer. In spring or fall this base load is around 300 W, and now in winter about 600 W. Awake time additional load is mostly lights, computer, and test equipment.

Cellphone chargers today are about 0.1 or 0.2 W with no phone attached. That is a base load cost of about 0.000,1*8766 = 0.87 kWh/year or $ 0.14 . Out of 11,000 kWh per year do I care? No. My charger is about 4 W peak when charging the phone. My Sony 32" TV has an off state load of less than 0.2 W.

Am I going to go around and unplug items that consume very little power? No. Do I need to know standby power? Yes. Do I need to pick efficient equipment? Yes.

When buying any new computers, entertainment systems, or other equipment make sure that you can unplug the equipment without loss of stored parameters, and clock time. If this is possible, then you can use switched outlet strips for the power source and actually turn everything off with the switch.  

The way to do a reasonable estimate on consumption of plugin devices of less than 15 A is to use a Kill-A-Watt EZ meter. This way you can get some actual quantitative data.

.

[Besoeker]

gar, on 16 December 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

I came out at 90 %, and I expected much higher. I don't live in a "dog house" and therefore my usage should be higher. "Dog houses" are large homes in which everyone works to pay for the cost of the home. The primary occupant most of the time is the dog.

I am not impressed with the questionnaire, design or concept. I am not sure of its purpose and what function it performs. It is one of these cute qualitative gimmicks. The function can be handled better with straight text and eliminate all the scrolling and useless pictures. There was no kWh quantitative information provided. Further, there should have been a distribution curve of energy vs number of users.  

I also do not find that the average person is really interested in studying their energy use and doing something about it. I ask a local hardware store owner about his home energy use. He doesn't care. He looks at the bill and if it is about as expected he pays it. In my neighborhood about the same attitude exists. There is some interest, but not enough to do anything.  

People need to be educated in watts and watt-hours and understand the relationship. Broad assumptions were made in the questionnaire on power consumption. There was no quantitative data associated with the different loads. My laptop that is on 24 hours per day is 15 W when the screen is illuminated, and 11 W when yhe backlight is off. Most of the time the screen is off. So my yearly consumption is about 8766*11 = 96 kWh or a cost of about 96*0.16 = $ 16. Can I do the same job at a lower energy level? Yes, but it is not worth my time to do it.

My total daily consumption ranges from about 20 kWh/day to 40 kWh/day. There are a multitude of components, and these vary thru the year. At the present time the big part of my base load is the furnace blower motor, about 400 W when running (about 70% duty cycle presently), 25 cu-ft refrigerator-freexer, and one additional freezer. In spring or fall this base load is around 300 W, and now in winter about 600 W. Awake time additional load is mostly lights, computer, and test equipment.

Cellphone chargers today are about 0.1 or 0.2 W with no phone attached. That is a base load cost of about 0.000,1*8766 = 0.87 kWh/year or $ 0.14 . Out of 11,000 kWh per year do I care? No. My charger is about 4 W peak when charging the phone. My Sony 32" TV has an off state load of less than 0.2 W.

Am I going to go around and unplug items that consume very little power? No. Do I need to know standby power? Yes. Do I need to pick efficient equipment? Yes.

When buying any new computers, entertainment systems, or other equipment make sure that you can unplug the equipment without loss of stored parameters, and clock time. If this is possible, then you can use switched outlet strips for the power source and actually turn everything off with the switch.  

The way to do a reasonable estimate on consumption of plugin devices of less than 15 A is to use a Kill-A-Watt EZ meter. This way you can get some actual quantitative data.

.

A good post if I may say so.
Possibly it's easy to get things out of perspective unless, as you did, actually do the numbers.bit.
I agree. Some things are not worth sweating over. But unless you check the consumption you might not know which things.

It's been discussed here a few times. And a couple of years ago it was a discussion topic on a phone-in on our local radio. In UK we use electric kettles to boil water for hot tea. The radio callers got quite heated about the huge savings of boiling just enough water for your immediate needs. As a rule, I do enough and a bit for margin of error. Not because of vast savings. It's just quicker.

Savings? Sure, there would be some if I measured it out to the nearest ml. Maybe as much as 10kWh a year.
I can make 100 times the cost saving and be kinder to the environment by driving a few mph slower.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

gar, on 16 December 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

I came out at 90 %, and I expected much higher. I don't live in a "dog house" and therefore my usage should be higher. "Dog houses" are large homes in which everyone works to pay for the cost of the home. The primary occupant most of the time is the dog.

I am not impressed with the questionnaire, design or concept. I am not sure of its purpose and what function it performs. It is one of these cute qualitative gimmicks. The function can be handled better with straight text and eliminate all the scrolling and useless pictures. There was no kWh quantitative information provided. Further, there should have been a distribution curve of energy vs number of users.  

I also do not find that the average person is really interested in studying their energy use and doing something about it. I ask a local hardware store owner about his home energy use. He doesn't care. He looks at the bill and if it is about as expected he pays it. In my neighborhood about the same attitude exists. There is some interest, but not enough to do anything.  

People need to be educated in watts and watt-hours and understand the relationship. Broad assumptions were made in the questionnaire on power consumption. There was no quantitative data associated with the different loads. My laptop that is on 24 hours per day is 15 W when the screen is illuminated, and 11 W when yhe backlight is off. Most of the time the screen is off. So my yearly consumption is about 8766*11 = 96 kWh or a cost of about 96*0.16 = $ 16. Can I do the same job at a lower energy level? Yes, but it is not worth my time to do it.

My total daily consumption ranges from about 20 kWh/day to 40 kWh/day. There are a multitude of components, and these vary thru the year. At the present time the big part of my base load is the furnace blower motor, about 400 W when running (about 70% duty cycle presently), 25 cu-ft refrigerator-freexer, and one additional freezer. In spring or fall this base load is around 300 W, and now in winter about 600 W. Awake time additional load is mostly lights, computer, and test equipment.

Cellphone chargers today are about 0.1 or 0.2 W with no phone attached. That is a base load cost of about 0.000,1*8766 = 0.87 kWh/year or $ 0.14 . Out of 11,000 kWh per year do I care? No. My charger is about 4 W peak when charging the phone. My Sony 32" TV has an off state load of less than 0.2 W.

Am I going to go around and unplug items that consume very little power? No. Do I need to know standby power? Yes. Do I need to pick efficient equipment? Yes.

When buying any new computers, entertainment systems, or other equipment make sure that you can unplug the equipment without loss of stored parameters, and clock time. If this is possible, then you can use switched outlet strips for the power source and actually turn everything off with the switch.  

The way to do a reasonable estimate on consumption of plugin devices of less than 15 A is to use a Kill-A-Watt EZ meter. This way you can get some actual quantitative data.

.

Argumentative, succinct and well said, all at the same time. Excellent.

[gar]

Some addditional comments:

My HP LaserJet 5MP is a continuous steady average standby load of 50 W when on, and not printing. If on for 16 hours per day this is 0.8 kWh/day, or 292.2 kWh/year. At my cost of $ 0.16/kWh that is about $46/year. When printing the power jumps to 300 W.

My HP LaserJet 5SiMX is somewhat different and greater. Its on and standby load is a continuous 37 W plus a pulse load of 520 W about every 10 seconds. The average standby is about 100 to 140 W. Thus, considerably higher than the 5MP. Yearly standby energy at 16 hours per day is about 584 to 818 kWh/year. When printing power ranges from 550 to 700 W.

If you can find a way to reduce average power consumption by the equivalent of a 100 w bulb that is on 24 hours per day, then the energy saving per year is 0.1*24*365.25 = 0.1*8766 = 877 kWh/year. At my cost $ 140/year.

For work lighting I have previously used 8' Slimline and provided good general lighting. Now in my computer area I use local lighting of one 9.5 W LED. Lower light level, but usable, and much less energy and cost.

For good judgements you need quantitative data and that means instrumentation. Smart Meters, Kill-A-Watt meters, and TEDs can be useful to the general consumer for this purpose.

I have written notes on all of these. The titles are: "Reading, Collecting, and using DTE Smart Meter Data to Help Reduce Energy Use", and "Electrical Energy Measurement, Conservat8ion, and Methods to Reduce Your Electric Bill".

.

[Besoeker]

gar

Do I know you on another forum?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

gar, on 18 December 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

I have written notes on all of these. The titles are: "Reading, Collecting, and using DTE Smart Meter Data to Help Reduce Energy Use", and "Electrical Energy Measurement, Conservat8ion, and Methods to Reduce Your Electric Bill"..

You may be too new  to post links, but as soon as you can, can you link to those? They would be of interest here.

[gar]

Besoeker:
Yes.

Shortpoet-GTD:

The links are:
http://beta-a2.com/energy.html
http://beta-a2.com/engry_b.html
http://beta-a2.com/energy_c.html

The TED systems use low grade current transformers to translate instantaneous current to a voltage for input to the power measurement chip in the MTU. The combination of the TED current transformer and the TED MTU has an error problem that increases as power factor shifts from unity. The TED accuracy is pretty good with a resistive load, but if you use TED to prove that a power factor correction capacitor is of no value to a residential customer, then you may actually show that the power factor capacitor was of some benefit, which it is not.

.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Great thanks for those.

[Besoeker]

gar, on 19 December 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Besoeker:
Yes.

TY. Noted.
Your knowledge should be really useful and constructive in this forum.
You and I know about PFC. And I don't mean this in a negative way, but I'm not sure that it would be terribly meaningful for other posters here.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 19 December 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

TY. Noted.
Your knowledge should be really useful and constructive in this forum.
You and I know about PFC. And I don't mean this in a negative way, but I'm not sure that it would be terribly meaningful for other posters here.

It could be.
As you well know, we've been getting spammed from all over the world, so we have the global reach.
Someone in Bolivia might find it useful too; not just in the states.  

[gar]

Besoeker:

I agree that the ordinary user has no idea what power factor is, and probably can not easily understand its significance.

However, that in my opioion is why some discussion is needed.


For others:

In the United States I do not believe any ordinary residential customer is being charged for bad power factor. Therefore, as a first order approximation, no matter how bad one's power factor is, power factor is of no concern to the customer, and no reason to correct power factor at the main panel.

I believe all normal United States residential customers are billed for energy use plus fees and taxes. Thus, energy, or instantaneously power, use is the parameter to monitor.

The hucksters selling to residential customers energy saving devices that connect to the main panel often times have a display board as follows:

1.  An unloaded (no mechanical load) split phase induction motor is the load, possibly 1/3 HP. A rather bad power factor device in an unloaded condition, worst possible power factor condition.

2.  Their power saving box, about 6" x 6" x 4.5", contains at least a capacitor, and possibly a transient limiter. The box looks real nice and has a UL label. UL is a safety rating, not a performance rating. That UL has listed the device does not mean the device will be of benefit to you.

3.  A switch used to control connection of the power saving device to the motor circuit..

4.  A meter that displays input to the display board. It is possibly a "Kill-A-Watt" or similar instrument. The meter is switched to read volt-amperes, not power. You do not buy amperes, volt-amperes, or volt-ampere-hours. You buy killo-watts, or kilo-watt-hours. Actually you do not buy killo-watts, but kW are related to kWh by time. Thus, an instantaneous measurement of kW is way to estimate kWh.

The demonstration is:

The motor is run without the power saving box connected, and the meter reads a substantial number, like 545 volt-amperes.

Next the saving device is switched in parallel with the motor. The reading drops to possibly 225 volt-amperes. WOW that is a really big saving in electricity. The implication or actual statement is possibly --- see how much less electricity is consumed when the power saving device is connected. Claims might be made that your overall saving at home may be up to 25%. Note the words "up to".

Had this meter been in the watt mode, then there would have been virtually no change in a reading of about 138 watts between the two states, power saver connected and not connected.

These devices are a total fraud for residential customers. One outfit even leases the device for about $10 per month. If your average bill was $100 per month, and you had a 10% saving, then the result would be a wash. But since you won't save anything it is actually an added cost of $10 per month.

.

[Besoeker]

I think the short versions is if someone tries to sell you a device to hook up to your incoming residential supply and promises it will significantly reduce your electrical energy bills it's a scam. Don't fall for it.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

A related site; rollover to see your states electric use.
http://www.huffingto...tml?cps=gravity

[eds]

It's NOT just how many units of electricity you USE,
. . . it's also how much you PAY for each unit of electricity.
People in Louisiana USE, TWICE as much, as people in New York State, each month, and
. . . People in Vermont PAY, TWICE  as much for each unit, as people in Arkansas.
Does that make SOLAR in Vermont worth TWICE as much, as SOLAR in Arkansas,
. . . even if there is less Sun?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

eds, on 06 October 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

It's NOT just how many units of electricity you USE,
. . . it's also how much you PAY for each unit of electricity.
People in Louisiana USE, TWICE as much, as people in New York State, each month, and
. . . People in Vermont PAY, TWICE  as much for each unit, as people in Arkansas.
Does that make SOLAR in Vermont worth TWICE as much, as SOLAR in Arkansas,
. . . even if there is less Sun?

I know; that link kind of blew me away too.
I suppose the difference is fossil fuels vs. renewables.
In my area for instance, people living only 60 miles south can tap into wind but I'm still stuck with coal (same
electric company) and they're building wind turbines in the Texas panhandle like hot cakes. But for me,
no benefit yet.