Efficient Earth

How much money is saved by turning off the lights?

sleeper — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:57:09 +0000

Some great information from Energysavers.gov.

When to Turn Off Your Lights

The cost effectiveness of when to turn off lights depends on the type of lights and the price of electricity. The type of light is important for several reasons. All types of lights have a nominal or rated operating life, which is the total number of hours that they will provide a specified level or amount of light. However, the operating life of all types of light bulbs is affected by how many times they are turned on and off. The more often they are switched on and off, the lower their operating life. The exact number of hours that switching lights on and off reduces the total operating life depends on the type of light and how many times it is switched on and off.

Incandescent Lighting

Incandescent lights (or bulbs) should be turned off whenever they are not needed. Nearly all types of incandescent light bulbs are fairly inexpensive to produce and are relatively inefficient. Only about 10%–15% of the electricity that incandescent lights consume results in light—the rest is turned into heat. Turning the light(s) off will keep a room cooler, an extra benefit in the summer. Therefore, the value of the energy saved by not having the lights on will be far greater than the cost of having to replace the bulb.

Fluorescent Lighting

The cost effectiveness of turning fluorescent lights off to conserve energy is a bit more complicated. For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes, it is probably more cost effective to turn the light off. Or in other words, if you leave the room for only up to 15 minutes, it will generally be more cost effective to leave the light(s) on. In areas where electric rates are high and/or during peak demand periods, this period may be as low as 5 minutes.

Fluorescent lights are more expensive to buy, and their operating life is more affected by the number of times they are switched on and off, relative to incandescent lights. Therefore, it is a cost trade-off between saving energy and money by turning a light off “frequently” and having to replace the bulbs “more” frequently. This is because the reduction in usable lamp life due to frequent on/off switching will probably be greater than the benefit of extending the useful life of the bulb from reduced use. By frequent we mean turning the light off and on many times during the day.

It is a popularly held belief that fluorescent lights use a “lot” of energy to get started, and thus it is better not to turn them off for “short” periods. There is an increase in power demand when a light is switched on, and the exact amount of this increase depends on the type of ballast and lamp. The ballast provides an initial high voltage for starting the lamp and regulates the lamp current during operation. There are three basic types of ballasts: magnetic (of which there are energy-efficient and not so energy-efficient types), cathode-disconnect, and electronic. All types can operate two or more lamps simultaneously. There are three main methods that are used in a lamp’s ballast to start the lamp: preheat, rapid-start, and instant-start.

In any case, the relatively higher “inrush” current required lasts for half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second. The amount of electricity consumed to supply the inrush current is equal to a few seconds or less of normal light operation. Turning off fluorescent lights for more than 5 seconds will save more energy than will be consumed in turning them back on again. Therefore, the real issue is the value of the electricity saved by turning the light off relative to the cost of relamping a fixture. This in turn determines the shortest cost-effective period for turning off a fluorescent light.

The value of the energy saved by turning a fluorescent light (or array of lights) off depends on several factors. The price an electric utility charges its customers depends on the customer “classes,” which are typically residential, commercial, and industrial. There can be different rate schedules within each class. Some utilities may charge different rates for electricity consumption during different times of the day. It generally costs more for utilities to generate power during certain periods of high demand or consumption, called peaks. Some utilities can charge commercial and industrial customers more per kilowatt-hour (kWh) during peak periods than for consumption off-peak. Some utilities may also charge a base rate for a certain level of consumption and higher rates for increasing blocks of consumption. Often a utility adds miscellaneous service charges, a base charge, and/or taxes per billing period that could be averaged per kWh consumed, if these are not already factored into the rate.

Energy Savings

To calculate the exact value of energy savings by turning a light off, you need to first determine how much energy the light(s) consume when on. Every bulb has a Watt rating printed on it. For example, if the rating is 40 watts, and the bulb is on for one hour, it will consume 0.04 kWh, or if it is off for one hour, you will be saving 0.04 kWh. (Note that many fluorescent fixtures have two or more bulbs. Also, one switch may control several fixtures—an “array.” Add the savings for each fixture to determine the total energy savings.)

Then you need to find out what you are paying for electricity per kWh (in general and during peak periods). You will need to look over your electricity bills and see what the utility charges per kWh. Multiply the rate per kWh by the amount of electricity saved, and this will give you the value of the savings. Continuing with the example above, let us say that your electric rate is 10 cents per kWh. The value of the energy savings would then be 0.4 cents ($ 0.004). The value of the savings will increase the higher the watt rating of the bulb, the greater the number of bulbs controlled by a single switch, and the higher the rate per kWh.

The most cost-effective length of time that a light (or array of lights) can be turned off before the value of the savings exceeds the cost of having to replace bulbs (due to their shortened operating life) will depend on the type and model of bulb and ballast. The cost of replacing a bulb (or ballast) depends on the cost of the bulb and the cost of labor to do it.

Lighting manufacturers should be able to supply information on the duty cycle of their products. In general, the more energy-efficient a bulb/light is, the longer you can keep a light on before it is cost effective to turn it off.

Brick by Brick; Is Barack Obama the first brick removed from the Democrat jailhouse that restrains black voters?

sleeper — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:04 +0000

Time will only tell, but it is possible that the election of Barack Obama will have the exact opposite effect than that which common wisdom would seem to dictate. That is, his election could finally break the stranglehold that Democrats have over the black American voter. After 4 years of governance by a black man, perhaps it will be possible for the African American population to objectively evaluate their political options rather than monolithically supporting a party that they have long perceived to have their best interests at heart. After 4 years in which near total control by that party (the Democrats), under the direction their favorite son (Barack Obama) will likely prove to do almost nothing to materially improve the lot the African American voter, or to better educate their children (that is a prediction), perhaps it will be possible that objectivity and reason will rise up and enable this long-neglected segment of the electorate to evaluate a political parties and candidates based on their individual merits rather than their demographic profile; based on actual results rather than the high rhetoric of their (perennially unfulfilled) intentions; and based on accurate information rather than the negative stereotypes of conservatives that are fed to them by the Democrat media. In a lot of ways, it feels as if the political playing field has been leveled. So, perhaps the nation as a whole will also change, and be able to consider every one of their fellow citizens (their employees, their candidates, their students, their teachers) based on their individual merits and achievements rather than by taking an affirmative action based on an unrelated genetic trait. One can look for a bright horizon on any darkening day, and today is no different… there is cause for hope … for change, and perhaps Barack Obama is the beginning… of the end for irrational collectivism.

Susan Estrich is not very bright… cannot understand the Bradley Effect

sleeper — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:32:20 +0000

There’s yet more evidence coming to light that certain leftist radicals (especially those in their dotage) such as Susan Estrich simply don’t understand the basics of the reality they should be perceiving. In the article linked below, our distinguished colleague Ms. Estrich claims that if Obama loses the ONLY reason possible can be racism. Forgetting for a moment that she has had that article canned and on a shelf in her basement for nearly 4 years and has been waiting… oh so eagerly waiting… to unseal it for what to her probably seemed like (or was) a lifetime … let’s take a look at it and then point out the obvious; that Susan Estrich (and much of the mainstream Obama media machine) can’t do much figgerin” (or more likely, they craftily prefer to hoodwink others into a false reality);

http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/the-final-days-2008-10-31.html

Now, if you prefer to emerge from the false reality of the Obama Matrix, here is the truth. If Obama loses, it is because he was always behind, and the polls were a lie. A lie that was fabricated by a media machine manically intent on skewing an election in favor of its liberal leanings. Not conspracy much? Well then, the polls were a lie that was innocently fabricated by the polled… who were too bashful to say, “hell yes I’ll be voting for McCain.” Either way, they were a lie. A falsity. A nothing. Nada. Zip. Meaningless. (I can hear John King of the Collectivist News Network crying into his Chardonnay now, “If the polls are a lie, how can I say Obama has clinched the election 5 days before it happens?”)

But, I digress:
First, that lie ain’t racism; it is created by FEAR of being CALLED a racist by a well-meaning, but bigoted reporter or pollster (likely a leftist/collectivist). The so called “Bradley Effect” does not describe racist people, but rather kind, fearful people, who react dishonestly to protect themselves from a perceived threat (media bigotry). This is a fact that is rarely understood.

Second, who is most likely to lie to create the Bradley Effect? Is it a hard-line Republican? NO! The liars are independents and democrats who, out of FEAR, lie to their fellow independents and democrats about secreting away a benedictian vote for the only reasonable choice in the election… the centrist, John McCain! Of course, the bigoted pollster or reporter is trained to characterize reason as racism in 2008. Welcome to the liberal future. Welcome to Obama’s America.

So, let’s summarize the TRUTH that Ms. Estrich can’t seem to (or prefers not to) fathom. If McCain wins, what truly happened was that either (1) devious and bigoted liberal reporters and pollsters, OR (2) fearful democrat leaning lies created the false impression that Obama was ever ahead in the first place. Of course, saavy and astute observers of American politics know that this lie was conceived soon after the 2004 democrat convention (after Obama’s coming-out speech), and has been carefully planned and dutifully fulfilled by a complicit media machine every day for 4 years. In light of that drumbeat, it is a wonder that there is anyone left “outside the Matrix.”

The underlying reasonable explanation to an Obama loss is that it had always been that way, and it was always to be that way. And in almost any nation on Earth it makes sense that a radical liberal would lose to a centrist (yes, even now as the quiet sleep of Socialism creeps upon us). But, that doesn’t fit the script. American is racist. America is bad. American should be guilty. You should be guilty. You should vote against reason to make up for your guilt.

Write your own script. We have no guilt, except for our own failures to ourselves. We are individuals - with no color, no type, and no groupism. We only control our own actions - and should not want to control the peaceful behavior of others.

Did Chuck Schumer Cause the Impending Global Financial Collapse?

sleeper — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:25:05 +0000

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, has been accused of causing the collapse of Indymac Bank; at the time it was the second biggest bank failure in American history. Of course, he has denied that by publicly disclosing a letter questioning the financial stability of Indymac, he caused the run that resulted in its failure and takeover by federal authorities. Now, what we know is that Senator Schumer serves on both the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, and in the eleven days after he disclosed his letter, there was a run on Indymac that resulted in the withdraw of more than $1.3 billion dollars and a collapse of the institution. It turns out it was only a pebble compared to the avalanche that has followed; but a crucial pebble indeed.

So, while the complexity of the current situation may not lend itself to an easy root-cause analysis, it is natural to look for a sine qua non. For those people that keep a close eye on daily events and have an open, inquisitive mind, it is at least interesting to pose the question whether Senator Chuck Schumer’s actions were the catalyst that enabled a quicker, easier, and much more widespread slide into global recession (either inadvertently, or perhaps as part of a larger agenda). Such folks might also ask themselves (perhaps rhetorically) whether or not Mr. Schumer (et.al.) will now stand offering the “helping hand” of government to assist those impacted by the firestorm of events that followed and led us to this crisis (isn’t that… everyone?). Given that outcome, and the self-aggrandizing nature of leftist policies and actions, one may ultimately be led to question the initial motivations of this Senator from New York, or at least to ponder whether he was (perhaps unwittingly) the spark.