Range clock - Disconnect it!

Page 9 of 12  
"Seerialmom" wrote in message

Right. I had an old component stereo main amplifier which would lose its settings if I removed the power from it. So in that case I put everything else on a power strip and turned those off, but left the main amplifier plugged in. Then it did not lose its settings. Later I got a new model which remembers its settings and this is now on the power strip. I turn off power to it when not in use.
So if it is something which is a pain to reset after it is unplugged, then leave it plugged in. If your not using the clock and it remembers its other settings when power is removed, then put that on a power strip and remove power when not in use. If you use the clock/timer, leave it plugged in.
Note: Do not unplug a VCR with the tape still inside! Always eject the tape first before removing power. Otherwise the tape can jamb.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill wrote:

So now you can't use the oven timer, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply" wrote in message

Right I can't use the oven timer. BUT I am no Julia Child! I have burned boiled chicken. In other words I would never use an oven timer nor would I ever use the clock on a range.
By the way my electric bill last month was $32. This is because of doing many little things like the above, buying new Energy Star appliances (use less energy), use compact fluorescent light bulbs everywhere, use woodstove for heating, have beefed up insulation on house, installed Energy Star windows, and turn off power to electronic things when not in use (with power strip).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It saves fuck all.

Nope.
Thats the real reason your bill dropped significantly, and that was nothing like a little thing, and wasnt cheap to do either.

Thats nothing like a little thing either.

Or those in spades.

That saved you fuck all and using switch mode wall warts is a MUCH more practical approach because you dont have to fart around turning stuff off all the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So having done this...was your electric bill substantially smaller the next month?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Seerialmom" wrote in message

Actually I have been working on saving on my electric bill for many years now. One year I might buy a new Energy Star appliance. The next install more insulation. Year after that put everything on power strips, etc.
So I have not noticed any one big drop in my electric use at any one time. (Except when I replaced an old window air conditioner with a new one.) Basically my electric use has been slowly dropping as I learn about saving electricity on misc.consumers.frugal-living or http://www.energystar.gov then make a few changes here and there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This guy is years ahead of his time. Someday we will all be scraping the bottom of the savings barrel this fastidiously. Well at least I hope not. By the time the oil really runs out, we should be getting most of our electricity from various green sources.

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

Nope.
Nope.
The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2 produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

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

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/2008 12:58 PM Rod Speed spake thus:

Yep (meaning "I agree with you"). But I don't understand why you seem so sre that we'll be using this decidedly non-green source when so many other truly green sources have such better chances of not only providing practical power but also doing it economically. (Specifically: solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, tide [being proposed for the San Francisco Bay Area], cogeneration, recovered landfill methane, small-head hydro, etc.)
Not only that, but doing it in a truly distributed fashion, allowing better matches between sources and loads.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The reason is that they dont.

None of those provide base load power.

That isnt available to enough countrys to be able to provide the bulk of their base load power.

Cant provide anything like what any modern first world country needs.

The entire power system of a modern first world country is never about that anymore. Its actually about using the entire system to help with the deficiencys of all of those allegedly green power sources.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

See above...removes almost all the issues the greens are complaining about in an economical, reliable form.
> ... But I don't understand why you seem so

'Cause they don't have the energy density and reliability required for replacement of baseload generation on the scale required. Every where I've been the sun still goes down at night when lights are wanted, wind isn't reliable (I just published in earlier thread results of analysis of large wind farm in W KS which is highest US area for wind suitability and it has only produced at less than half installed capacity on average for six years with several _months_ of operation at roughly 20%).
The other sources you listed are even smaller contributors and are even more limited in their availabilities other than waste methane which is, while widely distributed, still a relatively small source.
The problem w/ the "green" plans has always been and remains one of confusing wishing for it to be so w/ making it actually work in practical and economical manner. These all have their place but there is still a need and will always unless there is some truly revolutionary breakthrough for baseload, 24/7 reliable generation.

Can you say expensive?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

Yep...solves C sequestration, can regenerate more fuel than burned, etc., etc., etc., ...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope...
There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.
In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually stupid enough to not just encase it in concrete and leave it there.
Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thats not what being a green source is about.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

And why not, pray tell? Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and disposal is the epitome of "green". Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active "greenies" consider but for the most part they have very myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making considered evaluations of the whole process and end results including, of course, reliability and economic considerations.
Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO. There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is predictable. The point is, while these sources are of value and have low direct input fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what is or isn't "green".
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is the most bullshit pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever seen.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
max wrote:

In what way? I'll be glad to share the data (again) and discuss it any way you please...
--



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.