Slashdot Mirror

I don't know why google's money men backed this venture, it's a complete non starter. Here's the reason : for several years now, you've been able to purchase 30+ SEER rating (30 EER) mini splits anytime you want, for between $1300-$1800 per packaged system. With installation that's $2500 to $3k. So with installation, you would need 3-4 for a normal sized house, or about $10k cost.

Look here : for closed loop geothermals, 30 EER is equal or better performance to every geothermal system you can buy : https://www.energystar.gov/ind...

Unlike geothermal, you can DIY your mini split installs. I did, and it cost me $5k to install three 33 SEER Fujitsus. They heat and cool the whole place (1700 square feet). You just drill a hole through the wall and mount brackets on either side and it's just a prepackaged system ready to go. You need 2 sizes of ordinary hand wrench for the refrigerant connections, a few drops of some special goop to put into the connections to make sure it won't leak, and a vacuum pump you can borrow for free from autozone. Also used a $100 micron gauge to make sure I was pulling a hard enough vacuum that I sold back on ebay afterwards.

Old one? Piece of shit F&P. I have a power logger in my house. The new Samsung is about 33% larger in freezer space, and uses 1/4 of the electricity which can roughly be broken down into 2/3rds of the power when running, half the duty cycle due to far better insulation and seals, and a tiny fraction of the power consumption during de-icing thanks to it not having a heating element in the cooling compartment.

But you don't need to take my word for it. The Energy Star website has crunched the data of the ratings it has given out over the years and provides a calculator for cost of running an old fridge.. Select a fridge from 2000 and a fridge from now and the annual power consumption is rated as half for the modern one in a general case keeping all other options equal.

Did you read this part?

"You bet your life that it is (a conflict)," Norman Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, said of defunding the Energy Star program. He agrees with Energy Star's contention that the ratings can affect the value of a property.

If that isn't clear enough, no more energy star ratings = no more property value negatives to Trump's hotels being horrible energy-wasting shitboxes (one tower he owns that was finished in 2009 scored 9 out of 100!).

Most of my roof does not face the sun. I even have mold growing on some of my less than sunny shingles. Even the parts of it that face the sun cannot benefit because of the shade that results from having trees around my house. Why are solar panels all the rage? A solar water heater can offer significant benefit:
    https://www.energystar.gov/products/water_heaters/water_heater_solar

Puns aside about consoles insomnia. Wasting $100s of dollars of you power bill every year is not a serious concern for the video game industry. In 2008 the NRDC, the US EPA with their EnergyStarWalmart beat the console industry about the head and neck and the video game industry managed to sandbag any regulation that even a GE or Sylvania could not for lighting. The reason is simple sloth and incompetence. Simply put the problem is not energy used during game play , but the lack of a meaningful sleep mode. This lack of sleep mode is driven by poor APIs to book mark game status and put the console into sleep mode. The other energy driver is the console companies instant on collecting detailed data of how you use your device and uploading it when you are not playing plus forcing add and other "content" down to your console when it should be sleeping.

Not if they're 'energy star rated' Then the limit is less than 1 watt.

When they started doing Energy Star ratings for LEDs, they tried really hard to avoid the CFL fiasco; see http://www.gizmag.com/energy-s... As a result, Energy Star rated LED bulbs are pretty reliable. I have about 60 (!) in my house, bought over the last 9 months. None of the Energy Star bulbs has failed yet. Two non-energy-star LED bulbs that were several years old (from vendors not around anymore?) did fail.

I'm now slowly converting the bulbs in the house I rent out to LEDs, with the tenant's cooperation. The only two bulbs she has liked so far are the Cree 40W TW http://www.creebulb.com/Produc... (for bathrooms only - it hums too much for living room) and the Phillips 40W A15 ( http://www.homedepot.com/p/Phi... ) for everywhere else. Her dimmers are old, and most LED bulbs flicker with them; I should get her newer dimmers. Haven't had that problem much at my house.

I'm quite happy with the LEDs so far, and am writing up my experiences at http://kegel.com/energy/lights... Your mileage may vary.

Because of the notorious problems with CFL lifetime, especially the first ones sold, the "Energy Star" certification for LEDs contains a requirement for minimum life. Unfortunately, because the testing takes a long time, most LEDs are not Energy Star certified. See https://www.energystar.gov/ia/... for the technical details of what is required. As I (quickly) read it, the requirements include maintaining 70% of brightness after 25,000 hours. There is also something about cycling on and off. I would love to hear more from someone with time and understanding to read document carefully.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/p... says
"[Assuming efficiency improvements of 16% to 33%...] Estimated per-unit annual savings for residential vacuums are on the order of 10-19 kWh/year... Considering there are approximately 28 million vacuums sold in the U.S. each year, the national energy savings opportunity would be on the order of 67,000-135,000 MWh per year if 25% of products sold were replaced with energy efficient models"

Contrast that the the document linked in TFA:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regu... says
"[Vaccuum cleaners sold per year in 2005 and 2020: 54 million and 92 million]... [Energy consumed by vacuum cleaners under business-as-usual by 2020: 29.7 TWH/year]... by 2020, the annual electricity consumption ... of vacuum cleaners will be reduced by 19 TWh"

So, 67 TWh annual savings in US vs. 19 TWh annual savings in EU in spite of twice as many vacuum cleaners sold per year in the EU. Is there just more dirt in the US? Or was the Energy Star scoping report just overoptimistic?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released its annual Climate Protection Partnerships report, highlighting the steps more than 21,000 organizations across the United States have taken to reduce greenhouse gas pollution while achieving significant environmental and economic benefits.

“The urgency to act on climate change is clear,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Through investments in cleaner technologies and energy-efficient practices, EPA’s Climate Protection Partners show us that we can cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change and protects public health—while continuing to grow a strong, sustainable economy.”

The achievements outlined in this report support the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by cutting energy waste, encouraging energy efficiency, and saving money for American families and businesses. The report, "EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnerships 2012 Annual Report" includes accomplishments such as:

-- In 2012, EPA's climate protection programs prevented 365 million metric tons of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—equivalent to the emissions from the annual electricity use of more than 50 million homes.

-- Americans saved more than $26 billion on their utility bills in 2012 with the help of ENERGY STAR® and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to the annual electricity use of 35 million homes.

-- Since the Green Power Partnership was introduced in 2001, more than 1,400 organizations have committed to using about 29 billion kilowatt-hours of green power each year.

-- More than 450 partners have installed over 5,700 megawatts of new combined heat and power since the Combined Heat and Power Partnership launched in 2001.

-- In 2012, EPA’s methane and fluorinated greenhouse-gas-program partners used EPA tools and resources to prevent emissions equal to the annual electricity use from more than 10 million homes.

-- In total, more than 21,000 organizations and millions of Americans have partnered with the EPA through the Office of Atmospheric Programs’ climate partnerships and produced significant environmental benefits.

EPA’s climate protection programs continue to advance greenhouse gas reduction goals and deliver greater benefits each year. These benefits can only grow as more businesses, public sector institutions, households, and others adopt the practices promoted by the climate protection partnerships. All of these benefits are the result of voluntary actions by individuals, businesses and industry.

These reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly important to tackle climate change challenges. The global average temperature for every decade since the Industrial Revolution has been hotter than the previous decade, and the 12 hottest years on record have all occurred within the past 15 years. Scientists have observed changes in precipitation, rising sea level, melting ice and altered weather patterns, including more frequent and intense storms.

The report further outlines the environmental accomplishments of these programs. To read the full report: http://www.energystar.gov/about/sites/default/uploads/files/2012_AnnualReport_Final.pdf. To learn more about climate change: www.epa.gov/climatechange/

What should be then done, if I say that light bulbs are not a big deal? Reduce the vampire load of PCs, TVs, and everything else.

Nice rant, but it disregards that the federal government has MANY programs attempting to improve energy efficiency. The bulb thing is mostly seen as low-hanging fruit. For example, your mention of vampire load here - it's being addressed by the energy star program. The site is horrible at numbers, but right now the requirement is Promote and sponsor home automation, so that smart homes automatically activate lights where they are needed. Create water heaters that have Ethernet interface, so that when the house is not occupied they do not heat water. Same goes for thermostats. Promote efficient pool pumps and filters. Change the law so that owners of solar panels can sell their excess power not at generator rates but at retail rates (this will make PV setups more appealing.)

1. Motion sensor/timer lights
2. Water heaters can take hours to heat up. Still, there are programs out there to help ensure that water heaters only operate during non-peak power periods. Energy star water heaters are more insulated, highly efficient, to the point that shutting a traditional type off won't save you as much energy as simply using one of the more efficient ones. Heat pump water heaters, for example, are rather slow, you don't want to turn them off when you're gone for the day(as opposed to going on vacation). Don't forget that that ethernet connection consumes power as well.
3. They recommend programmable thermostats
4. Pool Pumps, you say?
5. Sell electricity at retail? Ever heard of 'net metering'? It's close to what you say, as long as you're only installing as many solar panels as what you use. Allowing them to sell excess at retail dings the power companies too much(in my opinion).

Other things that can help is examining the amount of exterior lighting we do, insulating our ovens a touch more, etc...

What should be then done, if I say that light bulbs are not a big deal? Reduce the vampire load of PCs, TVs, and everything else.

Nice rant, but it disregards that the federal government has MANY programs attempting to improve energy efficiency. The bulb thing is mostly seen as low-hanging fruit. For example, your mention of vampire load here - it's being addressed by the energy star program. The site is horrible at numbers, but right now the requirement is Promote and sponsor home automation, so that smart homes automatically activate lights where they are needed. Create water heaters that have Ethernet interface, so that when the house is not occupied they do not heat water. Same goes for thermostats. Promote efficient pool pumps and filters. Change the law so that owners of solar panels can sell their excess power not at generator rates but at retail rates (this will make PV setups more appealing.)

1. Motion sensor/timer lights
2. Water heaters can take hours to heat up. Still, there are programs out there to help ensure that water heaters only operate during non-peak power periods. Energy star water heaters are more insulated, highly efficient, to the point that shutting a traditional type off won't save you as much energy as simply using one of the more efficient ones. Heat pump water heaters, for example, are rather slow, you don't want to turn them off when you're gone for the day(as opposed to going on vacation). Don't forget that that ethernet connection consumes power as well.
3. They recommend programmable thermostats
4. Pool Pumps, you say?
5. Sell electricity at retail? Ever heard of 'net metering'? It's close to what you say, as long as you're only installing as many solar panels as what you use. Allowing them to sell excess at retail dings the power companies too much(in my opinion).

Other things that can help is examining the amount of exterior lighting we do, insulating our ovens a touch more, etc...

What should be then done, if I say that light bulbs are not a big deal? Reduce the vampire load of PCs, TVs, and everything else.

Nice rant, but it disregards that the federal government has MANY programs attempting to improve energy efficiency. The bulb thing is mostly seen as low-hanging fruit. For example, your mention of vampire load here - it's being addressed by the energy star program. The site is horrible at numbers, but right now the requirement is Promote and sponsor home automation, so that smart homes automatically activate lights where they are needed. Create water heaters that have Ethernet interface, so that when the house is not occupied they do not heat water. Same goes for thermostats. Promote efficient pool pumps and filters. Change the law so that owners of solar panels can sell their excess power not at generator rates but at retail rates (this will make PV setups more appealing.)

1. Motion sensor/timer lights
2. Water heaters can take hours to heat up. Still, there are programs out there to help ensure that water heaters only operate during non-peak power periods. Energy star water heaters are more insulated, highly efficient, to the point that shutting a traditional type off won't save you as much energy as simply using one of the more efficient ones. Heat pump water heaters, for example, are rather slow, you don't want to turn them off when you're gone for the day(as opposed to going on vacation). Don't forget that that ethernet connection consumes power as well.
3. They recommend programmable thermostats
4. Pool Pumps, you say?
5. Sell electricity at retail? Ever heard of 'net metering'? It's close to what you say, as long as you're only installing as many solar panels as what you use. Allowing them to sell excess at retail dings the power companies too much(in my opinion).

Other things that can help is examining the amount of exterior lighting we do, insulating our ovens a touch more, etc...

What should be then done, if I say that light bulbs are not a big deal? Reduce the vampire load of PCs, TVs, and everything else.

Nice rant, but it disregards that the federal government has MANY programs attempting to improve energy efficiency. The bulb thing is mostly seen as low-hanging fruit. For example, your mention of vampire load here - it's being addressed by the energy star program. The site is horrible at numbers, but right now the requirement is Promote and sponsor home automation, so that smart homes automatically activate lights where they are needed. Create water heaters that have Ethernet interface, so that when the house is not occupied they do not heat water. Same goes for thermostats. Promote efficient pool pumps and filters. Change the law so that owners of solar panels can sell their excess power not at generator rates but at retail rates (this will make PV setups more appealing.)

1. Motion sensor/timer lights
2. Water heaters can take hours to heat up. Still, there are programs out there to help ensure that water heaters only operate during non-peak power periods. Energy star water heaters are more insulated, highly efficient, to the point that shutting a traditional type off won't save you as much energy as simply using one of the more efficient ones. Heat pump water heaters, for example, are rather slow, you don't want to turn them off when you're gone for the day(as opposed to going on vacation). Don't forget that that ethernet connection consumes power as well.
3. They recommend programmable thermostats
4. Pool Pumps, you say?
5. Sell electricity at retail? Ever heard of 'net metering'? It's close to what you say, as long as you're only installing as many solar panels as what you use. Allowing them to sell excess at retail dings the power companies too much(in my opinion).

Other things that can help is examining the amount of exterior lighting we do, insulating our ovens a touch more, etc...

Modern natural gas furnaces reach 97% efficiency.

AFUE (annual fuel utilization efficiency) is not the same as actual efficiency. It is used by the energy star program to compare heaters. All new heaters must have a minimum of 78%.

The purpose of the AFUE is to tell you that for ever dollar you spend on the energy source $0.97 is being used for heating and $0.03 is wasted (using a 97 AFUE). It takes into account the energy source NG being cheaper than LP which is cheaper than electric. A cheaper fuel source leads to a higher AFUE, but doesn't mean it's necessarily more efficient, just cheaper to operate. If the furnace were truly 97% efficient, you could run the flue pipe right along a wood stud without worry as it would be cool to the touch with all of the heat going out the heat exchanger into the house.

Modern natural gas furnaces reach 97% efficiency.

Has this system been EnergyStar rated?

Probably not, the technology is too new and 'out there' for the Energy Star section of the EPA. The closest section, battery chargers, well, Tesla probably handily beats. We're talking about something where efficiency increases as the power draw increases after all. An efficincy standard for chargers for cell phones, AA cells and such is going to be easily met by a charger intended for a 60-85kwh behemoth. At that size you're using efficient processes just to handle the power demands without setting things on fire.

Has this system been EnergyStar rated?

Probably not, the technology is too new and 'out there' for the Energy Star section of the EPA. The closest section, battery chargers, well, Tesla probably handily beats. We're talking about something where efficiency increases as the power draw increases after all. An efficincy standard for chargers for cell phones, AA cells and such is going to be easily met by a charger intended for a 60-85kwh behemoth. At that size you're using efficient processes just to handle the power demands without setting things on fire.

Coal burning power plants emit most of the mercury in this country. Using a CFL actually reduces the total mercury released into the environment because, in spite of containing a whopping 4mg of Hg, the electricity saved reduces Hg emissions by more than 4mg.

I'm with you on the accuracy of those whole-planet-averaged figures in the link... but on the face of it they are comparing mercury dispersed by emissions over a wide area to a 4mg DOLLOP of mercury deposited in a landfill within the space of a few cubic inches. A substance with an EPA limit of 2 parts per billion in 'safe' drinking water.

That's like saying, we have found a way to offset 1000 statistically possible deaths of children that could (and on average, do happen) by placing 1000 land mines at playgrounds at random, per year. Comparing a poison slightly everywhere thing with a bunch of poison sure-things.

It doesn't end there. "Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL -- about 11 percent -- is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken." So 89% of this mercury is sitting there bound to glass. In my version of reality, 100% of the bulbs will be broken and reduced to small grain size. They will be buried and subject to extreme stresses, such as the plows of future generations in the mists of time. I also assume that everything in the landfill will be ingested by something or someone, some day. Topsoil everywhere is subject to this wormy process, and say in a thousand years, today's landfills could comprise mostly excellent topsoil. Except for the poor kid who ate that tomato with the EnergyStar logo on it.

I'm sort of leaning in the let our power plants more safely distribute mercury over a wide area while we read by incandescent light and come up with better ideas for power generation, kind of direction.

Thank You Planet Saving Fluorescent Bulbs for saving the planet by seeding our landfills with elemental mercury instead of evil carbon.

See p. 3 of http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Coal burning power plants emit most of the mercury in this country. Using a CFL actually reduces the total mercury released into the environment because, in spite of containing a whopping 4mg of Hg, the electricity saved reduces Hg emissions by more than 4mg.

To "evade" taxes is illegal. But to "avoid" taxes is legal.

Even a "tax shelter" that avoids paying 100% of tax might be legal, depending on circumstances.

There is wide agreement that taxes discourage people from certain behaviors, and tax breaks encourage people to do whatever gives the tax break. So, for example, J. Random Person could invest in solar panels on the roof of his home, and potentially get enough of a tax credit to offset his tax liability.

Should we be angry that someone paid no taxes? The tax break on solar panels was there to encourage people to invest in solar panels, and J. Random Person did that. This is the system working as intended. Society wanted to encourage more solar panels, and more solar panels were in fact installed.

Now, consider Amazon. The current weird tax system is the law of the land. (I think a "flat tax" with no exceptions would have many good features, but it's just a fantasy at this point. We are so far from a flat tax that it's really not worth discussing.) If Amazon can do some weird thing like banning interstate use of rented books, and the tax system is currently set up to reward that, then I don't blame Amazon for doing it.

If you don't like it, maybe you should tell your elected representatives that you would like to see changes in the way sales tax works.

P.S. I am not claiming that the current sales tax system was intentionally set up to encourage Amazon to take these steps. The tax code is so convoluted now that weird corner-cases must be expected. But whether this was intended or not, if that's what the law encourages Amazon to do, and we don't change the law, we shouldn't be surprised if Amazon does this.

Energy Star is a US government (EPA) program, not a company . You don't pay to get the 'branding'.

Products shall have an even distribution of luminous intensity (candelas) within the 0 to 135 zone (vertically axially symmetrical). Luminous intensity at any angle within this zone shall not differ from the mean luminous intensity for the entire 0 to 135 zone by more than 20%. At least 5% of total flux (lumens) must be emitted in the 135-180 zone. Distribution shall be vertically symmetrical as measured in three vertical planes at 0, 45, and 90.

Also direct connect isn't completely direct connect either. Inside that wall-wart is a step-down transformer which is basically a small inductive power transfer (wireless power), which has its own power efficiency issues.

The "more or less" I put in parenthesis was referring to this wall wart issue you mention. However, many people, including the U.S. Government, have identified these devices as a potential way to increase energy efficiency. It just seems to me that wireless power technology would negate all of this hard work.
Thanks for your reply!

Correct. There are several modes in the EnergyStar spec. They boil down to active play, idle (think mario tapping his toe waiting for you to wiggle the control, but you've not pressed pause. same power as active play), paused (usually close to active power levels), at the home menu (also close to active levels), background network activity and sleep. Any reasonable bit of modern electrics should be able to listen to an IR/Bluetooth signal under 1/2W. Also, game developers really need to cooperate, do some book marking and drop into sleep if the user has not been playing for a few minutes and have a quick restore capability.

A very simple thing you can do to get the attention of the console makers is to call them and ask them how much power your particular system draws when playing and when sleeping, how this will cost you where you live, what you can do reduce the power usage, how to enable deep sleep mode and when they will come out with a reduced power model. Also let the game makers know that you want them to support auto power down.

BTW, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is really an amazing environmental group. They are just the environmental group that shows up at those deadly dull EnergyStar standards meetings and they do it with a full time electrical engineers. The NRDC engineering team is very bright and well informed. Very much worthy of your support.

There is one wind turbine from Honeywell that claims to activate at .5mph. It might work for your situation.

Also, since you sound like an enthusiast there are instructables that have projects to use compost to produce methane for cooking/heat/electricity.

You have done a lot of work already, so it might be worth checking into refinancing with a green mortgage/energy efficient mortgage to knock a couple basis points off or to finance additional improvements. Some insurance companies give you a discount on homeowner's insurance if you have a green home, too.

Given that (1) Clinton is talking about flat (not pitched) roofs that are typically tar coated, and (2) there are paints specifically formulated for exactly this purpose that are black, white, or aluminized, I find the example you suggest of a standard Krylon paint is irrelevant.

For a highly reflectant surface, emissivity should be close to 0.

Infrared wavelengths don't quite get as large as 1 cm, so you're off by some orders of magnitude in the example. Not only that, the peak of insolation energy is right in the visible spectgrum, although there is a substantial amount tailing off down towards 2000 nm (that would be 2 um, or about six orders of magnitude off from your example). To a first approximation, the visible color of a pigment will give a reasonable prediction of its general reflectivity.

Blogging on a subject does not mean you are an expert, and in the few minutes it took me to research this response, I found vast amounts of information on the web regarding absorption and emissivity, and also roof coatings. Here's one that combines the two: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=roof_prods.pr_roof_emissivity

25W x 24 hours = 600 Watt-hours per day = 219 kWh per year. The maximum (most models will be lower) energy a 22 cubic-foot Energy Star refrigerator can use per year is 448 kWh. So, if you have two DVRs in your house, it is like adding a second refrigerator.

Two main ways it works and I'll try to post a reference or two at the bottom but basically there are several forms of mercury. Some of which are highly toxic and some that are basically inert. The mercury in a CFL is actually bound to the glass over the life of the bulb. CFL's generally contain about 4mg of mercury (some are as low as 1mg but my numbers all assume 4mg) about 10% of remains unconstrained. If you recycle the bulb properly there is little to no environmental release of that mercury.

The largest difference though it when you consider the source of the electricity powering the bulb. As I said YMMV but in the U.S. the average mercury emission is about .012mg/kWh. Over the life of a bulb (about 8000 hours for a CFL) that amounts quite a bit. There is about a 4mg per bulb advantage to the CFL. If 100% of the mercury remained toxic and you used a bulb with 4mg it would only be about 0.3mg better to use the CFL. That also doesn't account for other pollutants that may be released with the extra electricity.

While not necessarily an unbiased source they're numbers can be verified independently:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

How do we expect to continue increasing oil production when he's not approving permits? The fact is, people are not going to be able to afford heating oil and gas for their home this winter.

Yeesh!

Better stock up on insulation!
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index

When I did a search to find how much mercury was in CFLs I found this page, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf. There's a lot less mercury in CFLs than I thought. On average, there's 4 mg of mercury in a CFL. More than 100 times less than in a mercury thermometer. The page claims that some manufacturers have reduced this to as low as 1 mg per CFL bulb. Furthermore, over time the mercury in a CFL binds to the glass. It doesn't seem like the amount of mercury in CFLs will harm a person unless they are spending time in an enclosed area with a large number of broken CFLs. I can understand why people might not want to use CFLs, they're not ideal in a lot of circumstances. But the presence of mercury in the bulbs as a reason to avoid CFLs seems to be about as valid as avoiding vaccinations because of thimerosal.

These bulbs are far from environmentally friendly or “so called green” and is another example of how foolish laws attempting to “manage” people’s behavior create more long term problems. Each bulb contains about 5 milligrams (mg) of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that can interfere with the development of children and unborn fetuses and may cause a wide range of health issues in adults, including brain, kidney and liver damage.

The mercury released from a CFLs deposited in a landfill if they aren't recycled is, with the current electricity generating mix in the US, less than the average quantity of mercury released into the environment from electricity generation (burning coal) to supply the additional energy consumed to power incandescent bulbs over CFLs. (Source)

I personally would rather live with the consequences of the incandescent lamp for a while longer.

Why? Because you want more mercury released into the environment?

I manage and operate one of the more efficient office spaces in the US (I was awarded a National EnergyStar award in 2008 for my work). We've implemented almost everything possible for our small server racks. We've gone from 8 machines to 3 via virtualization, and have a 10kW array and 40kw battery backup for our operation - which now results in zero down time. In doing just that, we've gone from 58 kWh used from the grid a day for our servers to zero (the PV array supports it). Also, instead of using dedicated A/C - we've re-engineered our ductwork to pull in ambient air from the office space, and redirect the hot exhaust to different locations. During the summer, it's dumped directly outside - and during the winter it's used to heat our entrances and used to cover the heating needs of the building at night.

In terms of energy use for the servers and A/C alone, we're saving about $4,000 a year - and that's just for a small server arrangement.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled_buildings.showProfile&profile_id=1008052

Having a governmental system would make sense but then that'd never fly in America.

Yup. You're right. A governmental rating system for energy/fuel consumption would never fly in the U.S.

So scientists who challenge the prevailing politically-correct liberal thesis are "climate deniers" - this is the basic problem. Even the term is ridiculous. Compare it to "holocaust denier". The holocaust was undeniably real - because there are still some living eye witnesses, photographs, original videos, documents etc. that clearly prove that it happened. What does it mean to be a "climate denier"? No one denies there is "climate". For too long people who challenged the "science" behind global warming were shouted down and ridiculed by their "peers". Now for a little bit, the shoe is on the other foot, and they don't like it a bit. BTW - CFL bulbs are a perfect example of why this type of "science" really has to be tried before accepted, and not pitch a fit if it is challenged - http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf Just think about that - what about places where there is no window, where the only ventilation is forced air. Give me an incandescent bulb anyday. If it breaks, worst you worry about is a cut. When it burns out, you can safely toss it w/out worry about what its components will do to the environment or your local groundwater. Not to mention that the CFLs do not last anywhere as long as promised if you don't follow their optimal usage pattern (leave on for at least 15 mins, etc.) Certainly there are places where they are appropriate, but "environmentalists" pushing them down everyone's throat, and corporate greed (Walmart) jumping on the green bandwagon and being dishonest with people - you wonder why people with a brain are skeptical? If they posted the cleanup instructions next to the bulbs on the shelf, would people still be buying these?

"You'd think that they wouldn't default to giving away their (supposedly) valuable seal of approval, though."

Actually, I can't think of a single seal of approval, or certification, that means anything. The longer the "standard" has been around, the worse it is. It's all nonsense, IMHO. Reading reviews that real customers have written has proved more effective than looking for some certification which no one understands, and was likely paid for with cash money anyway.

Except that there is a difference between private certifications and Energy Star because our tax dollars subsidize the purchases of Energy Star qualified products.

The sheer volume of applicants makes it infeasible for a single bureaucracy to effectively test physical hardware.

Laziness comes to mind. The EPA/DOE's official response to this was pretty pathetic. From the response:

One of the reasons the system has worked during the first 18 years of the program is that manufacturers have a market incentive to test competitors' products and report violations, which supports the program's own independent testing, verification and enforcement initiatives.

It's not infeasible for a single person to run a program like this, when you consider that they pretty much leave it up to the manufacturers to decide who is lying about their EnergyStar logo and who is not.

Then there is people claiming that CFLs give them headaches, if I had more time I'd point out the studies where people are shown to have similar sensitivity as those who sense EM fields.

While I don't get headaches directly from CFLs, if I do have one, I typically find that some CFLs will make it worse (When I get a headache, I'm typically very sensitive to light. The fact that some bulbs make it worse than others leads me to believe there may be something about sensitivity to certain light frequencies) The difference, is that it's only SOME CFLs that cause it... The light output varies from model to model, and while I wouldn't avoid CFLs because of it, I may avoid certain models... EM sensitivity I think is largely psychological, but I do think that light sensitivity is a very real effect (But definitely does have some psychological effect)...

As for the mercury argument, it only plays if you break a bulb. Sure, coal may put out more, but what's the average effect on each person with coal? I'd bet it's less than if you broke a bulb (and were directly exposed to the mercury). However with that said is the amount that's contained in a CFL dangerous? Is it beyond the LEL? The amount of mercury in a typical CFL is around 4mg (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury)... Based on the MSDS http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M1599.htm, that amount is WELL above the airborne exposure limits (40 times the OSHA upper limit). So the dangers of mercury are real, but the flip side of that argument is how many bulbs are broken? If you have a habit of breaking them, then perhaps it's a real concern. If you've never broken a bulb in your life, perhaps it doesn't concern you (Since exposure one time isn't nearly as bad as a repeated exposure)... But to say that it isn't dangerous is extremely short sighted and blatently ignoring the facts. Sure it's not a mitigate-able danger (just don't break the bulb), but it still exists...

This time instead of continuing to spout discredited crap, do a bit of research.

Ummm... No comment...

Having purchased a refrigerator and washer/dryer within the last few months, I found the Energystar stickers to be highly useful. Not necessarily in absolute terms but certainly in comparing models. It was a real eye-opener to see the energy consumption of front-load washers compared to top-load. Point is, I wouldn't have realized the difference was that much without the stickers.

All in all, I'd humbly argue that it's been one of the more successful programs by the EPA since its introduction almost 20 years ago. And it looks like computers and game consoles are next:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.computer_spec

Hazardous waste? Shrug.

Yes, you should recycle them because they have mercury. And, at least for the US, because of the power savings CFL's save more mercury (due to power plant emissions) than they would release even thrown out into normal land fills.

OK, besides the fact this is completely paranoid, the rest of the article was equally interesting and revealing: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

We're not talking a lot of mercury here, in fact, we're talking about 2 mg. Also, this is NOT liquid mercury (elemental mercury) but a mercury compund, and exposure limits are increased accodringly.

The contamination levels for acceptible CONTINUAL mercury exposure are 0.1MG/m^2. and that's the AIRBORNE contamination levels... As mercury in the form inside a CF is not only a solid powder, but even if it is broken, much of this remains inside the tubes, and is never released. About 0.3gms is typically released from a broken bulb, and most of that is powder on the floor, not in the air. Since a typical room in a home is about 9-15m^2, this is far below acceptible CONTINUAL contamination levels. Yea, opening the window is a good idea to avoid immediate exposure, as it turning off fans in the room (though turning off the AC? the filter may actually catch some of it for you...) However, the powerderd mercury is easy to remove, and only micrograms will remain.

Also, it is considdered SAFE for drinking water to have up to 0.0001mg/liter. That means every 1000 litres of water you drink could have nearly 3 times the mercury released when breaking 1 bulb, and you;re not injecting all the mercury released from that bulb either... The alowable mercury in fish is 10 times higher, meaning every 100 pieces of fish you eat contains that same SAFE dosage again.

Also note from the EPA that using a CF releases DRAMATICALLY less Mercury into the air, since making electricty releases mercury into the air... in fact, the mercury in the bulb is maybe 10% of the total mercury pollution released over that bulbs lifespan. Also, bulbs disposed of in landfills are considdered safe, as all operating landfills are sealed from leaks before we start putting trash in them, and there has never been a confirmed contamination of a water supply from a landfil (water supplys have benn contaminated from leaks, buy only from facilities, spills, trucking, and other DIRECT contamination events, never from storage in a landfill).

manufacturers have also reduced the mercury content dramatically over the last 12-18 months, and it continues not only to fall, but methods of ensuring less is released in a breakage have been introduced.

There is really nothing to fear, unless you plan on licking your floor clean after you break a bulb. (keeping pets away until it;s been properly scrubbed/vacuumed may still be a good idea though).

I see your point. I was under the impression that it was much more mercury. Like a 'drop' worth.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

So, not too much to worry about, although I still think a plastic LED is going to be a better fit here than a CFL or incandescent.

These don't look bad blended in with a metal roof but they are higher than hell.

http://www.fabral.com/product.php?id=62

You can also get a 30% tax credit until 2016, among other things.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits

Actually, a light-colored metal roof is a really good thing- sheds snow, much better energy characteristics.

You are obviously an idiot. Allow me dissect:

Of course, use CFLs. The same CFLs that contain large amounts of mercury. The same CFLs that cost an environmental cleanup crew $2000 to clean up if you break one and follow proper procedure. Mercury that one broken bulb can raise airborne mercury levels in your house to above safe levels. No thanks, I'll stick to incandescent and halogen until LED bulbs are consumer-ready.

The amount of mercury released in coal-fired electricity generation far exceeds the amount of mercury in CFLs. Do some research and math before spouting talking points, please.

First, as the CFL is used, the mercury vapor becomes chemically bound to the glass, leaving only about 14% to be released, assuming breakage, at the end of the life of the bulb. The EPA http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf estimates that if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were destroyed in a landfill (each one broken), they would add about 0.16 metric tons of mercury to the environment. That's 0.16 percent of the mercury released by humans by all other sources.

Electricity generation is the main source of mercury emissions in the US; the average mercury emissions from electricity generation in the US is 0.012 mg/kWh.

The CFL above would---if broken and assuming 4 mg of mercury (worst-case from several CFL generations ago) in the original bulb---add about 0.012*368+0.14*4 = 4.98 mg mercury. The incandescent bulb would produce 0.012*800 = 9.6 mg mercury.

Here's a table for your edification:

__________"CFL (26 W)_____Incan (100W)

Hg (mg)_________4.98______9.6

Elec. (kWh)_____368______800

Cost ($)________42.48____89.15

Life (hours)____8000_____1950x4bulbs=7800

Total cost of the CFL includes the cost to the electric company for the ~50% inefficiency causing line losses that the customer will not see.

There is no scenario in which an incandescent beats a CFL for efficiency, environmental benefit, or monetary concerns. The remaining reason to use an incandescent instead of a CFL is personal preference for the light from an incandescent.

That is an urban myth. CFL's do require special cleanup, but is is a pretty simple process. See Snopes for more information.

According to the EPA, the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere every year is 104 metric tons, mostly created by coal fired power plants. Since most of the mercury is bound to the CFL bulb as it is used, even if every CFL that was sold in 2007 (290 million bulbs) were sent to landfill, it would only release .16 metric tons of mercury, or raise the US yearly amount by 0.16 %.

Vista isn't popular, but it is very flexible with group policy. You can manage all power settings via GPO in Vista.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/Vista_on_Win2000_2003.pdf

If you use group policy preferences (requires a Vista/2008 to manage the policy) you can use that to configure power settings on XP.

WSUS is also smart enough to wake the machine up at nighttime and apply patches that it detected during the day.

I'll call your bullshit and raise you a citation please:

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf

Wow, it certainly seems that a lot of people think that coal power plants are the prime emitters of mercury. Care to show some citations that say otherwise?

No? Then please keep your BS to yourself.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

The above link explains lots of misconceptions about CFLs like discussed earlier here.
Excerpt below: ...
What are mercury emissions caused by humans?
EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions each year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish. (Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main way for humans to be exposed.)

Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL â" about 14 percent â" is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) â" they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.

How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light bulbs?
Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg.
EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.