kill a watt ez

Page 2 of 2  


It does however make a difference if there is a monthly connection fee of say $25. I don't think most people would include this in determining the cost of running a fridge, since you're paying it even if the fridge is turned off and using 0 energy. If you wanted to apportion that $25, it should be apportioned to everything in the house that could use electric, including the jig saw that is only used once a year.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 10:33 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

A connection fee? You mean for the telephone right.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/23/2010 11:20 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Thats exactly as it should be and all taxes/fees should then be explicitly stated as line items. The provider is informing you what they are charging to provide service. They are only acting as a tax collector for the additional charges. This is no different than buying lunch and declaring that the $5 price listed for your sandwich is fraudulent when you pay $5.35 at the register. If you dislike the idea (I do) of weasel politicians applying "taxes we won't notice" on everything then fire them on election day.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

I watched one utility change from an accurate cost per kWh (total bill divided by total kWh used) listing on the bill, to one that excluded taxes and fees from the calculation. During this change, there was no notation of the change in the calculation and this was clearly a move to make the cost of the electric service appear lower to customers who were not paying attention or not good at math. After some time the notation that this cost per kWh did not include taxes or fees mysteriously appeared.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<I snip to here>

I would like to modify this a little:
The total per KWH cost is determined like this:
1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly billing charge, or the like.
Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.
(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.)
2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual per-KWH cost.
(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period. Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and every kWh you used that billing period.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re: kill a watt ez:

That is correct.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/24/2010 3:01 PM, Pete C. wrote:

But not for the purposes of this discussion. Lets say the fixed charges on an account are $20 and the total energy rate is $0.10/kwh. Lets say the current use is 1,000 kwh/mo. That means the bill should be $120 ($20 + 100) or $0.12/kwh per your method. If use was 100 kwh less (or more) how much would the bill be? $110 or $130 respectively not $132 or $108
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity consumption.
Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads increases the cost of unchanged loads.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re: kill a watt ez:

Which is how it is supposed to be.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/24/2010 5:04 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Sure, tiered rates were neglected for simplicity but would need to be considered if. But fixed costs need to be neglected for the purposes of this thread.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Where do you live, and how is the power generated? Where I live (Seattle, hydro) the rates go up for any over a certain amount.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

If you are concerned with the cost/savings for changing any particular appliance, you need to be concerned with the cost of that particular power usage change, which is not affected by the base charge. So no, you don't want to include the base charge.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add them together. As a check, add them, multiply by your usage, add the billing fee or basic charge (if any), and compare to the bottom line.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cj wrote:

You want the total cost. They split it out so they can jack up the rates in a way you won't notice.
If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info you need. You need to fix it. The kill a watt won't tell you any more than that you need to fix it.
Fridge designs vary considerably.
First thing to do is check that it's defrosted. You can usually see the coils in the freezer thru a grille somewhere. The motor that runs the defrost timer can freeze up (pun intended) so the defrost cycle never runs. The evaporator coil gets covered with ice and the efficiency heads for zero. If that's the case, you need to defrost it manually. Even if you fix the timer, the defrost cycle wasn't intended to melt a solid block of ice.
I've had chunks of ice get caught in the inside circulation fan and stop it from turning.
Vacuum the dust off the exterior condenser coils.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote:

This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt is a good idea.
Edward
--
Art Works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

I challenge you to offer up a citation for that; it makes no sense. Running all the time is one sign of a coolant leak.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, it would sure keep the food at a more constant temperature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You dont need to know what you pay to use a kill a watt meter, it stores Watts used over time for at least 100 hours on my old unit, you then find the Gov energy rating to see if you are near in total Kwh used. I bought a sears 19,5 cu ft fring years ago because it had the lowest printed consumption I could find, my testing with a Kill a watt meter showed my usage a bit higher but still it cost me only about $4.50- 4.70 a month from the KAW meter vs $4.30 with the Energy Guide ticket, that I adjusted to my KWH cost. www.energystar.gov has all friges listed by KWH consumed. If your frige is way over in consumption of the rating somethiong is probably wrong, unless everyone keeps the doors open looking for food. The gov rating can be nearly achieved, but you need minimal door opening, a 70 degree room, and not settings on coldest to get that consumption rating. What you KWH cost is is not what they say, it is what you PAY divided by KWH, that will give you how many cents a Killowatt hour costs.
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.