Subject: Re: Radical Conservation

From: [email-masked] (Curt Phillips)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:24:39

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jeff Owens) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Jeff Owens)
>Subject: Radical Conservation
>Date: 2 Mar 1995 11:40:46 -0800

>It is a little strange to think of conservation as a renewable
>energy source, but it does share some of the same characteristics.  Calling
>conservation ideas radical is also a little strange.  There are

  Most of your ideas are very good, but No. 3 here?????

>3.  Switch to battery or low power clocks.  Put appliances with
>    clocks on a switch.  Be especially wary of clock radios with
>    large time displays.  Also, put all those little cubes that
>    plug into sockets on a switch.

  First of all, batteries are VERY energy inefficient.  When they allow you 
to use solar generated energy when the sun isn't shining, or they allow you 
access to a portable energy source, etc, they are tolerable, but otherwise the 
inefficiencies of charging and discharging etc. make them a bad (and costly) 
choice.  Besides,  you'd have trouble quantifying the energy used by clocks in 
a home.  The LEDs used in most displays are not a particularly energy 
intensive source of light (to wit, many building are replacing their
incandescent lit EXIT signs with LED lit EXIT signs).
  The little "cubes" (power transformers) should be placed in switchable power 
strips or the like mainly to lengthen their service life.  They DO use a (very 
small) amount of power when plugged in, but by far them most debilitating 
thing about leaving them plugged in is that is shortens their life.

>4.  Put a notice on the clothes drier to consider drying small
>    loads in a window or outside.  Better yet put up a clothes
>    line and use it.
 
  An EXCELLENT suggestion.  You might be surprised at how many people lament 
how little WE(?) use "solar energy", yet they do not have a clothes line... a 
cheap and very cost effective way to use "solar energy".

=========== Any opinions expressed are solely my own =====================
Curt Phillips, CEM  KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI)| "People who live in glass houses...
N.C. Division of Energy              |   
[email-masked] |         need lotsa curtains!"
Energy/Recycling BBS 704-547-3114    |            -- Curt-fucius

---

From: [email-masked] (Curt Phillips)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:36:12

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Harry H Conover) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Harry H Conover)
>Subject: Re: Radical Conservation
>Date: 6 Mar 1995 04:11:59 GMT

>Chris Seelig ([email-masked]) wrote:

>: Anyone got any firm figures on the efficiency of a microwave? Maybe
>: this is a good next experiment for my roving electricity meter!

>While not a "firm figure", my references provide the efficiency of a
>magnetron as being in the vicinity of 50%.  Couple this with r.f. coupling 
>and power supply losses and you're probably down to something like 25% 
>efficiency.

>The bottom line appears to be: If you're interested in energy 
>efficiency, you don't even want to own a microwave oven!

  As compared to what?  The "efficiency" of a microwave oven, as you have 
expressed it, is relevant only compared to another microwave oven.  And 
certainly, you'd like to get the most efficient microwave oven you can.

   However, for a practical analysis, you must compare the energy 
required to cook a given item in a microwave oven versus the energy required 
to cook the same item in an conventional oven.  In this type of comparison, 
the microwave oven looks GREAT, because it cooks in much less time than a 
convention oven and often uses less energy even on a "per minute" basis.

================= Any opinions expressed are solely my own =================
Curt Phillips, CEM  KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI),Systems Engineer/Industrial Proj. Mgr.
North Carolina Division of Energy   |Pres., Tarheel Assn. of Energy Engineers 
[email-masked]|Contributing Editor,
Energy/Recycling BBS 704-547-3114   |        Energy User News magazine