10 positive things to do for the environment

OK, here's one guess: It's a multi-stage gas furnace.

So, is that a multi-stage gas furnace or an old-style single-stage (on or off)?

A prolonged burn on high could be less efficient. Could be the same effect as a heat pump.

Only problem is, while that would go in the right direction toward explaining the difference, the impact you're seeing is so large, I can't believe that variation in furnace efficiency by stage alone could plausibly explain it. But I can't find any specs on efficiency by stage to check that out with. All the manufacturers are required to publish is overall efficiency.

This is a very large effect to be the impact of setback alone. For a modest setback like that, in a modern house, you'd expect maybe 5% energy savings. Instead, you get 15% loss. So the net impact of the setback is 20% worse than expected.

Half the day, in theory, the units use the same energy. For 11 out of 12 (say) hours for the rest of the day, the setback unit is for sure using less energy. Then, in the hour (?) it takes to bring the unit up to temperature, it consumes (say) 20% of a day's worth of gas, extra.

Not saying you didn't see it, just saying that it's pretty large to be just the effect of the setback.

Anyway, I'll ditto the comment about that for this to be a controlled experiment, you'd have needed to have shown that the two units had the same energy use without setback. Or reverse the units halfway through and see that the 15% goes on the other unit. Sunlight, wind direction, small variations in construction, all that stuff matters.

The only thing that would seem to explain it would be a multi-stage furnace with, for some reason, extreme inefficiency when run on high. But the impact seems too large for that to be plausible.

But, if that's truly the cause, that's kind of important, because it means the standard advice from (e.g.) EPA or DOE is outdated. Their tests may pre-date the mult-stage gas furnace era. Could be they are right for an old-style single-stage furnace but not for a modern multi-stage. I might follow up with DOE, if there's an easy place to ask, see if they've accounted for that.

EDIT: MORE

A buddy of mine once told me that any though I had, I could find 10 people who already had it and posted it on the internet.

So, three minutes on Google shows a couple more arguments relating to multi-stage multi-speed gas furnaces.

First, if the ducts are outside the conditioned space, the furnace may actually run less efficiently on low, as the cooling out of the ductwork is more pronounced on low. So the net-net impact could depend on a lot of details for a particular installation.

Second, found at least one other guy who reported what you reported: with multistage gas furnace, he got lower use with no setback.

Let me leave it with this. You saw what you saw. It's possible that was the effect of setback in this particular circumstance. But all the sources of record say that setback saves energy. If I can easily do it I'll try to follow up with DOE or EPA.

 

So, you are as tolerant and understanding of other peoples opinions in person as on the internet!
Good luck with that marriage thing.

 

If my fiance shared some of the absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted opinions that I've read on the internet then she wouldn't be my fiance.

 

Are you implying that you would rather see 700,000 people die than use 1% of money set aside for voodoo science go towards saving their lives?

What's the point in "saving the earth" if no one is around to enjoy it?

 

A few more low-end cost savers.

I've replaced most of the desktop computers in my business with laptops. I don't much like laptops, but they use vastly less energy than the standard desktop+monitor. Say 120 for desktop+monitor, 30W for the laptop. Since I run multiple computers all day long, running desktops was like leaving a bunch of lights on all day long.

(I'm not so sure about this one, as the @#$@#$ laptop batteries will die, and those take a lot of energy to make. But I figure as long as I used it plugged in all the time, I shouldn't have to worry about that.)

Put your entertainment center on a power strip and turn it off when not in use. EPA says that half the energy used by home electronics is used when they are off, due to the standby current drain. In my case, the whole kit-and-caboodle draws 12W on standby. Not a lot, but like leaving a light on 24/7/365. I wouldn't do that so I turn it all of with a power strip.

Get your kid (or yourself, for that matter) a Wii instead of a PS3 or Xbox. The Wii has low-end (by modern standards) graphics and draws 20W in use. The PS3 has better graphics, but that takes energy. PS3 reports out peaking at 380 watts, average appears to be around 200 with a graphics-intensive game. Xbox not as bad but in that ballpark.


Basically, running a really graphics-intensive game on a PS3 is like leaving the fridge door open.

If you get a Wii, dedicate a set of rechargeables and a recharger to the remotes for it. Plug it in right next to the Wii. So that when the Wii-remote says "low batt" your kids will reach for the rechargeables instead of rooting around for the first set of AAs they can find. I did, and it worked for me. Or get a recharger stand (and maybe your kids, unlike mine, will neatly park the remote where its supposed to be when they are done using the Wii.)

Insulate over your doors and windows. I have old doors. I don't want to replace them. But an inch of wood is like R1. I added rigid foam to the back of the entrance door to the garage. Now it's R-8 or so. I plan to do the same thing, with better cosmetics, to my front door. I'm adding interior storms to the windows, in addition to the exterior storms. You just need to be able to remove them in a hurry in case of fire (that's required by the building code, I think, for bedrooms). In any case, when you do the arithmetic, it's really those low-R surfaces in the building shell that lose the heat.

 

I'll ditto that back. The Kill-a-Watt is my friend.

We established a "lending library" of them at our church, so if a member wants to borrow one to check it out, they can.

That may seem kind of excessive, because you can pick one up for $25 or so, but it turns out that even small money costs can keep people from trying things out. Even things that will save them lots of money in the long run.

Which is what this guy says, in this book -- a book I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris-Anderson/dp/1401322905

I don't often see economic analysis that's just plain interesting. But this book really just slapped me upside the head with regard to my thinking in several important areas of the modern economy. Well worth the reading. Some of the stuff he says is obvious when you think about it, but a lot of it was not.

And it's a book in which I'd find something really, really interesting, I'd relate that to my son, and he'd be like, duh. So in part it's an older person's guide to things that puzzle you but your kids just take for granted.

Anyway, yeah, we felt strongly enough about Kill-a-Watts that we offered free loan of them. Not a lot of takers, but ... you do what you can.

 

The decision to set back your heat at night or not changes even more if you live in a solar or passive solar home.

If it is going to be a cold night but I know tomorrow will be sunny, I will turn the heat down because I know I will have free heat by 9:00 am.

However, if it is going to be a cold night AND the weather is going to be cloudy tomorrow, I would leave the heat on so the house did not cool off too much.

Have used a "kill-a-watt" around my home and office. Interestly I found that some things use very little electricity: -4 hours on my laptop for one cent (vs $.10/hr for my old small TV!)! -five hours of a heating pad on a sore back for one cent. -coffee maker $.02 for 4 cups coffee -wireless modum, 24 hrs for $.02 -LED stair night lights 4 hours / day equal
$.06/month.

Thanks for sharing some great ideas. It is amazing that most people could cut there energy bills (both home and transportation) quite a bit with very little trouble.

P.S. No one mentioned "showering with a friend" yet!

 

That uses more energy, not less.

 

Why do you insist on going off-topic in every thread you see? Please - keep your agenda and trolling in your own threads.

There's a lot of debate of how the efficiency varies on a multi-stage furnace from what I've seen on the HVAC forums. General consensus seems to be that it doesn't seem to vary too much on most multi stage furnaces.

However, what could make a difference is if the ductwork is undersized for max load - this can lead to inefficiency in the higher stages as the blower is working extra hard to move the air through the ducts. If not as much air makes it past the heat exchanger as expected, that would reduce efficiency as well since not as much heat would be pulled out of the heat exchanger.

Actually, I think they are required to publish the efficiency numbers in max load, not overall efficiency. There are standard test procedures to get those numbers (otherwise everyone would fudge them!)

Couldn't you use more aggressive power saving/standby modes? If I could be as productive on a laptop as on a desktop, that would be great, but having two 22" monitors helps a lot with my day job.

Take the batteries out when running on AC power - heat kills batteries, so leaving them in the laptop where they stay warm reduces battery life.

Depends on how old that Xbox360 is. The older ones use up to 200w. The newer ones are better, but still power hogs compared to the Wii.

Good idea. You should start a thread on that with pics to inspire more people.

Blinds that effectively seal the window off using side-tracks can also double the insulative value, like these: Side Tracks Save Energy

Nice idea - also reduces the number of Kill-A-Watts that have to be built.

Unfortunately, I've that that typically encourages longer showers which offset any water savings that come from combining showers!

 

I can see why you guys are so passionate about believing in AGW and shutting all out all the contrary science - you choose your gaming systems based on current draw.

 

From an efficiency point of view, why would a mattress pad be more effiecent than a electic blanket? One is on top and one is on the bottom?

 

Well, you're both sort of right.

LED efficiency surpassed CFL about a year ago. I see no date on the chart that dire posted... I'll hazzard a guess that it is at least two years old. Probably three. LEDs have increased in efficiency by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years, and more than a year ago I was building flashlights with better than 100 lumens per watt. For real... not just from the spc sheet. Measured in an integrating sphere.

So here's where we stand: Cutting edge LED tech (typically not quite found in retail "bulbs") is most definitely more efficient than CFL which stagnated a while back. And LEDs show no trend toward slowing - in fact the opposite is true. They're becoming more efficient faster than ever before. But right now, in the retail world, you can call them about on par with each other. That'll change very soon.

But this ignores the benefits of LED directionality - IF that benefit is used... and often is not. Far too often most of the light of a typical bulb is thrown away - through filters, lamp shades, the dark back of fixtures. If you point an LED only where you want it, you can get the vast majority of the produced light to do something for you. And it is because of this feature that LEDs can *seem* to be 10x or more efficient than a more standard "bulb" like a twisted CFL. (I love that I can now call those "standard" by the way.

Now... if everybody will do me a favor and work toward NOT talking about light in "wattage" I'll be your best friend. Wattage is the absolute WRONG unit to be using! It is like me converting my EV into gas mileage... well, worse than that actually since Wattage simply has NOTHING to do with light output, and MPG actually means what it is supposed to mean. But I digresss...

 

I must second the recommendation for this wonderful appliance.

We discovered them in New Zealand back in the 1990s. On returning just before Christmas, we just had to go get one.