California to slay the vampire

Page 1 of 3  
"California's cellphones, tablet computers, power tools and hundreds of other portable electronic devices will be required to have energy-stingy battery chargers beginning next year. The California Energy Commission, by a 3-0 vote Thursday, approved first-in-the-nation efficiency standards designed to drive stakes through the hearts of about 170 million so-called vampire charging systems that waste as much as 60% of the electricity they suck from outlets."
"The regulations... are expected to save enough electricity to power 350,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Bakersfield."
In my view, Californians would be better off to eliminate Bakersfield. If you've ever been there, you know what I mean.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-regulates-energy-vampires-20120112,0,3477814.story
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/13/2012 6:08 AM, HeyBub wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-regulates-energy-vampires-20120112,0,3477814.story
of chargers waste 60 percent of the electricity used, one or ninety. The electricity saved would be enough to power Bakersfield, continuously, for five minutes? My guess is that most of this is aimed at Leds on chargers. I know some years ago one of my kids had to do a project to determine how much electricity was wasted by the Led "demons" around the house. I think we came up with a figure of $5 annually. I suppose I could claim that if I eliminated all my chargers and Led demons, I could power Bakersfield as well, albeit only for a nanosecond.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
From what I can figure, they have prevented the construction of new power plants, and now they are going after the trivial little bittsies instead?
Sounds like they need a Texan to come in, and tell em what they are doing wrong.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
"California's cellphones, tablet computers, power tools and hundreds of other portable electronic devices will be required to have energy-stingy battery chargers beginning next year. The California Energy Commission, by a 3-0 vote Thursday, approved first-in-the-nation efficiency standards designed to drive stakes through the hearts of about 170 million so-called vampire charging systems that waste as much as 60% of the electricity they suck from outlets."
"The regulations... are expected to save enough electricity to power 350,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Bakersfield."
In my view, Californians would be better off to eliminate Bakersfield. If you've ever been there, you know what I mean.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-regulates-energy-vampires-20120112,0,3477814.story
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Speaking of vampires and Texans, here's a little factoid that may save your life.
If you read Bram Stoker's book, "Dracula," you'll find that a wooden stake in the heart is pure Hollywood bullshit. Stoker asserted that the only way to dispatch a vampire was with a BOWIE KNIFE, not some pissant tent-peg!
I'm in Texas. We have a LOT of Bowie Knives in the state and hardly any vampire problem at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cause? I'd like you to meet effect.. (g)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Garlic chases off vampires and evil women.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

must be an interesting process that you use to figure. new windmills and pv installations are either going up or in the planning/permitting process and that doesn't include all the industrial plants that use steam going to co-gen plants.
of course it's a whole lot cheaper to not build a power plant when you can provide the comparable amount of negawatts by the use of conservation. it's also better for the grid as it decentralizes power production

But do make sure it is gov perry that does all that explaining
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Giggle. Those who think we can run this country - or a significant part of it - off of sunbeams (or windmills) are disturbed.
Don't get me wrong, these alternatives do have their use, mainly in helping liberals feel good.
It's interesting to note that the Dutch long ago switched from windmills to electric pumps. So much for THAT idea.
As for PVs, the amount of the sun's radiation falling on the earth is about 1350 watts / sq meter. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.
Assuming a PV collector running at 50% efficiency (ha!) and adjusting for latitude, 12 hours of darkness, clouds, etc., it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to provide 55GW of power just for California*. Can you imagine the cost to construct 1200 sq miles of anything? Let alone maintenance.
The bright side (pardon the pun) is that everybody in Los Angeles would be living in the dark.
--
* Of course this was before the recent plan to ban inefficient battery
chargers.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and just exactly how many new power plants have they built in the last 30 years?

but really you only need to replace the equivalent of a power plant here and there and there are plenty of office buildings in LA and elsewhere where you could cover the roof with significant amounts of PV that would power a percentage of the building plus provide cooling in the form of shade AND then provide electricity on the 175 days a year that the office building isn't being used
As far as maintenance, how much maintenance (speciality of course) would a nuke plant require compared to the easy to manage maintenance of PVs?
--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I don't know. Sufficiently many, I presume.

You make a good point; electricity for an office building is severely curtailed at night. So, let's figure it out.
Last week, the first "skyscraper" to be built outside of downtown Houston was blown up. Using it as an example, let's do some math.
The building was 20 stories and comprised 500,000 sq ft. That's 25,000 sq ft per floor and, presumably, the roof. That's a bit more than 2300 sq meters. If the building was at the equator, it would receive almost 800,000 watts of radiation from the sun. Adjusting for latitude (-30%) and efficiency of the solar collectors (~30% tops), we get total usable energy of about 167,000 watts. Cloud cover - an unknown - would diminish the value further.*
A modern building will draw on the order of 1.5 million watts (6MW for 2 million sq ft).
So, then, a back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates the the roof of our departed building could reduce its energy requirements by 11%. But at an installation cost of $4.00/watt, we're in the neighborhood of $650,000.00. Saving $0.15/kwh contrasted with the opportunity cost of 650 thou (earned interest), I doubt the project would EVER pay for itself.
But it would make liberals "feel" better.
--
* Using the average insolation values for Texas, the amount of energy is 4
kwh/m^2.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you're not factoring in the savings in cooling from the shading of the roof.

oh, the repubs would love it: all the jobs it would create and they wouldn't be minimum wage like most of them in Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a 4Kw PV grid tie array myself on the roof. It generates about as much electricity as I use. Due to subsidy i make around $1,500/yr profit from it. Roofs are otherwise wasted space. I export by day and import by night. Insolation here (UK)maxes out at around 1000w/m2 Efficiency is around 12%,depends on temperature and age. As I type,(10.00) it is doing around 2Kw ,it will probably max out today at around 2.75Kw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-regulates-energy-vampires-20120112,0,3477814.story Without any data to back me up, I venture that the chargers are not the biggest culprits. Every thing you own that has a remote control as a feature represents a larger device that is sucking up power in its standby state.Think about TVs, receivers, ceiling fans, CD players, recorders, set top boxes etc.
And then there are clocks of all kinds on microwave ovens, regular ovens, clocks (including alarm and radio) and computers that are set to wake up on call or LAN.
Anyway, you get the idea. Do your own count around the house.
Charlie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Evan wrote:

You have an excellent point. California is way more populated that Texas, but in some ways the two states can be compared.
Texas is not connected to the two national power grids; it imports no electrical power. The state is entirely self-sufficient in that regard.
Now what if California decided, or it was decided for them, to be power independent?
It wouldn't be so bad - California has an agreeable climate, so the folks wouldn't be freezing in the dark. They would, however, have to subsist on nuts and berries.
Interesting concept.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

except that per capita use of electricity in California is at least 10% less than that of Texas
of course Texas does produce approximately 10% of it's electricity from wind which is more than 6 times what California does

Not so: The $40 million HVDC back-to-back tie connects the state power grid of Texas and the national power grid of Mexico, operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Comisin Federal de Electricidad (CFE) respectively. It enables 150 MW of power to be transferred in either direction and allows each grid to support the other during peak demand and grid emergencies. It is also equipped with short-term overload capacity in excess of its continuous rating of 150 MW.
Imagine how low the price of electricity would be in Texas if they were as diligent about conservation as California
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 14, 12:35am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

You mean like how getting 2x the mileage now on cars that we used to get brought us low gas prices? Not that I'm against conserving where it makes sense, just that to think conservartion equals low electricity prices doesn't equate. For example, if CA has conserved so much, and knows so much, why do they have the highest electricity rates in the country? I guess that's what ticks me off about this whole thing. You have a state that is the most screwed in the country trying to force companies, and hence the rest of us, into doing things their way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

California doesn't control the world supply of oil nor does it control world demand nor even the speculators that benefit from high oil prices.

For as long as I can remember, that hasn't been the case. Negawatts are almost always cheaper than megawatts and the case here has been more about cost avoidance (when the power companies were given cost plus guarantees for their rates and thus were de-incentivised to be efficient) and environmental concerns.

they don't, not even close: http://www.kaec.org/images/stand/0607_RateMap.pdf

no one is forcing you to be energy efficient. there are more than enough choices out there for you to be in hog heaven and you won't break a single law
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

100-watt lightbulbs anyone?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wonder if the drug dealers will go into 100 watt light bulbs as a sideline?
Crack cocaine, heroin, and 100 watt light bulbs. All at the street corner. Tell em Stormin Mormon sent you.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

100-watt lightbulbs anyone?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

two 50 watt light bulbs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.