Inventions solve problems. Normally, those solutions are aimed at making the lives of those who will use the invention easier, reducing the effort needed to accomplish whatever the invention will assist them in doing.
But sometimes not. Believe it or not, there is a special class of inventions that make the lives of those who will use them more difficult. By that, we mean more difficult, on purpose. That's because their inventors are really solving a different problem than one that might benefit their intended users.
That was the challenge British inventor Mahabir Gill took on when he invented the Slanty Toilet. With a patent pending in the United Kingdom but not yet issued, Gill has developed a new toilet design that is meant to make it harder to sit while using the invention. All to benefit bosses concerned with employees taking too much time in the loo while at work, where the invention is envisioned as an aid for enhancing workplace productivity.
Gill's company StandardToilet filed its patent application in 2019, but they haven't waited for it to be issued to begin producing several different lines of toilets based on the invention, as can be seen in the following two minute long promotional video:
The IIE team hasn't yet decided if this invention qualifies as something to be cherished for its innovative spirit, or is the outcome of pure, malicious, evil intent.
Speaking of which, there is big news out of Washington D.C. today, as regulations that drove the design and mass production of ineffective dishwashers have been rolled back. It seems the regulators discovered that forcing dishwasher manufacturers to make the devices more energy efficient was both failing to deliver energy savings and increasing the amount of water consumed to wash dishes. Not to mention making the lives of consumers wanting clean dishes more difficult in the process.
Labels: environment, ideas, saving energy, technology
We learned something really surprising about the wind energy industry from President Obama's FY2015 budget proposal. He doesn't believe that the industry will ever be capable of economically sustaining itself.
Here's how we know. Tucked away within the proposal, President Obama is proposing making the wind energy production tax credit permanent.
Mr. Obama’s budget would permanently extend the production tax credit for wind electricity, which expired last year after Congress failed to pass a bill renewing it. Over the next 10 years, the tax credit would cost $19.2 billion, according to the budget plan.
Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) has indicated he wants to pass a bill extending this tax credit and other temporary ones. But it’s unclear whether he has enough support to pass it in the full Senate, and the House seems even less likely to support such a proposal.
Originally established in 1992, the wind energy production tax credit has had a lot to do with fueling the growth of the nation's wind energy generating capacity since its inception. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports just how much the installed capacity for wind has grown in the years from 2000 through 2012, much of which has been enabled by the wind energy production tax credit subsidy:
So with that kind of "success", why does the wind energy industry need a permanent tax credit? After all, the purpose of the tax credit was to greatly accelerate the growth of the nation's installed capacity for wind energy - not to permanently sustain it.
That's why the U.S. Congress is willing to do away with the wind energy industry's tax credit:
This sweetheart deal looks to be on its way out, in part because it succeeded in what it set out to do. Over the past five years, wind has accounted for 36 percent of all new electricity generation installed in the U.S., second only to new natural gas installations. Wind now supplies more than 4 percent of the country’s electricity. At about 60,000 megawatts, there’s enough wind energy capacity to power 15.2 million U.S. homes, a more than twentyfold increase since 2000. It’s still tiny compared to fossil fuel: Combined, coal and natural gas supply roughly two-thirds of U.S. electricity. But wind produces about six times more electricity than solar. That’s led Congress to take steps to do away with tax incentives first established in 1992 to help the fledgling industry take root. In December lawmakers allowed the credit to expire.
The problem though is that for all its apparent success, wind energy is far from being as reliable as the fans of renewable energy would make it seem:
In Texas, the wind tends to blow the hardest in the middle of the night. That’s also when most people are asleep and electricity prices drop, which would be a big problem for the companies that own the state’s 7,690 wind turbines if not for a 20-year-old federal subsidy that effectively pays them a flat rate for making clean energy no matter what time it is. Wind farms, whether privately owned or part of a public utility, receive a $23 tax credit for every megawatt-hour of electricity they generate. (A megawatt-hour is enough juice to power about 1,000 homes for one hour.) This credit, which was worth about $2 billion for all U.S. wind projects in 2013, has helped lower the price of electricity in parts of the country where wind power is prevalent, since wind producers can charge less and still turn a profit. In Texas, the biggest wind-producing state in the U.S., wind farms have occasionally sold electricity for less than zero—that is, they’ve paid to provide power to the grid to undercut the state’s nuclear or coal energy providers.
To find out how reliable wind energy is for utility consumers, we've taken the NREL's data and calculated the average production for the nation's installed wind capacity, which we've presented in the table below:
| U.S. Total Installed Wind Electricity Capacity and Generation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Installed Capacity [MW] | Electricity Generation [MWH] | Average Electricity Produced [MW] | Percentage of Installed Capacity |
| 2000 | 2,578 | 5,593,000 | 638 | 24.8% |
| 2001 | 4,275 | 6,737,000 | 769 | 18.0% |
| 2002 | 4,686 | 10,354,000 | 1,182 | 25.2% |
| 2003 | 6,353 | 11,187,000 | 1,277 | 20.1% |
| 2004 | 6,725 | 14,144,000 | 1,615 | 24.0% |
| 2005 | 9,121 | 17,811,000 | 2,033 | 22.3% |
| 2006 | 11,575 | 26,589,000 | 3,035 | 26.2% |
| 2007 | 16,812 | 34,450,000 | 3,933 | 23.4% |
| 2008 | 25,237 | 55,363,000 | 6,320 | 25.0% |
| 2009 | 35,159 | 73,886,000 | 8,434 | 24.0% |
| 2010 | 40,267 | 94,652,000 | 10,805 | 26.8% |
| 2011 | 46,916 | 120,177,000 | 13,719 | 29.2% |
| 2012 | 60,005 | 140,089,000 | 15,992 | 26.7% |
For our calculation of Average Wind Energy Produced, we divided the total electricity generated by wind by 8,760, which is the number of hours in a year. The result gives us a good indication of how much of the claimed "Installed Capacity" for wind energy was actually realized, for which we've also calculated the percentage.
That math assumes that the wind power generating equipment that has been installed would be running 24 hours a day, which is far from the case, as the strength of the wind varies throughout the course of a day, and also for more mundane reasons, such as the need to perform periodic maintenance, during which the wind turbines are shut down from operating. As such, it does not give an indication of the efficiency at which electricity is generated while the wind turbines are running.
What it does do however is give us a good sense of how reliable wind energy is in generating electricity for utility consumers. From 2000 through 2012, what we find is that wind energy delivered anywhere from 18% to 29% of its installed capacity, demonstrating a considerable degree of unreliability for utility consumers compared to other methods of generating power. Going by the wind energy industry's own claims, instead of powering the equivalent of 15 million American homes, it's actually only powering enough power for somewhere between 2.7 and 4.35 million 8.7 and 14 million of them.
Update 16 March 2014: Michael Goggin of the AWEA trade organization caught an error in our math for the calculation of the equivalent amount of power that would be consumed by a "typical" U.S. household. For the 18-29% range indicated above, we should have found that the amount of power generated through wind energy would be equivalent to that consumed by anywhere from 8.7 to 14 million U.S. homes.
He also indicates that the wind industry installs the bulk of its new capacity near the end of each year, which means our percentage estimates are somewhat understated. Matching the energy actually produced in a given year with the installed capacity reported in the previous year increases the actual realized capacity factor to be between 25% and 38%, which would coincide with an amount of power generated to the equivalent of between 12.1 and 18.4 million U.S. homes, or rather, 15 million homes, give or take 3 million (about 20%).
Unfortunately, the 13 percentage point spread for the 25-38% range that comes from matching a year's actual electricity production with the installed capacity reported in the previous year indicates that wind power is somewhat more variable and less predictable than our original calculation found.
Related corrections are presented in boldface font throughout the remainder of the post.
Put another way, for utility consumers, wind energy is only capable of delivering somewhere between one-fifth to less than one-third of its promise can fall up to 20% short of its promise in a given year. And even then, it doesn't deliver what it produces when it's really needed.
That's why the wind energy industry badly needs its production tax credit to be made permanent:
That the green energy lobby is now working to make the wind energy tax credit a permanent burden upon U.S. taxpayers, even as the industry supporters claim the industry's "success", really means that the entire industry's business model is fatally flawed. In calling to make the tax credit permanent at their behest, President Obama is really communicating on their behalf that the wind energy industry will never be able to sustain itself without it.
A smart investor would recognize these things and cut their losses so they could move on to greener opportunities. Allowing the wind energy industry's tax credit to permanently expire rather than be made a permanent burden for American taxpayers would make that possible.
Alas, President Obama is not a smart investor. Especially where green energy is involved.
Labels: business, math, saving energy
Now, if only all those millions of people that President Obama believes are driving around in cars like these that only get 8 miles per gallon or less would follow Batman's example and trade in their gas guzzler, all will be well in the United States of America!
Previously, and More Seriously, on Political Calculations....
Oil and Gas Prices and the U.S. Economy
- Using Gas Prices to Forecast the Unemployment Trend
- Correlating the Price of Gas and the Unemployment Rate
- Why Are Americans Driving Less?
- U.S. per Capita Oil Consumption Plummets
The Government and Your Gas Tank
- How Much Do You Pay in Gas Taxes?
- Is the Government Subsidizing the Chevy Volt Enough?
- Will Cash for Clunkers Save Gas?
- Are U.S. Ethanol Producers Profitable?
You, Your Life and Your Car
- How Much Does Your Commute Cost You?
- Should You Move Closer to Work to Save Commuting Costs?
- How to Save Money on Gas, Without Driving Less
- How Much Are Higher Gas Prices Really Hurting You?
- Should You Trade in Your Gas Guzzler?
- Is It Worth the Drive?
- Do Hybrids Really Save Money?
- Comparing MPGs for Alternative Fuel Vehicles
- Tangerines by the Gallon
Saving Money by Saving Energy?
Image Credit: ClubRapid.com
Labels: gas consumption, personal finance, saving energy
We recently took a trip to Home Depot, where we saw something that really took us by surprise: a 60-watt light bulb that costs just under 40 dollars!
Keep in mind that it's no ordinary light bulb, nor is it even a standard incandescent light bulb at all. It's really a highly energy efficient light source that uses a number of LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) to produce an amount of light that's very comparable to a standard incandescent bulb, which fits in a standard incandescent light fixture.
Designed and manufactured by Philips, maybe the most unique thing about it is the tint of the bulb, which is a very distinct amber color when it's turned off. That color, believe it or not, actually helps transform the light produced by the LEDs inside the bulb so that it looks very similar to the light produced by a standard incandescent bulb when it's turned on.
But when you consider that we can buy a 4-pack of standard 60-watt incandescent light bulbs from Home Depot for $1.27 (or 31.75 cents per bulb) also manufactured by Philips, how can it possibly make sense to buy Philips' 60-watt replacement LED bulb from Home Depot for $39.97? (Update 10 March 2012: The price is now $24.97 at Home Depot!)
So we built a tool to find out.
Here, we've entered our electric utility's average billing rate of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and 8,760 hours as our projected hours of expected use, which is consistent with having the light continuously on for an entire 365 day long year. (You're welcome to substitute the values that would apply to your scenario!)
We next entered the relevant data for each lighting technology: each light's technology type, its listed power consumption rate, the manufacturer's rated lifetime and also the unit price for one light bulb (which we entered as a fraction for our $1.27 package of 4 standard incandescent bulbs.)
Running these default values, we find that Philips' incandescent bulbs just barely edge out Philips' LED bulb, saving only one cent over that year's worth of continuous use.
If we extend the period of expected usage out to Philips' rated lifetime for the LED bulb of 25,000 hours however, we find that the LED's savings over standard incandescent bulbs turns positive, saving $49.83 over the cost of buying and replacing the much shorter-lived and less energy efficient incandescent bulbs.
So yes, it actually makes economic sense to replace a standard 60-watt incandescent bulb manufactured by Philips with their 60-watt replacement LED bulb! From a style aspect however, we would suggest that they might find their greatest use in lighting fixtures where you don't directly see the bulb when it's turned off. While we appreciate the technological solutions behind its seemingly steampunk-inspired kind of design, we do recognize it may not be for those who prefer the aesthetics of standard incandescent bulbs!
How Does That Compare to Compact Fluorescent Lights?
Once again, we returned to the light section at Home Depot to seek out another Philips product, so that we can consider different products made by the same manufacturer and obtainable from the same source, but this time, a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL): the Energy-Saver 14-Watt Natural Light Twister CFL, which costs $5.47 per unit, consumes 14 watts of power and is rated to last 10,000 hours.
We then adapted our tool to consider the finding by utility giant Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) that CFLs typically only last two-thirds as long as the lifespan for which they're rated. At present, it appears that LEDs are capable of lasting as long as their lifespan ratings, but never-the-less, if not, Philips offers a minimum 3-year warranty for their LED 60-watt incandescent replacement product, which we note would suggest that they're really capable of at least 26,280 hours of continuous use.
Running those numbers for a direct comparison between Philips CFL and LED products, we found that CFLs would appear to have a clear economic advantage over the LED technology, saving $27.85 over a one-year long period (8,760 hours), which drops to $14.72 over the full-rated lifespan of Philips 60-watt equivalent LED bulb.
But we must also recognize that there is a big difference between these lights - specifically, how much light each produces.
Here, Philips' CFL produces just 650 lumens, which compares to 800 lumens pumped out by Philips LED bulb. Or to put it in non-technical terms, it's about 20% less bright, which you can see in the image to the right (the LED is on the left-hand side, while the CFL is on the right.) By contrast, Philips' standard incandescent bulbs produce 860 lumens, which means that the CFL only puts out 75% of the amount of light in comparison to that, while the LED is within 7% of producing the same physical amount of light.
Beyond the lesser amount of light, CFLs typically grow dimmer over time, take a noticeable amount of time to "warm up" to their full light output, and work less well in cold environments. Another factor to consider is that CFLs are much worse for the environment, because they contain mercury, which requires special disposal procedures that must be followed whenever a CFL is replaced or is broken - the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's instructions for cleaning up or disposing of CFLs are two pages long.
Experience has taught us to not be fans of CFLs, whose use is just not as brainy as they're often made out to be. When we might switch from incandescent light technology, we would recommend moving to LED lighting technology, especially as their unit prices fall over time.
And hopefully, the producers of LED bulbs are already hard at work at making more classically-inspired designs! As it stands, it would appear that Philips is on track to win the U.S. Department of Energy's L-Prize, which only considers technical performance.
Elsewhere on the Web
Buildaroo offers Yaakov Albietz' review of Philips EnduraLED 60-watt replacement bulb and Daily Home Renovation Tips did a side-by-side comparison of the light-emitting performance of Philips' CFL and LED products. Marc Gunther notes that Philips is currently offering a $10 mail-in cash rebate to entice new buyers! (We'll let you run the numbers associated with getting that rebate on your own, but let's just say that if you're still willing to get by on 150 lumens worth of less light from a CFL to get the savings over the LED product, your money situation is a lot tighter than you likely want to admit.)
Perhaps the definitive guide to the issues associated with CFLs was put together by Paul Wheaton of permaculture.
Also, David Tufte considers the concept of operating leverage as it applies in choosing a specific technology like CFLs over incandescent or LEDs, where the technology chosen is later found to not live up to its promise.
Image Credits
Philips and Daily Home Renovation Tips.
Labels: environment, personal finance, saving energy, tool
You might not have thought about it, but one of the biggest problems with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) is that unlike incandescent light bulbs, they just don't lend themselves to symbolic use as a metaphor for innovation. In fact, creativity expert and author of A Whack on the Side of the Head: How You Can Be More Creative Richard von Oech even offered a death notice for the light bulb's role in communicating new ideas:
Today, I'm announcing the death of a long time metaphor for creativity and innovation: the light bulb.
If you think about it, it's really quite amazing that a 125-year-old invention has had such longevity as a symbol for fresh thinking.
Imagine, for example, if the Long Play (LP) phonograph album (the 33 RPM version popularized in the 1950s) had become the metaphor for "new ideas." It would have been laughed out of existence no later than the early 1980s.
This hit home to me in a recent conversation I had with an art director with one of my publishers. We were reviewing cover mock-ups for one of my upcoming projects. One of them had a light bulb — symbolizing a "new idea."
I told her: "We can't use the light bulb for two reasons. First, it's a very, very, very old metaphor for a new idea. And second, the environmentalists are going to vilify the incandescent light bulb in coming years."
So long, trusty innovation metaphor. You served well! But it's time to find something new.
It's taken over three years since Roger first recognized the need for a new symbol for new ideas, but finally, Belarus-based industrial design firm Solovyovdesign rose to the occasion by re-imagining the original concept (via Core77):
If only CFL's themselves were as bright an idea as the illuminating and money-saving answer that they've been made out to be....
Labels: ideas, saving energy
Have you seen your power bill lately? Are you happy with it?
If like many people, you have and you're not, to answer both questions in order, perhaps you might find the appeal of saving the money you currently send to the power utility companies each month by generating your own power directly from the sun to be a pretty compelling idea.
And why not? It's a technology that can provide the energy you want while cutting your bill and is currently believed to be good for the environment (you know environmentalists - sooner or later, they'll find something wrong with it.)
But does it make sense to go solar?
Warren Meyer has been weighing the costs and benefits of going solar at his home in Phoenix, Arizona, perhaps the sunniest major city in the United States. If going solar can be made to work economically anywhere in the U.S., Phoenix would be at the top of the list of places that would benefit. He found that going solar could work, but only if U.S. and Arizona taxpayers chipped in and helped him. A lot:
For this analysis, I will use the prices here. The $72,167 cost for a 11.76 kW system is pretty competitive at $6.13 per watt installed (this is rated watts, not actual — see footnote). The panels themselves can be bought for about $3 per watt, with about $1 a watt for other equipment like inverters and $2 per watt for installation. Do-it-yourself packages for a similar size system are here and go for around $4-$4.50 per watt.
The solar company estimates that this system in Phoenix will save me$2,779 a year on my electric bill. I have not checked their math, but I assume they are not under-estimating this number in their marketing literature. Taking this savings, we get a payback on the installation of about 26 years. This ignores future electricity price increases, but also ignores the time value of money. At 8% over 20 years, it has a net present value of NEGATIVE $41,558. At the end of the day, this is a terrible return — in fact a huge value destruction.
But I began this post saying a solar investment might make sense. How? Well, that is where your willingness to reach into your neighbor’s pocket comes in. Our solar company estimates the following tax breaks and rebates on the system described above:
- Utility rebate: $35,280
- State income tax credit: $1,000
- Federal income tax credit: $21,650
So, in building this $72,167 improvement on my house, I get to use $57,930 of other peoples’ money**. As Steve Martin says in The Jerk: "That takes the pressure off!"
Like in many other cases, other peoples' money suddenly makes solar a good investment. Now we are looking at $2,779 a year in savings from a net investment of $14,237, or about a five year payback. Over 20 years even assuming no inflation and an 8% cost of money that has an NPV of $12,081.
So — I officially reverse my past conclusions that home solar does not pay. It can in fact be a good investment — for you.
We wondered about that math however. What if utilities increase their rates over time? Wouldn't that make going solar today more beneficial, since the potential savings would grow over time as well?
The most recent trend we can find for Phoenix indicates that the cost to consumers of buying electricity has been rising steadily for years. In a series of general rate increases from 2002 to 2008, Arizona utility SRP increased the rate it charges its customers by 26.7% in three separate increases, which suggests an average compound annualized rate of increase of 4.0%.
If that rate of increase continues, that could be a pretty significant savings for a homeowner going solar. We next went to SRP's web site to find out what kind of deal we might be able to get through them. Here's what we found:
Solar electric system
When you install a solar electric system, SRP will help defray your cost with an incentive of $2.70 per watt, up to $13,500 (through April 30, 2010). Here's an example of the costs and incentives associated with the installation of a system:
Size Typical cost1 SRP solar incentive Arizona tax credit2 Federal tax credit3 Net cost Annual savings4 Simple payback 5 kW $35,000 $13,500 $1,000 $6,450 $14,050 $720 20 years
- Costs may vary depending upon the contractor and materials you select.
- The Arizona tax credit is 25% of the cost, capped at $1,000.
- The federal tax credit is 30% of cost, less the SRP incentive.
- Savings are calculated based on an annual solar energy production of 1,600 kWh per kW-DC at $0.09 per kWh, and will vary based on the size of the system installed, orientation and energy consumption.
Sure, it's not the 11.76 kW system that Warren investigated, but let's say this 5.00 kW system offered by the utility company suits our Phoenix homeowner's needs. We'll assume that the utility rate goes up by 4.0% per year, which means the annual benefits provided by the system would steadily increase in value by that amount.
On the other side of that coin however is the effect of depreciation - the fact that any system we might choose to install will decrease in value over time. Here, we'll assume that all the incentives and tax credits for installing the system are enough to offset much of the effects of depreciation that the system will have over its lifetime. Since those subsidies reduce the cost of the system by $20,950, or almost 60% of its original value, we'll assume that the unit depreciates in value at a steady rate of 1.0% per year over its useful life, which we'll assume also incorporates the costs of maintaining the system. So, after 20 years, the unit would be worth 20% of its original value.
We'll note that losing 80% of its value over a 20 year period is equivalent to a straight line depreciation of 4.0% per year. Without the subsidies, the effects of depreciation would completely cancel out the benefits of increased savings of energy costs. For our purposes though, we care about the net rate of appreciation, which we find as the difference between the rate at which the benefits increase each year and our assumed rate of depreciation: 4.0% - 1.0%, or 3.0%.
Finally, there's the issue of the cost of money over time. Here, we'll assume that cost is reflected by the average rate of a home equity loan, such as a homeowner might take out for the purpose of raising the cash needed to cover their costs of installing the system. From Bankrate.com, we found an average 8.228% rate for home equity loans in the Phoenix-Mesa market, which we'll use as our cost of money.
Does solar make more sense now? Let's find out:
Using our default data, we find that in terms of profitability, our hypothetical homeowner would nearly break even.
We find then that installing the system just barely makes sense for our hypothetical Phoenix homeowner, especially if they can reasonably expect that their power bills might go up at a faster rate over time or if they can get a lower cost of money.
But let's not forget the taxpayers and the utility company! It costs them $20,950 to obtain the same benefits for the homeowner. Replacing the default data for the Cost of Buying and Installing System with figure reveals that they are underwater in this deal to the extent of -1.8%.
As a result, we find that with currently available technology, even in Phoenix, Arizona, the one major city in the U.S. where it would provide the biggest bang for the buck, and even with massive subsidies, going solar for homeowners is overall a losing proposition.
Warren Meyer came to a similar conclusion for his considerations:
For the country, it is a terrible investment. Your neighbors are contributing $57,930 in subsidies while you receive just $12,081 in benefits. The remainder, just over $45,000, is a dead-weight loss to the economy. It is money destroyed by the government.
This is surprisingly like the ethics problem of pulling a lever to get a million dollars but someone you don’t know in China dies. The only difference is that you get $12,000 and someone you don’t know loses $58,000.
You're more than welcome to use our tool above to determine if the technology you're considering is worth it for you.
For our part, we played with the numbers and found that a system that can produce $720.00 in annual savings, with a net rate of appreciation of 0.0% (assuming the increase in annual savings and depreciation balance each other out) and at the same cost of money would need to cost just $8,750 to buy and install for the homeowner to break even. Such a system would not create any deadweight loss or produce any distortions into the economy through subsidies, as they would not be needed.
Clearly, politicians seeking to create or enhance such subsidies have other priorities....
Labels: economics, environment, personal finance, saving energy, tool
is this lousy review of their top 10 suggestions for slowing climate change! Whether it's halting global warming, stopping the next ice age, or no climate change at all, how effective are Yahoo!'s suggestions at reducing climate change? Let's get right to it, shall we?
1. Change a Light Bulb. Really. Yahoo! led off with a good suggestion here. We did the math and can show that that Compact Fluorescent (CF) lamps do, in fact, use substantially less energy than incandescent light bulbs and, more importantly, saves dollars in the long run.
But will replacing your regular incandescent light bulb with a CF lamp decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
2. Leave Your Car in the Dust. We're pretty sure that Yahoo! doesn't mean that you should leave your car unwashed. Instead, the idea here is that you should carpool or take public transportation. The good news is that you can save some money by doing so. The bad news is that unless you live within easy walking distance between where your preferred mode of public transportation goes and everywhere you actually need to go, you'll lose more time (remember, time = money!) than you might save. Doubly so if your public transportation option stops everywhere public transportation stops. Then again, if you lived in a linear city, it might be worth it!
So, will leaving your car in the dust decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
3. Power Up. Yahoo! suggests that you get your electricity from "green" power producing resources. Did you know some power companies sell consumers electricity that has been produced using renewable resources, such as wind or solar-generated power, and will even give you the option of purchasing electricity for your home use that are specifically produced at these facilities for just a small premium above the regular price! The best part? The electricity that the utility delivers looks just like the same stuff that's produced by burning carbon-based fuels, but we're sure that you will be able to tell the difference.
Will buying your electricity from these sources decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
4. Drive Smart. You could drive a hybrid car or some other alternative fuel vehicle. Or, more interestingly, you could buy something called a TerraPass, which offsets the impact of the emissions produced by your car by decreasing emissions from other sources. So, for instance, you could buy a TerraPass, and the TerraPass people might go out and shoot a cow. That's right. A volatile-organic-compound-emitting cow. Dead. Well, on second thought, that's probably not what they would do, even though I'm pretty sure they enjoy hamburgers as much as the rest of us. Well, okay, maybe they don't enjoy hamburgers either....
Will any of these options decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
5. End the Junk Mail Trail. Yahoo! says we can save trees and the energy used in paper production by taking our names off the mailing lists of the direct-mail advertisers. Seeing as the trees used in paper production are pretty much grown like crops for the purpose, I wonder what crop might replace them. Still there's that energy used in paper production that might be saved. Or used elsewhere. I don't think the Yahoo! people put all that much thought into this one, although that shouldn't stop you from taking your name of mailing lists - it's rather nice to just get mail from people billing you.
Will taking your name of mailing lists decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
6. Power Down. Shut down your computer when you're not using it. Yahoo! claims you could save from $100 to $400 a year in electricity costs by doing so! Of course, if you're burning through that much electricity, it probably means you're due for an upgrade since today's computers are Energy Star compliant, meaning they power themselves down to a fraction of their active electricity consumption when not in use.
Will powering down your computer while you're not using it decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
7. Buy Local. According to Yahoo!, produce grown in the U.S. travels 1500 miles, on average, to reach your grocery store. Yahoo! goes on to say that you can "save on fuel by buying from local growers," or by creating "your own community garden."
This suggestion shows why Yahoo!'s climate change reducing suggestion Number 2 doesn't compute. Even if it travels 1500 miles, produce travels by the foodstuff equivalent of public transportation. Replacing this transportation with the thousands of trips that the fellow members of your community would need to make to support local growers really doesn't make a whole bunch of sense - especially when you multiply those thousands by thousands of communities. Plus, you need to consider that all of you are getting city mileage instead of eco-friendly highway mileage! Unless, that is, you're driving that hybrid from suggestion Number 4.
The community garden idea is a nice one though, and you should give it serious consideration when deciding what crop to put in the space that your community is currently using to grow trees for paper production for its junk mail.
Will buying local reduce climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
8. Geek Out. Well, the list was created by the people at Yahoo! But seriously, their suggestion is that you use portable solar power generating cells to charge your personal electronic accessories. We think that's a neat option and when all electronic assessories are equipped with built-in solar cells and sufficient battery life to last through the night, we'll upgrade as needed. Then again, according to Yahoo!, we could pay the power company a little extra to only provide us electricity produced through solar power generating facilities that we can't tell apart from electricity produced through other means. Either way, geeky.
Will geeking out by charging up your personal electronic accessories with solar power sources decrease climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
9. Wash and Wear. We like this one! The newest and most efficient washing machines use a lot less energy than older ones. We like modern technology and newer, more efficient products that also save labor rank highly with us. Yahoo! also recommends that we line-dry our clothes, which is nice if you have the time and space to do so, and neighbors that don't mind seeing your laundry hanging outside your home for extended periods of time doesn't hurt either.
But, will getting a new washer and line-drying your clothes reduce climate change? No. At least, not in any measurable way.
10. Chip In. No, it's not enough to follow Yahoo!'s suggestions - you must give money to the organizations that are hard at work at reducing climate change. They've been at it for quite some time now, so if you must give your limited supply of money to just one of these organizations, you should give it to the one that can prove, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that it has slowed climate change the most. And why not? That's the highly effective organization that deserves your money the most.
I think you know, by now, what comes next....
Labels: environment, saving energy
Yes, we here at Political Calculations(TM) are willing to launch a post with a bad pun that might have found a better home on Roger L. Simon's blog, but that's the price we're willing to pay to introduce a new tool that you can use to save more money!
Today's new tool was inspired by a post at the Blueprint for Financial Prosperity that considered the potential advantages of switching to Compact Fluorescent (CF) lamps in place of traditional Incandescent bulbs.
The data you need to enter in the tool below is pretty straightforward, so we'll let you get right to it with just a couple of notes:
- We've entered the figure 8760 hours in the Time Period of Operation, which represents the number of hours in a 365 day year. You should enter the hours of use that you would expect to get out of the light fixture that will use the bulbs you're considering.
- We've provided a table with various bulb and lamp data that we obtained from a variety of sources, which you'll find below the tool. Data for the Incandescent bulb and the most expensive listed CF lamp have been entered as default data in the tool.
And that's it! It's now time to see if CF lamps make sense for you!
More About Incandescents and Compact Fluorescents
The math for comparing different bulbs and lamps, as well as the basics about Compact Fluorescent lamps and Incandescent Light Bulbs, is all available at Wikipedia.
The following table containing cost and product data was extracted from a variety of sources on March 6, 2006 and may not reflect current information.
| Indoor Lamps | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamp Type (Model) | Wattage (W) | Light Output (lumens) | Average Life (hours) | Price ($) |
| Incandescent (Standard) | 60 | 800 | 1000 | 0.60 |
| CF (2670K) | 13 | 900 | 10000 | 2.50 |
| Incandescent (Halogen) | 60 | 1080 | 3000 | 3.00 |
| CF (2600K) | 23 | 1600 | 8000 | 4.00 |
| CF (2700K/82CRI) | 26 | 1580 | 10000 | 5.00 |
| Indoor/Outdoor Flood Lamps | ||||
| Lamp Type (Model) | Wattage (W) | Light Output (lumens) | Average Life (hours) | Price ($) |
| Incand. (Halogen) PAR 38 Flood | 100 | 1400 | 2000 | 5.00 |
| CF PAR 38 Flood | 23 | 1300 | 6000 | 5.00 |
Labels: saving energy, tool
Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at:
ironman at politicalcalculations
Thanks in advance!
Closing values for previous trading day.
This site is primarily powered by:
CSS Validation
RSS Site Feed
JavaScript
The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.
Other Cool Resources
Blog Roll
