I'd been waiting for some hard evidence before writing about this. Here it is:
May 2006 electric bill: $18.47
May 2007 electric bill: $16.47
A few of months back, XCurmudgeon wrote:
[W]e have made a concerted effort to turn off all computers, modems, routers, printers, monitors and speakers every night. Each of these devices uses very little power in standby mode--2-15 watts at most--but together they add up, especially over a 10-12 hour period. We estimate that shutting them all down (putting them on one or two switches makes it easy) saved us 30-40 kwh.The latter two steps cause no inconvenience--no one has to freeze or swelter, or sit in the dark, or put off any activities to accomplish them.
At that moment, I took a look around my computer and realized I was wasting power for no good reason. He inspired me to make some changes, and I went right to work.
I had my monitor, tower, modem, zip drive, and speakers plugged into two separate power strips. One I turned off when not using the computer, but the second power strip was below my desk and hard to reach, so I didn't bother shutting that one off. But I'd never stopped to think about how that meant my zip drive and modem always stayed on.
Devices that don't even have an on/off switch are extreme examples of vampire power, the juice that devices continue to suck out of your outlets even when they're not in use. Studies have estimated vampire power amounts to 7-13% of your power bill. Ouch.
So I rearranged my plugs so that all my computer devices are on that one easily-accessible strip. They didn't all fit, but I rarely use my zip drive, so that shares an outlet with my speakers.
Then I went into the living room and did the same thing with my home entertainment devices. I pulled a power strip out of the closet and in went the TV, VCR, DVD player, and Xbox. I don't remember to turn off the strip every single night, but I get it about half the time, cutting off their vampire power supply for about 18 hours a day.
Finally, I replaced my incandescent bulbs in the living room with compact fluorescent bulbs. I'd bought some CFLs and was waiting for the old incandescents to burn out, but then I realized that arrangement was costing me roughly a quarter per bulb every month. Each CFL you install will save you roughly $3 a year in electric bills. Why not just install them now rather than letting them sit in the closet?
It's obviously very hard to draw direct comparisons, but at this time of year, we don't use any heat or air conditioning (our brick apartment building keeps a fairly constant temperature except in extreme hot or cold). That allowed for a pretty fair May to May comparison.
So half an hour worth of work is saving me 10% a month. And as XCurmudgeon said, it's not like we have to borrow Jimmy Carter's sweater, it's no sacrifice at all.
That $2 will now go towards dinner with The Green Girlfriend at the Lost Dog Cafe in Arlington. A huge cost savings? Maybe not. But better to spend it on her than to send it to Dominion, don't you think?
Your bill is so low already I expect you live in an apartment. I have a single family home and my bill is about 10 times greater than yours. However, without my cost cutting measures it would be 20 times greater. My wife works in the home so we use energy 24 hours a day, however.
I use to install photovoltaics in college as an electrician. I think solar power will be the next project I take on. I will probably not be paying a power bill after doing that.
Also, a programmable thermostat is a no-brainer. And CFL's...why would you get anything else for any fixture that takes them?
I think we need a federal tax ememption on these things that will reduce energy consumption.
If everyone properly sealed their windows and doors, that is another 2%. Solar films help as well. Plant a shade tree.
There are very inexpensive and simple ways that we, as a nation, can cut energy consumption now. I really wish we had leadership on this issue. I think our nation could cut energy consumption 15% overnight for about $250 per household.
The switch to CFLs, in homes, would reduce national electrical demand by a few percent -- that is meaningful but nothing like a 7% cut in "national energy consumption" as the latter includes, for example, liquid fuels for transportation.
Same for water heater timer (which is of limited effectiveness in many circumstances, especially with more modern/insulated water heaters).
Now, these are things that can quickly have a meaningful impact but replacing incandescents with CFLs is not a magical way to cut national energy consumption by 7%.
But the real question is not whether the figure is 2% or 7%. The real question is, if they're jacking up our national energy consumption (and therefore carbon emissions) by a not-insignificant percent, why haven't we banned incandescents yet?
I believe it important to seek to be honest and accurate. My comment was because of the problems on the second.
My gosh, I just want to beat my head against the wall some times.
One of the employees desk is near an auxiliary thermostat, and while I was in her area and noticed the heater on I asked if she realized that by running her heater, it was causing the building AC to run longer, making it cooler in the rest of the building and making everyone else run their space heaters? That concept eluded her.
Here's a thought folks: Buy a sweater.
The best bet is to dress for the occasion. Wear clothes you can easily shed in winter and light materials in summer - assuming you don't work in a freezer.
If humidity is an issue where you live, use a dehumidifier. That allows you to be comfortable in warmer temperatures. A humid room at 75 feels the same as a non-humid room at 80. The de-humidifier uses less energy than the AC.
I've found that the combination of replacing ALL my light bulbs with CFL's and turning off all my electronic appliances each night has saved, on average, about 300-400 kwh's per month. We have a relatively large house, with many lights, so others may see smaller savings. Still, that's about 4000 kwh's per year, a savings of roughly $300, which easily pays for the new light bulbs (which will last much longer anyway).
We installed solar panels late last year. The economics are still hard to justify--see our post detailing the costs at: http://xcurmudgeon.b...
However, if you live along the coast, or on a ridge in the hills or mountains of Va., then check out the benefits of a microturbine, which can economically churn out up to 450 kwh per month: http://xcurmudgeon.b...
or:
I've installed the systems before - inverter, cutoff switch, panels, battery backup, etc all in Hawaii. So I think I could save some doing it myself. Also, I would probably go the same route you did and tie into the grid - considering that batteries are expensive, take up too much space, leak, and won't last forever.
If we had an energy policy that provided greater tax savings than the $2000 you earned I think it would cause more people to go the solar route. Plus, the greater demand would cause production to increase and in theory lower the price even more.
I'd love to see pictures of your system. That's something to brag about.
The hope is that between higher electricity prices that are bound to be coming down the road, and a greater subsidy for solar and other alternatives, solar will become more economical. I think the best way to do it is to require Dominion to spend some of the money it would use for high voltage power lines to instead support distributed solar. They could pay a share--say one third--to homeowners and businesses that are ideally sited for solar, thus making it economical. The beauty is that using that money for solar, instead of distribution, would reduce PEAK demand. Of course, we're not likely to see that anytime soon.
There is a fellow out in Loudoun Co. who successfully built a solar home and made it work economically--he has a website with info on how he did it: http://www.ert.net/s...
Makes for good reading.